Mp's Say New Visa Rules Causing Anguish For British Families.

[theblether]

Mods I don't know where to put this topic.......from the report......

UK's new visa rules 'causing anguish' for families

New migration rules for people from outside the European Union are "tearing British families apart", a group of MPs and peers have claimed in a report.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22833136

To me, this is the stand out part...........again from the report.

"Wider evidence suggested that 47% of the UK working population last year would fail to meet the income level to sponsor a non-European Economic Area partner, the committee said."

There's something wrong here, I'm all in favour of realistic immigration controls but this looks like an out and out attack on the right of the "poorer" British people's right to a family life.

[slipperx]

This is a difficult topic. Personally I think a person should be able to live where in the world he or she chooses and Governments are becoming increasingly prohibitive. Note that I do not say that the country they choose to live in must support them with benefits.

Eventually any person who is not a criminal should be able to obtain a permanent right of residence. Where children are involved it is unconscionable to separate the mother or father from the kids and creates an enormous burden on the single parent. I have three boys and if my partner could not be with me I am not sure how I would cope and would find it hard to hold down a job.

If the children are born to a UK citizen then they are automatically British citizens as well as maybe the country they were born in. So if returning to the UK and my partner refused entry or a visa then how would I be able to work. I would then be on benefits costing the taxpayer a fortune. I don't see how this is a sensible policy.

I do think that many countries Thailand included are unnecessarily difficult about permanent registration especially where benefits are close to non-existent. There should be an international organization charged with ensuring rights for families for the children are the future of this world.

[AyG]

The rules, however, aren't "tearing British families apart". There is always the option of the British partner to go and live in the country of the foreign spouse.

[terak]

A british person who is legally married to a foreign wife should 100% be allowed to bring her back to uk, no questions asked (also applies to uk woman with foreign husband) Too much government interference. This is like no10 telling you who you can and cannot marry - they should sort out the real immigration issues first

[AyG]

A british person who is legally married to a foreign wife should 100% be allowed to bring her back to uk, no questions asked (also applies to uk woman with foreign husband) Too much government interference. This is like no10 telling you who you can and cannot marry - they should sort out the real immigration issues first

This would be fine if the foreign partner were purely financed by the UK partner. However, if that isn't the case, then it's clearly a legitimate government concern - not interference - particularly given the massive drain upon taxpayer funds represented by the large proportion of immigrant women (particularly from the Indian subcontinent) who either don't want to work or lack the skills to be employed.

[theoldgit]

@theblether

I think it's fine here, thanks very much for posting, you're very quick off the mark.

I am aware that a number of regular posters on this forum gave evidence to the committee.

I think the report will be officially published later today, it will make interesting reading and will, I'm sure, open up a lively debate.

[pattayadingo]

Rules that came into force a year ago require any British citizen who wants to sponsor their non-European spouse's visa to be able to show they earn at least £18,600 a year, rising to £22,400 to sponsor a child, and a further £2,400 for each further child.

That £18,600 minimum per year is £357 a week.That is a lot of money for the average person.

Wider evidence suggested that 47% of the UK working population last year
would fail to meet the income level to sponsor a non-European Economic
Area partner.

If 47% cannot afford to bring a spouse and /or child over, then that is very restrictive. It does seem that they do not take into account that people might have varying outlays of mortgage and other costs.

Many families obviously live on a lot less than the minimum stated in the article.

I would think it a lot fairer across the board if the rules were changed so that ANY non U.K. born person was not allowed to claim benefits until they have worked in the U.K. for 5 years. That would, IMHO, level things out and also stop the need for a minimum wage needed to bring a spouse / child over. Also, anyone wanting to bring a spouse or child to the country would then know he/she would have to have the ability to keep them.

[MrZM]

The government new this before they enforced the rule.

It was a way to cut down immigration.

Last year I was refused, a settlement visa under the old rules, this year my wife has been issued a spouse visa under the new rules.

Luckily since our son was born, we have not been separated, but due to the old rules that someone wanting a spouse visa had to be 21 years of age, we were unable to apply for a spouse visa ( my wife is 22, I am 25 and hour son is 3 and a half). We have been back and forth for 3 years.

I have made many sacrifices for my family.

When my wife was refused the spouse visa last year, I went mental, went straight to the embassy to complain, sent emails to my local mp, sent emails to the UK ambassador of Thailand etc...

Then I realised what for, yes obviously for my family, but then it hit me, so I applied for my wife to come back on a visit visa for 6 months, I got the job I needed before I returned, and now I have got what I wanted and meet the requirements.

Anyway that's my story.

The level of £18,600 is set as its the maximum wage you can earn which stops you from claiming family benefits in the UK, expect for child benefit which you can.

There are always ways around it if you sacrifice, for the ones you love.

What really is bad is the savings requirement set at £64,000 which is a massive amount of money.

Of you earn £14,000 a year then you should be able with savings of £4,600 meet the requirement o £18,600, but then it allows, people to enact fraud.

Under the old rules you could have nothing, well a minim income, but you could use 3rd party support, which meant a friend, family member, was able to put forward what the actual sponsor doesn't have.

My wife is unable to claim any benefits for 5 years, but she is allowed to work, which I am happy with.

I am not going back to claim, I am going back to settle my family and start a life.

[MrZM]

Rules that came into force a year ago require any British citizen who wants to sponsor their non-European spouse's visa to be able to show they earn at least £18,600 a year, rising to £22,400 to sponsor a child, and a further £2,400 for each further child.

That £18,600 minimum per year is £357 a week.That is a lot of money for the average person.

Wider evidence suggested that 47% of the UK working population last year

would fail to meet the income level to sponsor a non-European Economic

Area partner.

If 47% cannot afford to bring a spouse and /or child over, then that is very restrictive. It does seem that they do not take into account that people might have varying outlays of mortgage and other costs.

Many families obviously live on a lot less than the minimum stated in the article.

I would think it a lot fairer across the board if the rules were changed so that ANY non U.K. born person was not allowed to claim benefits until they have worked in the U.K. for 5 years. That would, IMHO, level things out and also stop the need for a minimum wage needed to bring a spouse / child over. Also, anyone wanting to bring a spouse or child to the country would then know he/she would have to have the ability to keep them.

It clearly says on the spouse visa "no recourse to public funds"

This is already a rule.

[Tony M]

The full report will be released today ( afternoon). It looks like the BBC got an advance "viewing". As said in earlier threads, this is only an enquiry. The government can just say " thanks for the report" and do nothing. We will have to wait and see.

[MrZM]

The full report will be released today ( afternoon). It looks like the BBC got an advance "viewing". As said in earlier threads, this is only an enquiry. The government can just say " thanks for the report" and do nothing. We will have to wait and see.

Of course, it doesn't go to parliament until next month.

I still don't believe they will change the rules. I hope I am wrong.

[MrZM]

I think everyone should apply and when refused say its racist, then the UK government give in.

Works for others

[highonthai]

In my opinion, it seems like a good policy.

[billd766]

I am a UK citizen, my son is also a UK citizen, my wife is not.

As a pensioner I barely meet the financial limit now.

What that means is that my son and I can go to live in the UK but my wife cannot. Does that not transgress ALL our human rights to separate a family like this?

[GuestHouse]

Anything that steps in the direction of putting an end to the British mindset of "Knowing one's rights but not knowing one's responsibilities" is a possitive move.

The government are not telling poor people they can't marry people from overseas and start a family then bring them to the UK.

They are saying, marry who you like, start whatever family you like, but if you go finding a wife/husband overseas and start a family overseas don't expect to be able to bring them back to the UK unless you can support YOUR family from YOUR wallet - Not other people's taxes.

What's wrong with that?!

Edited June 10, 2013 by GuestHouse

[naboo]

Anything that steps in the direction of putting an end to the British mindset of "Knowing one's rights but not knowing one's responsibilities" is a possitive move.

The government are not telling poor people they can't marry people from overseas and start a family then bring them to the UK.

They are saying, marry who you like, start whatever family you like, but if you go finding a wife/husband overseas and start a family overseas don't expect to be able to bring them back to the UK unless you can support YOUR family from YOUR wallet - Not other people's taxes.

What's wrong with that?!

Here in Thailand I can support my family. However, my income here is a few thousand short of the threshold required. If I was to return to the UK I would earn more, but to get my wife there I would need to go alone at first, meaning being separated from my wife.

But your point is invalid, non-EU immigrants have no recourse to public funds. This whole immigrants on benefits thing is the result of a racist campaign by the right wing press. It is nonsense.

[Soutpeel]

Anything that steps in the direction of putting an end to the British mindset of "Knowing one's rights but not knowing one's responsibilities" is a possitive move.

The government are not telling poor people they can't marry people from overseas and start a family then bring them to the UK.

They are saying, marry who you like, start whatever family you like, but if you go finding a wife/husband overseas and start a family overseas don't expect to be able to bring them back to the UK unless you can support YOUR family from YOUR wallet - Not other people's taxes.

What's wrong with that?!

Well said GH ans so very true.

[marstons]

Still well below average UK wage, anybody on less would probably be going for some kind of benefit which is exactly what they are trying to stop with a strong mandate from the UK population.

Any government now will have a election pledge to cut back on immigration so its going to hurt some people, but UK plc is Bankrupt. Always the option to go to families home country.

Had previous government put some controls on years ago this would not be happening.

[thaicbr]

Still well below average UK wage, anybody on less would probably be going for some kind of benefit which is exactly what they are trying to stop with a strong mandate from the UK population. 

Any government now will have a election pledge to cut back on immigration so its going to hurt some people, but UK plc is Bankrupt. Always the option to go to families home country.

Had previous government put some controls on years ago this would not be happening.

What is UK average wage that this is "well below"

??

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[AyG]

I am a UK citizen, my son is also a UK citizen, my wife is not.

As a pensioner I barely meet the financial limit now.

What that means is that my son and I can go to live in the UK but my wife cannot. Does that not transgress ALL our human rights to separate a family like this?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why can't you simply continue living where you are? Who is trying to separate you as a family and violating all your human rights?

And since when has it been a human right to bring a foreigner of your choosing into your home country - particularly if you're impoverished and can't afford adequately to support that person without recourse to taxpayer money?

[theoldgit]

What is UK average wage that this is "well below"

??

Roughly £24k per year

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/april-2013/sty-awe-dec-feb-2013.html

[theoldgit]

Last year I had the honour to meet some retired soldiers who were living in Thailand with their local wives, and had been doing for many years, on pretty small pensions.

Whilst their army pensions were index linked their State Pensions were not, a number of them didn't meet the Thai income levels and were planning to return to the UK. As their pensions didn't total £18,600 they couldn't relocate with their partners to the UK so faced the prospect of returning alone and leaving their partners here.

[thaicbr]

Last year I had the honour to meet some retired soldiers who were living in Thailand with their local wives, and had been doing for many years, on pretty small pensions.

Whilst their army pensions were index linked their State Pensions were not, a number of them didn't meet the Thai income levels and were planning to return to the UK. As their pensions didn't total £18,600 they couldn't relocate with their partners to the UK so faced the prospect of returning alone and leaving their partners here.

That's definitely a problem that seems to be overlooked... or not.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[thaicbr]

I am a UK citizen, my son is also a UK citizen, my wife is not.

 

As a pensioner I barely meet the financial limit now.

 

What that means is that my son and I can go to live in the UK but my wife cannot. Does that not transgress ALL our human rights to separate a family like this?

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why can't you simply continue living where you are? Who is trying to separate you as a family and violating all your human rights?

 

And since when has it been a human right to bring a foreigner of your choosing into your home country - particularly if you're impoverished and can't afford adequately to support that person without recourse to taxpayer money?

What do you consider is recourse to tax payers money... a council house (paying rent) Child benefits... what exactly?

I do believe that you have to support your family but I also believe these limits are set to high.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[7by7]

Anything that steps in the direction of putting an end to the British mindset of "Knowing one's rights but not knowing one's responsibilities" is a possitive move.

The government are not telling poor people they can't marry people from overseas and start a family then bring them to the UK.

They are saying, marry who you like, start whatever family you like, but if you go finding a wife/husband overseas and start a family overseas don't expect to be able to bring them back to the UK unless you can support YOUR family from YOUR wallet - Not other people's taxes.

What's wrong with that?!

Nothing at all, and that is the way it has been for as long as I can remember.

But, income support levels mean that the government expect a British couple to be able to support themselves on less than £6000 a year, plus housing costs.

Yet they say a couple where one partner is an immigrant need to have an income, taking account of housing costs, of much more than this.

Logically, either this minimum income threshold is too high or the income support level for a British couple is too low.

Also, there is no account taken of outgoings.

An applicant whose sponsor earns £18,600 p.a. but has debt payments of £6000 p.a. meets the requirement.

An applicant whose sponsor earns £18599 p.a. and has no debts, not even a mortgage, would automatically be refused; the ECOs have absolutely no discretion in this area!

Which of those two is better able to support their immigrant partner?

As someone who gave evidence to the committee I will be receiving a copy of the report; I'll post it here when I do unless someone beats me to it.

[gmac]

The rules, however, aren't "tearing British families apart". There is always the option of the British partner to go and live in the country of the foreign spouse.

And what if the British partner doesn't meet the requirements for a visa in that country? What if work means they have to be in Britain?

I have no intention of returning to the UK, though if I did have to for financial reasons or if I no longer met requirements to stay here, I would not meet the requirements to bring my wife back. My wife would stay here, and where would our daughter go?

I am in the same situation, as my pensions are paid in sterling if the the UK keeps devaluing the pound I may at some stage in the future not meet the requirement to remain in Thailand. As a retiree I would have no chance of meeting the income required to take my wife back with me. No doubt I could take her with me on a visitor visit, overstay then quote some bizarre European Law to save her from being deported........hardly the way to be forced to go!

[bobrussell]

As a UK national have to jump through all kind of hoops to get my wife residency.

If you are legitimately married then the right to reside in your home country should be automatic.

but not to have the taxpayer subsidise the process especially for the many that have contributed little or nothing to the country's coffers for years.

The figure was selected to prevent this subsidy and as such seems fair. Where it all breaks down is where people can genuinely prove that they can live adequately with a lower income without claiming taxpayer's money.

The lack of flexibility is going to be the ultimate downfall for the legislation IMO>

[thaicbr]

Anything that steps in the direction of putting an end to the British mindset of "Knowing one's rights but not knowing one's responsibilities" is a possitive move.

The government are not telling poor people they can't marry people from overseas and start a family then bring them to the UK.

They are saying, marry who you like, start whatever family you like, but if you go finding a wife/husband overseas and start a family overseas don't expect to be able to bring them back to the UK unless you can support YOUR family from YOUR wallet - Not other people's taxes.

What's wrong with that?!

Nothing at all, and that is the way it has been for as long as I can remember.

 

But, income support levels mean that the government expect a British couple to be able to support themselves on less than £6000 a year, plus housing costs.

 

Yet they say a couple where one partner is an immigrant need to have an income, taking account of housing costs, of much more than this.

 

Logically, either this minimum income threshold is too high or the income support level for a British couple is too low.

 

Also, there is no account taken of outgoings.

 

An applicant whose sponsor earns £18,600 p.a. but has debt payments of £6000 p.a. meets the requirement.

 

An applicant whose sponsor earns £18599 p.a. and has no debts, not even a mortgage, would automatically be refused; the ECOs have absolutely no discretion in this area!

 

Which of those two is better able to support their immigrant partner?

 

As someone who gave evidence to the committee I will be receiving a copy of the report; I'll post it here when I do unless someone beats me to it.

 

 

I think this post puts things into perspective. If you are a British couple the government says you can support yourself on 6k but if your wife is from a non EU country then it's 18k or more... strange that one.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[teatree]

@bobrussell

There is no recourse to public funds for Thai people settling in the UK on marriage/spouse visas.

Where is the drain on publc funds?

[7by7]

Any system which sets criteria which have to be reached is, by it's very nature, discriminatory.

The old system where sponsor and applicant had to satisfy the ECO that they could support themselves without recourse to public funds was also discriminatory.

The crux of the matter is whether the system is fair.

In my view, this new system is not.

Especially to those expats who, often through necessity rather than choice because, for example, their contract has finished, who are returning to the UK and unless they have been earning at least £18,600 for the previous 6 months cannot bring their partner with them. Even though they may have a guaranteed job in the UK paying them much more than the minimum!