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

[Halion]

In an earlier post it was stated that people should be allowed to live where ever they want which I personal feel is some what rediculous.

This world is made up of a multitude of countries, cultures and various forms of govermental regulations which will and must, to a certain extent, prohibit such freedoms.

The current appeal that we live in a globalized world is a myth. Just because we can fly to any point on the globe does not imply that we live in a globalized society. Infact the truth is far from the myth.

Since the onset of so called globalization the world has become far more dislocated and fragmented. Country's with lax immigration policies have had their indigineous cultures diluted beyond the point of no return.

This current nonesense from the British Government is simply more of the same EU bureaucracy that has caused so much grief in the UK.and in parts of Europe

I come from 4 generations of a British family who have all served in active service in various parts of the globe under the Union Jack and I feel that any Brit who has a foreign wife should be allowed to bring her and their children back to his home country without this shocking attempt at a means test.

The bigest blight on tax payers money is derived from the open border policy within the EU mandate and closely followed by the rediculous immigration policies implemented by British Government's for the past 30 years.

Perhaps if they paid more attention to immigrant families decending on the taxpayers they would not have the current deficit and feel that they have to go after their own. How many immigrant families are residing in the UK on state sponsored welfare and what right do they have to be in the UK and live of the Government and it's taxpayers. What give them superior rights to a British subject returning home with a foreign (non EU wife.)

The current actions are shamefull and a bloody disgrace and only serve yet again to demonstrate the pathetic attempts that politicians will go to in order to justify their mediocre existance.

[bigbamboo]

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.

Unfortunately the feeble compliance and lack of forward thinking by successive UK governments has allowed a situation to develop where the deserving are being punished for the actions of the undeserving. People who have contributed taxes to the state all their lives and in most cases (myself included) have never claimed a penny piece in benefits are now being unfairly treated because of the resulting mess cause by incompetent government policy.

I notice how rarely the country is referred to as Great Britain any more.... especially by the politicians. At least they've got that bit right.

PS. I have no particular axe to grind as the law doesn't really have a direct affect on me but the injustice still wrankles all the same.

Edited June 10, 2013 by bigbamboo

[MrZM]

MrZM; you should read the report, linked to earlier by theoldgit.

You will see quotes from many submissions where it is, and will be for the foreseeable future, impossible for the respondent to meet the financial requirement simply because the immigrant spouse's potential income in the UK is not taken into account.

The document only opens in read only, so I can't copy any of them, but here's one example on page 26.

An Australian national working in Dubai with a salary of £250,000 p.a. and potential earnings in the UK of £400,000 p.a. He and his wife own property in the UK valued at £3.5 million.

His British wife doesn't work, they have children.

But because his earnings are not taken into account and because savings have to be in cash; they do not meet the financial requirement!

You will no doubt now say that the wife should come to the UK for 6 months and take a job paying at least £18,600.

Why? How does forcing her to do that make any kind of sense?

Who will look after their children while she does?

Listen I understand all sides.

If he is earning that kind if money and has a house of that value, if possible they do have the option of taking £64,500 out of the house and placing in a bank account for 6 months in the wife's name, therefore they would meet the requirement through savings.

Maybe I'm assuming again.

[MrZM]

If its really important to these people for there families life, and I would do the same I would sell the house, and free up the money, buy a new house, and I would meet the financial requirement through savings.

It's a small sacrifice to pay for the future of there family.

Yes it could take a year to sell the house.

Of they are her children one would assume they would have british passports, so she wouldn't have to leave her kids, yes it's not nice to separate from the father or the mother, but there are more important things in life to take into consideration.

[MrZM]

No family in my eyes, should be separated, it's wrong!

In a different view coming back and forth Thailand, I am separating our son from his, uncles, auntie, grandpa, grandma, and niece. My son wakes up every morning asking to go home. That's hard too.

[bobrussell]

I have written and deleted a series of posts today because this report raises so many issues.

It does suggest a rethink of the £18,600 figure is in order. I still think this should be the figure for a settlement visa to sail through financially unchallenged but there needs to be more flexibility in how this is achieved.

It seems nonsense that genuine job offers for both sponsor and applicant are ignored. The key is to prevent as much drain on the taxpayer as possible, not keep partners from living in the UK.

I expect more flexibility in demonstrating this level of family income will be introduced and should have happened before.

Compassionate circumstances need to be better catered for and it should be possible for some form of means-tested alternative to ensure others can demonstrate the ability to cope financially in the UK.

The original rules were draconian and inflexible. Hopefully this will improve soon. However there should not be an automatic assumption that the UK taxpayer should pay for returning UK citizens or their families!

There is no simple answer and there will be winners and losers. The government should, however IMO spend a little more time emphasising the fact EU immigration swamps non-EU.

It is refreshing to see the amount of publicity being generated by the release of this report that is sympathetic to those real families and not just 'immigrant bashing'.

More flexibility and compassion with a bit of commonsense seems to sum up the report as I read it!

[MrZM]

What alarms me is no one has mentioned about the savings requirement.

It is a ridiculous amount.

I still don't believe the £18,600 is to high, yes maybe I was lucky to find a job earning it when I returned last year.

But

If you are earning say £15,000 a year you should be able to add £3,600 of savings to match the £18,600, which I believe is suffice.

Not something ridiculous like £42,000 it works out to be.

[7by7]

Back to the Australian and his British wife.

How can they release some of the equity in their property?

Sell it or mortgage it.

Even then the cash would have to be in their possession for at least 6 months before they could come to the UK.

Would he qualify under the High Value Migrant programme? Maybe, but that is not open to all and for many of the categories you already need to be living in the UK!

Other categories in the PBS? Probably not. One requirement is that the position cannot be filled by a resident.

Set up a business and employ his wife?

How can he if the only way he can enter the UK is as a visitor and so unable to work?

Read more of the report. They are plenty more examples of people who would be an asset to this country but can't come here because of this new requirement.

Then there is the example of the highly qualified medical consultant who is considering leaving the UK and returning to India because the new rules mean he will be unable to bring his elderly parents to live with him in the UK; despite the fact that he will be more than able, and willing, to support them and they will represent absolutely no drain on the public purse.

Can the NHS afford to lose people like him?

Edit:

Did that really take me 11 minutes to type? Must have done!

Also fixed broken link.

Edited June 10, 2013 by 7by7

[philw]

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.

Yes they most certainly are.

I know of two families that have been broken up and the father returning to work in the UK and the wife and mother being refused a visa to UK because of insufficient income.

It's a serious injustice.

[Kevin1908]

It is a shame that such an important subject has been hijacked by those who want to air their ignorant views on immigration.

Some posters should read up on exactly what public funds EEA migrants can claim without it affecting their right of residence and when they can do so before posting their ill informed rants.

Ditto for asylum seekers.

The answer? Bugger all.

I don't read it like that. With immigration standing at 528000 per year the 3.5 % total of affected spousal visas being denied is bugger all so why anger a few British citizens and tax payers and deny them their right to a family life just because they fail the minimum figure.

You can hardly blame somebody being denied the right to a family life drawing comparisons with the other 528,000 immigrants who came here last year.

The Government could easily grant 18000 fewer working visas or 18000 fewer new commonwealth visas and not affect the total but it seems the Government is more worried about the whinging business lobby and various human rights and immigration groups. A pity therefore families are going to suffer real hardship here but what the hell.

[7by7]

Yes, family migration is a relatively small percentage of total immigration to the UK. I have made that point many times, including in my submission to the enquiry.

But that has nothing to do with my post which you quoted; which is about what benefits EEA nationals and asylum seekers can claim in the UK.

Not sure what you mean by 'new commonwealth visas.'

All non EEA nationals who want to settle in the UK have to meet the same requirements, wherever they are from.

Edited June 10, 2013 by 7by7

[bigbamboo]

What happened to 'no recourse to public funds'?

As long as the individual can support himself and his family then that should meet the criteria.

Edited June 17, 2013 by theoldgit

[7by7]

If the bar was dropped to £15000 a year would it make much difference?

It would make a lot of difference to one respondent to the enquiry.

An NHS worker who lives in the East Midlands whose salary is below £18,600.

If she were doing the same job in London it would be above the current limit.

Yes, living in London is more expensive, but the inflexibility of this rule takes no account of the sometimes vast differences in living, mainly housing, costs and wages in different parts of the country.

I believe that as the government expects a British couple claiming income support to survive on just under £6000 a year plus housing costs that this same figure should be applied to migrant families.

It would be fairer and also take into account the variation in the cost of housing throughout the UK.

[GuestHouse]

I believe a review of the statistics for immigration per country in the few months preceding the implementation of these new rules would reveal precisely who and what form of immigration they are directed against.

I doubt very much it was directed against guys who went on holiday to Thailand and decided it a good idea to start a family while there.

[MrZM]

You said he (the Australian in Dubai)can come to the UK and earn £400,000 a year, so does he have a job offer.

He may have a job offer, but that would only allow him to come to the UK under the PBS if it was a job which could not be filled by a UK resident; as I have already said.

You did make yourself clear before, but I obviously didn't.

I meant that maybe they had applied for a visit visa and been refused.

You haven't answered the question.

Why should a couple go to the expense and uncertainty of applying for a visit visa, coming to the UK for 6 months, the immigrant partner then going back to their own country and applying for settlement when they can already be adequately supported and accommodated in the UK?

If they couldn't, then the foreign partner wouldn't get the visit visa!

Answer to your question I did it.

Maybe I'm a special case.

As you full well know, I was refused a settlement visa, and 2 weeks later applied and received a visit visa for my wife, maybe it was the emails I sent to the British ambassador of Thailand, the 2 visits I made to the embassy in Bangkok or the email I sent to my local MP, I never gave up, and I wouldn't for my family.

It has taken nearly four years to get my family back to the UK permanently, my son went to sleep 2 minutes ago, and before then he has been watching me on the forum and I can see he is intrigued so i tell him as best as I can for him to understand, about what I am writing about, his reply to me, was "I want to go big aeroplane, I want to see Grammy".

I feel for anyone who is in these positions, and have huge sympathy for families that are being separated. It is the worst feeling.

[7by7]

Yes, I know you did it; but you shouldn't have had to.

Neither should anyone else.

[Jay Sata]

Congrats Mr Zs you've demonstrated all problems are surmountable.

[MrZM]

Congrats Mr Zs you've demonstrated all problems are surmountable.

Thank you.

I really hope, these problems for other families are sorted out.

[Foggy Bottom]

Add me to that list, phil, if you haven't already included me.

[bkk_mike]

If you've been living abroad, married, for years, especially where there's children involved - none of this crap should apply.

I have no issues with income requirements for newly-weds, where there's no kids involved, (or even where the kids are from one side or the other as the kids aren't used to being in the new family - yet...),

But if you've got a family, where they've been living together for years (not necessarily in the spouse's home country), if they suddenly lose their income, which if they are in a third country, would often also mean losing their right to live in that country, why should the family be broken up for 6 months because of crap like this. (After all - the spouse's country could have the same rules...).

Obviously - it is not only this that can mean a parent is away from their family for long periods working.

When I worked in Tokyo, I left the wife and kids in Thailand for 6 months, but that was my choice... not the result of some %(&%$ing pencil-pusher who never had a proper job's crap idea of the moment.

But my biggest bugbear in this regard is, how can they do stuff like this when it would be illegal for them to apply these requirements to people from elsewhere in the EEA.

i.e. I worked in Tokyo with an Irish guy who spoke Japanese, and who had a Japanese wife.

If he got offered a job in the UK, he could apply for his wife to get a visa (for free, and with no English language requirements).

Why does being British make it so much harder (expensive, more paperwork involved, English language tests need passing, etc.) to take your family to the UK with you?

- That's what strikes me as most unfair... - that it singles out the families of Brits making them second-class citizens when trying to return to their own country.

[ozyjon]

It's going to get harder and harder no matter what country you are in,, the older we get the more demand we put on our governments and they aren't seeming to cope or are worried they cant take care of their aging population, money is running out all over the world (or so they tell us) It's not just Britain,, look at Germany nad also what about France, this country has the best social security system in the world, if everyone could migrate to France they would, then take all their family there as well,,, France can see the future dilema and are working towards that,, keep your eyes on the news, every border are tightening up worldwide.

[kristophon]

if you can`t afford to have a family then you shouldn`t be having one... why should others pay for your family (ie. the tax payer).. the british government is far to soft... its about time the government got tough... its should be the tax payers right NOT to have to pay for someone elses irresponsability. if these people cant decide for themselves that they cant afford to raise a family then the government have to do something..... I for one am fed up to the back teeth with the weak policies of the UK government and paying for other folks to live in the form of state handouts...

Edited June 11, 2013 by kristophon

[gmac]

if you can`t afford to have a family then you shouldn`t be having one... why should others pay for your family (ie. the tax payer).. the british government is far to soft... its about time the government got tough... its should be the tax payers right NOT to have to pay for someone elses irresponsability. if these people cant decide for themselves that they cant afford to raise a family then the government have to do something..... I for one am fed up to the back teeth with the weak policies of the UK government and paying for other folks to live in the form of state handouts...

The argument here isn't about state handouts, it's about keeping a family together. I for one have never claimed any benefit in my life and don't intend to start now, but if I decided tomorrow that I wanted to return to the UK with my wife to live, the answer from UKBA would be no.

Edited June 11, 2013 by gmac

[kristophon]

if you can`t afford to have a family then you shouldn`t be having one... why should others pay for your family (ie. the tax payer).. the british government is far to soft... its about time the government got tough... its should be the tax payers right NOT to have to pay for someone elses irresponsability. if these people cant decide for themselves that they cant afford to raise a family then the government have to do something..... I for one am fed up to the back teeth with the weak policies of the UK government and paying for other folks to live in the form of state handouts...

The argument here isn't about state handouts, it's about keeping a family together. I for one have never claimed any benefit in my life and don't intend to start now, but if I decided tomorrow that I wanted to return to the UK with my wife to live, the answer from UKBA would be no.

well then that is because, in the governments opinion, your family would be a drain on the taxpayer... why DO YOU think taxpayers should have to fund part of your families budget?

[kristophon]

The arguemanent is about handouts AND about keeping families together... its about migration being a drain on the UK economy... the UK economy is in a mess... something has to be done. in all departments. its time for the UK government to get tough. not just on this. accross the board. i do agree with a welfare state. the people that really do need it should get it. BUT, the system is broken. its time to get tough, cut costs, clear it out. mend it. get some competant folk running it. and carry on...

the minimum was set because any lower than that and the individuals can claim income support... therefore they WILL claim income support.. therefore they ARE a drain on the UK economy. so we then go full circle back to my original comment. if you can`t afford to start and run a family. don`t have one.

i`m not just talking about farang/thai relations here... this goes for everyone everywhere....

[geriatrickid]

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

Ok. No government interference should apply to all the benefits these impoverished people will claim. The UK can barely care for its own poor.

[Anon999]

are folk really naive enough to think that the flow of thai ladies to the UK is mainly for the love of dear farang?... NOOOooo.. this is all a game to them... there aim is to get themselves over to the UK... get the passport... and get in the system. in my experience its very rare to see a thai coming back to thailand once shes in. they are not stupid these people. they know where they are better off. they know that if it doesnt work out that the UK government will pay (once they have said passport)... they know this before they even get there... then once they are in they start looking... looking for a better option... you guys on the low salary... how long do you think you can keep your girl once shes in?... do u really think its the luv thing thats holdin it all together?... get real dudes.. this is a war we`re in... its a war I tell you.... kab pom

It would be interesting to know how many Thai ladies you know in England and how long ago you first got seriously involved with them? Your post is definitely anti-Thai and sounds as though your experiences are based on your poor choice.

[billd766]

I have sat down and carefully read all of the posts, many I agree with and some I don't.

GH and a lot of others have suggested that we go back to the UK on our own, find somewhere to live, get a job and maybe, just maybe they will agree that I can bring my Thai wife to the UK.

Well at 69 years old does anybody have ANY idea where I can get a job which pays the average UK salary.

I have no house as that went to my ex wife in the divorce so I would have to find somewhere to rent and if I am lucky then I won't have to spend more than perhaps £250 a week on rent. Of course I would have to feed and clothe myself, perhaps buy a small car to go to work. Fortunately I don't smoke but I do have a drink or two most nights so having spent all this money on me, meanwhile my wife then has very little to live on while she is here and I am there.

After a year I would probably decide that I really ought to go back to my wife and son in Thailand but of course I don't have a visa anymore and by this time my wife may want a divorce and I won't be able to see my son any more, but, hey the UK government doesn't care anyway.

Did I hear something about paying taxes. I started paying Income tax and NI back in 1959 and though I don't pay NI any more I did pay contributions for 44 years.

As for paying income tax as I said I started paying back in 1959 as a 15 year old and now 54 years later at 69 I am still paying Income tax.

Somebody mentioned ex servicemen. I served in the RAF from January 1960 to May 1984 but that doesn't mean anything nowadays either.

Why should the UK government care if I try to bring my Thai wife to the UK?

Just in case she "may" be able to claim benefits after a few years.

Will we go and live in the UK? NOT a chance. My wife doesn't WANT to live there and neither do I but as a citizen of the UK I DO have the right to live there.

However the government, actually all of them are the same. They DON'T care about the people of the UK just about themselves.

Somebody sent me this and it describes the UK government perfectly.

635 Employees.pdf

[gmac]

Where did I say I wanted the taxpayer to help with my budget?;In fact I specifically stated the opposite.

[MrZM]

@billd766. How old is your child?