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

[MAJIC]

MAJIC,

We are supposed to be talking about the new UK family migration rules!

It is you who keeps on bringing up the red herring of EEA migration; I merely pointed out that the EEA rules work both ways and that many British people take advantage of them to live in other EEA countries.

For some reason you twisted this to bring up the Surinder Singh ruling!

I guess the only way to deal with your off topic rants and your factual errors is to ignore them; which I will do in future.

And of course you never make errors or twist things around,but at least we can agree on something.

[bkk_mike]

3rd party support:

For a student visa this is pretty normal, (parents supporting the children) so should presumably be allowed in the case of a student couple where one is British and one is from outside the EU.

Norway as an example

If you google it, you'll find they've got similar problems... Norwegian wife of a New Zealander who hasn't been working as she's been a housewife looking after the kids (in New Zealand) but it's only her income that counts, similar to the British housewife in Dubai with the Australian husband earning megabucks. (That's possibly the basis of a case with the ECHR - that the new rules discriminate against women who take a break from work to look after kids - that the non-EEA husband's income isn't included in the calculations.)

Savings levels

Most people do not have that sort of cash sitting in a bank account, simply on the basis that it would be idiotic to have so much cash lying around for 6 months given current deposit interest rates. (i.e. you invest it into something else - rental property, shares, even bonds, etc.)

The numbers would make a lot more sense if a small proportion was required to be in cash, and you could use shares, equity in property, etc. for the majority of the savings requirement. After all, if a person has enough equity to remortgage and stick the cash in the bank for 6 months so they can qualify under these rules, why do they have to convert their equity into cash. Why not allow the equity to be used as part of the savings requirement? (It's even simple to check - you can check the approximate value of a property online, and can see the balance of any outstanding mortgages on it with a simple credit check.)

I still think this crap shouldn't apply where you've been living together abroad and either have kids together or have been married for over a certain amount of time (5 years?). It's one thing to force a person that got married on a whim on a holiday to comply with this. It's a completely different matter to apply it to a family that's been living abroad for years, possibly for work reasons.

Edited June 22, 2013 by bkk_mike

[MrZM]

Mr ZM,

1) Under the old rules, anyone contributing towards the financial support of sponsor and applicant had to provide evidence of their ability to do so in the form of proof of income, for example pay slips if employed or accounts if self employed, and their overall financial situation by means of bank statements or similar.

So yes, the ECO did know about debt repayments and other regular outgoings.

2) Having been involved in forums like this for a considerable period, I would say that yes, lot's of people complained about the old rules! Whatever the rules are, there will always be people who don't qualify and they will, usually, complain. All we can hope for is a system which is as fair as is possible; this current system is not that.

3) It is impossible to say whether or not a visa would be issued in such general terms as you describe, each application was treated on it's own merits; still is apart from this arbitrary financial requirement.

However, if the couple were relaying solely on third party support and the person offering that support could show they had the means to do so then the financial requirement would have been met.

I am unable to answer your questions re statistics without doing some research; which I'm not going to do at this time of night.

1) so similar to the new rules except they have now put in place a minimum income requirement.

2) a system that is fair, would create what the UK don't want more migrants. But as you said a fairer income requirement should be imposed, in my opinion majority if not all British citizens have some sort of debt, the minimum requirements allows you to be a bit normal. At the set requirement they no you can't sign on the dole, claim family benefits etc, basically you are left to take care of yourself.

3) I still think this is wrong. It doesn't really show a sponsor can support their spouse. I know the sponsor still has to show bank accounts etc but your saying if the sponsor has £1 in his bank, no job, using third party he will obtain a visa for his spouse.

Thanks. I can't find it maybe its not available yet.

[7by7]

Mr ZM,

1) I am not campaigning to make the requirements easier; I want them more logical and fairer.

Yes, almopst everyone I know has some form of debt; mortgage, bank loan ect. But the repayments of those debts are now completely ignored.

To take your oft used analogy; how can someone with an income of £18,600 p.a. and mortgage, debt and other regular payments totalling £18,000 p.a. support himself, let alone a spouse as well?

2) Whether a fair system would create more immigrants or not is a bit of a smokescreen.

As already said; most immigrants to the UK enter under the PBS or via the EEA route. These new financial requirements don't apply to them; both PBS applicants and EEA applicants have to show is that they can support themselves without recourse to public funds. The old system.

The system should be fair; not designed to make it easier for some; harder for others.

3) If you think third party support while the couple get themselves on their feet is wrong; what are your feelings on third party accommodation?

It seems to me that if you think financial support is wrong because the couple should be able to support themselves then you must also think that third party accommodation must be wrong as the couple should be able to house themselves!

For reasons I have already explained, I think both should be allowed.

MAJIC,

You posted the wrong information, an error which could have seriously confused people if left uncorrected.

I corrected it; you didn't like being corrected and built a smokescreen to try and hide it.

If you look through my posts throughout Thai Visa you will find that when I post a factual error I accept the correction, apologise for making it and move on.

Can we now put this spat to bed and get on with the topic?

[bkk_mike]

A few notes for those people raising Norway as an example to show that there's one place with a higher income requirement.

1. If you are in receipt of your statutory minimum state pension (i.e. you're old enough to receive it and you paid enough contributions during your working life to receive it), Norway automatically deems that you've met the minimum income requirement. That means, for pensioners, the UK actually has the highest income requirements on the planet.

2. The Norwegian numbers don't change because of the addition of children. Admittedly it would take 3 children (adopted in a country where the UK doesn't recognise the adoption automatically or stepkids), but again, Britain can once again beat the land that brought us Anders Breivik in having the nastiest income requirements in the world.

One consolation from the Family visa stats document that was listed earlier. Of the 10 countries with the most family visas issued, Thailand was joint first (along with the US) as having UK-based sponsors on the highest average income, so if people here are complaining, just imagine how annoyed people in the countries with sponsors who aren't as wealthy (on average) feel about it.

(Also showed Thailand had the highest percentage of female applicants and the largest average age gap between applicant and sponsor)

Edited June 23, 2013 by bkk_mike

[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.

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

??

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

do not have google to find out the facts £26,000 + http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

[7by7]

Using average income as an argument that the level is right is somewhat inaccurate. They include all earnings, no matter the job or the area.

From the article linked to by marstons above.

In districts around the UK, the highest average full-time earnings were in the City of London, at £917 (per week), while the lowest earnings were in Torridge in Devon, at just £348 a week for full-time employees.

So the average city worker with a salary of £47684 would have no problem, whereas the average Devonian with a salary of £18096 would be refused.

Is that fair? Especially as the cost of living in Devon is way below that of London.

[Jay Sata]

I think if I was living in Devon on that wages I'd get a little part time job to get me over the limit.

People do take second jobs at evenings and weekends so there is no logic to your suggestion that earning just under the limit is unfair.

[7by7]

So you are saying that if someone wants to live in the Uk with their foreign wife they should have to take a second or even third job?

Even though the income from their main job is more than enough to support themselves and their family?

Simply because the income from their main job is below some arbitrarily set limit?

And you say that is fair?

We obviously live in completely different worlds and have completely different concepts of fairness!

[Jay Sata]

I'm merely saying that if I was in that position I'd work as much as I could to pass the barrier.

My son worked evenings and weekends to get through University on top of having to attend lectures etc.

My friends Thai stepson came to the UK at 15 and apart from attending school he worked at two jobs over evenings and weekends.

He returned to Thailand when he was 19 with £20k in the bank to fund his university education.

[jrtmedic]

I have the impression that the British authorities are struggling with the "problem" of immigration. Much of the perceived problem, historically, has arisen from the Indian subcontinent. The "old" rules allowed vast extended families to enter the UK many of whom were/are economically inactive. Also seen as problem were the huge number of "students" entering the UK not to attend a University but to learn "English" at one room "schools"

Whilst I would not disagree with ensuring a much closer scrutiny of visa applicants with the aim of eliminating(lessening) fraud and preventing whole extended families from migrating there should, perhaps, be some sensibility which allows a degree of flexibility.

I am uncomfortable with the current financial test and would prefer one that is linked either to average or minimum wage earnings.

Unfortunately what is not recognised or talked about is the "freedom of movement" allowed EU citizens which has resulted in massive shifts of population from poorer countries to UK and Germany. There is not and cannot be, under present law , any attempt to reduce this shift of population.

Worse is to come !

Edited June 23, 2013 by jrtmedic

[MrZM]

7by7

I find it very funny what you right in your other posts, on different topics, the advice and wisdom you share.

And quote

"Nearly 13 years later It seems like nothing"

Majority of people complaining about the new rules have opportunities to change there finances.(from the letters I've read)

And I'm sure in doing so 5/10/15 years down the line it wouldn't even bother then.

Ie the wealthy Australian man and British wife who so they say, have a property in the UK worth x amount, he earns x amount. They have the full capability of setting up a bank account with the required funds to obtain a spouse visa.

The rules now and future will not please or be fair to everyone but if you have the capability of changing your situation for the future of your families then why aren't you doing it.

As for the man who earns £18,096 why shouldn't he get a part time job to increase his income, he could work in his local pub for the extra £50 a week needed.

If you bother so much for your family to reside with you in the UK, then why aren't you doing whatever it takes, to succeed this.

Although I have a visa for my wife, I do believe the income requirement is too high, and it put me in a difficult position last year, but thankfully I over came it.

Yes I know everyone has different situations!

[7by7]

Mr ZM, as you are so fond of reading my posts and quoting them back to me; it's a shame that you don't read all of them!

I am not going to repeat everything simply because you can't be bothered to read my posts properly.

What I will repeat is that the whole thrust of my opposition to these requirements is that they are unfair.

Unfair to expats who want to return to the UK with their family; usually because their contract has finished.

Unfair to the self employed.

Unfair to women who generally earn less than men so will find it harder to earn enough to sponsor a foreign partner.

I could go on.

I am going to ask you some direct questions; I wonder if you will answer.

1) If sponsor and applicant can prove that they have sufficient funds to support and accommodate themselves, and any children, without recourse to public funds; why does it matter whether or not the sponsor's income is at or above a set level?

2) Why does it matter where the money to support the family comes from; whether it be the sponsor's income, the applicant's income, one or both of their savings, are being provided by a third party or any combination of these?

3) Why should people have to mortgage their homes or take second or third jobs just so they can meet some set income and/or savings level when they already earn enough to support their family?

4)You, quite rightly, were outraged and devastated when the age limit for settlement as a spouse/partner/fiancé was raised to 21 meaning your wife was too young to apply. Why can you not see that this arbitrary limit which takes absolutely no account of whether or not a family will actually be able to support themselves is just as unfair?

[MrZM]

Mr ZM, as you are so fond of reading my posts and quoting them back to me; it's a shame that you don't read all of them!

I am not going to repeat everything simply because you can't be bothered to read my posts properly.

What I will repeat is that the whole thrust of my opposition to these requirements is that they are unfair.

Unfair to expats who want to return to the UK with their family; usually because their contract has finished.

Unfair to the self employed.

Unfair to women who generally earn less than men so will find it harder to earn enough to sponsor a foreign partner.

I could go on.

I am going to ask you some direct questions; I wonder if you will answer.

1) If sponsor and applicant can prove that they have sufficient funds to support and accommodate themselves, and any children, without recourse to public funds; why does it matter whether or not the sponsor's income is at or above a set level?

2) Why does it matter where the money to support the family comes from; whether it be the sponsor's income, the applicant's income, one or both of their savings, are being provided by a third party or any combination of these?

3) Why should people have to mortgage their homes or take second or third jobs just so they can meet some set income and/or savings level when they already earn enough to support their family?

4)You, quite rightly, were outraged and devastated when the age limit for settlement as a spouse/partner/fiancé was raised to 21 meaning your wife was too young to apply. Why can you not see that this arbitrary limit which takes absolutely no account of whether or not a family will actually be able to support themselves is just as unfair?

You know what. I'm not going to answer.

Your questions are answers within themselves.

I completely agree with you.

Sorry for any annoyance or anguish caused during the discussion.

As a family you should be able to show what your family has not only for it to be relied on by the sponsor. All aspects should be taken into account.

To be honest I have gone against my own morales in this discussion, but one I will always stick to, is family is number 1, you should by any means possible do what's best for your family.

Ie the Australian man on £150,000 a year that's 7* the required income amount, why isn't this taken into consideration??

In all the years I've prepared visa applications for my wife, I always say to myself, I'm fed up of having to please people in order to continue with my life, and that is what everyone else is suffering. It's morally wrong.

Where is the freedom???

[Jay Sata]

I think that 7by7 cannot see he is asking for some sort of case by case ad hoc agreement which apart from being unworkable would open loopholes the government are trying to close. They are not saying you cannot marry a foreigner but just asking you to meet an income level that takes account of the various services available to a foreign spouse who has never paid in to the system.

One important component is the right to unlimited free healthcare.

Teresa May's response to the shadow Home Secretary was;

"The right hon. Lady asked why we had gone down the route of the income threshold. We asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise us on what we should do and on what income level we should adopt. It gave us a range of income levels from £18,600 up to a higher point, and we chose to adopt the lower point, adding in elements for individual children, rather than go down a route that would be available only to those people who had capital and were able to put up a bond in the first place."

It was the Migration Advisory Committee which suggested the £18,600 threshold and not the government.

The alternative could have been a lower threshold but a financial bond.

[ava15]

Lee from Barnsley, shelf stacker at Morrisons for 15 years. No qualifications, worked since finishing school. 42 hours a week. Pays his taxes. Meets a woman from Africa, courting (!) begins, falls in love. Pregnancy. UKGovernment says NO.

Achillies from Greece. Goes on a trip to Vietnam. Meets a lady and falls in love. Applies for her greek visa and is accepted by the greek government. She receives a greek passport. Achillies loses his job in Greece. He moves his family to the UK. UK Government says YES.

Donna, 15 from Cardiff. 4 kids by different fathers. Lives with her mother in a large house. Neither have worked or paid into the system. Government caters to their lifestyle without question.

Could go on

[7by7]

Jay Sata,

What I am asking for is a return to the old system where all finances available to sponsor and applicant were taken into account as were all financial commitments and then an assessment made as to whether they had enough to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

Unworkable?

It worked perfectly well for many years until this government decided to change it!

The MAC? A government quango that came up with the suggestions the government wanted!

Edited June 24, 2013 by 7by7

[theoldgit]

The MAC? A government quango that came up with the suggestions the government wanted

And funded by the UKBA

[theoldgit]

Off topic posts removed, this thread is about the MP's report, not the proposals for bonds from some countries, which of course wouldn't apply for those wishing to settle.

[7by7]

Jay Sata,
I am not talking about anyone with a family link; I am talking about spouses/partners/fiancés/children.

I thought that was obvious!

If you knew anything at all about the immigration rules you would know that the criteria for other family members are very strict. I have never suggested changing that.

In other words a son marries a foreigner and bring her back to live with and be supported by mum and dad while perhaps working in their restaurant for peanuts

If they can support and accommodate themselves without claiming any public funds; what's wrong with that?

It seems that your concerns are nothing to do with easing the burden on the public purse but a lot to do with stopping immigrants from certain parts of the world.

You say that you have travelled the world and lived in many countries. Why is it ok for you to do that, for your wife to live in the UK, for you to live in Thailand for part of the year; but not ok for others to do the same; as long as they can support themselves while doing it?

Edited June 24, 2013 by 7by7

[Kevin1908]

Off topic posts removed, this thread is about the MP's report, not the proposals for bonds from some countries, which of course wouldn't apply for those wishing to settle.

Whilst the bonds are off topic to this thread it is worth bearing in mind that that subject, unlike the settlement visa issue, is being discussed in the media and was openly discussed on the radio this morning. The settlement visas issue continues to be ignored my the media.

[theoldgit]

The settlement visas issue continues to be ignored my the media.

Probably because the media no longer see it as being newsworthy. When the committee published their report the media picked up on it for a day or two, I suspect that they may well report on it again when, or if, the Government formally responds.

[Kevin1908]

Probably because the media no longer see it as being newsworthy. When the committee published their report the media picked up on it for a day or two, I suspect that they may well report on it again when, or if, the Government formally responds.

It was picked up on the same day as the report and it was mentioned to the extent that it gave all the bigoted racists an opportunity to phone in and have a field day the expense of anybody who had a non EU partner. Up until then there was nothing and nothing since.

[theoldgit]

More off topic posts removed, may I again remind people that this thread is about the report regarding income levels for settlement applications.

[Kevin1908]

Can I clarify then, as long as the sponsor and the spouse earn more than £18600 per year then they can appeal a refusal for an ILR if the applicant has a criminal conviction. If they earn less than £18600 then the criminal conviction is irrelevant because the income requirement isn't met. Is that correct?

[theoldgit]

Can I clarify then, as long as the sponsor and the spouse earn more than £18600 per year then they can appeal a refusal for an ILR if the applicant has a criminal conviction. If they earn less than £18600 then the criminal conviction is irrelevant because the income requirement isn't met. Is that correct?

I suppose to answer your question yes somebody could probably appeal a refusal, but it depends on the offence.

As I recall if somebody has a criminal offence that attracted a custodial offence of, I think, four years or more then refusal is automatic.

[7by7]

If I recall correctly, any custodial sentence could lead to refusal of ILR.

Even after ILR, any custodial sentence could result in the cancellation of the persons ILR and their removal from the UK.

[Jay Sata]

Any spouse jailed for over 30 months faces deportation. However the move can be successfully challenged before an immigration court.

There was a report of such a case in my local paper recently. Thai woman jailed for 7 years for trafficking women to work in massage parlours in London. She was released after three and a half years and won her right to stay.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Jay Sata

[MaprangHolmes]

i believe that was changed to any criminal conviction can lead to you being refused ILR a custodial sentence is automatic refusal

[Kevin1908]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23029195

Do you have to physically relocate and work in the other EU country. As with other tax avoiding companies can you set up a company in Luxembourg then work back in the UK as a contractor to a company in another EU country. Probably not but this looks a doddle.