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

[billd766]

@MrZM. He will be 9 in August. I have known my wife for over 20 years now and we have been married for more that 13 of them.

[7by7]

I`m not anti thai at all... I`m anti parasite... doesn`t matter whether its a thai or any other nationality. I`m a a realist and my summises are based on 14 years of experience being married to a thai and 10 years living in Isaan with my eyes and ears open....

My Thai wife and step daughter have lived in the UK with me for over 12 years and have been naturalised British citizens for over 9 years; so I have no personal stake in this.

During those 12 years we have come to know many British/Thai couples.

Of those couples, only one have divorced; and that was because the Thai wife caught her British husband playing away!

So which experience is typical; yours or mine?

[GuestHouse]

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.

...........

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.

..........

You seem to be complaining about the consequences of choices you made in the past might have on a choice you say you are never going to make in the future.

[7by7]

Guesthouse,

If I understand billd76 correctly, he is more concerned with being able to keep his options open.

He has sufficient income to adequately support him and his wife in the UK without claiming public funds, which they couldn't do anyway.

Yet, because the government have set a minimum income figure way above that actually required to live on and way above the minimum the government themselves expect a British couple to be able to live on (the income support level) that he no longer has this option.

You may consider this to be fair; many don't.

[MrZM]

Everyone misses the point more so.

£18,600 is the gross income, the actual net income/disposable income is around £15,400.

It wouldn't be a fun life, but it is manageable to live on these finances. People live on less with families of 4.

The £18.600 is the maximum income which these certain benefits are unable to a family. Expect for child benefit which is obtainable until your earn over £50,000 a year. But the stupid thing is, the non British citizen can't claim the benefits anyway for 5 years. So what all the fuss about.

[slipperx]

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.

That of course presumes the foreign country wants the British partner - and may have similar rules or issues. I don't think that is really the answer though I accept there are issues letting every one in just because they appear to be married and appear to be bringing up a family.

[billd766]

Guesthouse,

If I understand billd76 correctly, he is more concerned with being able to keep his options open.

He has sufficient income to adequately support him and his wife in the UK without claiming public funds, which they couldn't do anyway.

Yet, because the government have set a minimum income figure way above that actually required to live on and way above the minimum the government themselves expect a British couple to be able to live on (the income support level) that he no longer has this option.

You may consider this to be fair; many don't.

AFAIK I can obtain benefits, it is my wife who cannot.

If I were to return I would be entitled to very many benefits, heating allowance, free glasses, a bus pass, perhaps even a zimmer frame from the National 'elf too plus of course an upgrade to my pension to the current rate AND an increase every year.

I would be entitled to the same as every other OAP who is a British subject, no more and no less.

[billd766]

No I am actually not relocating from Thailand though I am keeping my options open. There are some very vociferous people on this thread who are both for and against the rule.

I am for it in a way but I feel that the lower limit is too high and also that the government is biased against certain foreign nationals.

If they made a level playing field where ALL applicants irrespective of nationality, EU rules etc had to meet the same criteria (as Thailand does) then I have no objection at all.

However it is a discriminatrop rule/law at best.

[chrisinth]

The problem is that billd766's options are restricted because of his choice of wife by the government of the country he dedicated 25 years of his life defending and paid tax to for 54 years.

Unless someone has done similar, I would imagine it would be difficult to understand his point of view.

@billd788, if I have called this wrong, my apologies. It is the way I view it, especially, in my case, having been married while serving and opting to live in another part of the world. Not that I ever plan to return to UK, but I would like the option to be there if I ever needed it.

[GuestHouse]

MH, there is no contradiction between the post you are challenging and the rules you have challenged with .

Which probably explains your swift edit.

Edited June 11, 2013 by GuestHouse

[billd766]

chrisinth #248 and 249 Posted Yesterday, 21:56

"The problem is that billd766's options are restricted because of his choice of wife by the government of the country he dedicated 25 years of his life defending and paid tax to for 54 years.

Unless someone has done similar, I would imagine it would be difficult to understand his point of view.

@billd766, if I have called this wrong, my apologies. It is the way I view it, especially, in my case, having been married while serving and opting to live in another part of the world. Not that I ever plan to return to UK, but I would like the option to be there if I ever needed it. "

You called it right, the same as I do. I figure I have done enough for Queen and country (though I would do it again for the Queen). All I want is the same "rights" as the people in the EAA have in the UK. That isn't a lot to ask is it?

Unless of course you are a mealy mouthed politician who will do anything to stay in power.

# 249

"

Whereas I understand the reasoning behind it, the entire 'married to a
foreigner' thing should be played on a level pitch. In my mind there is
little difference if a woman is French, Spanish, Turkish, Isreali,
South American, Thai, Malay, etc. Except for the way they talk.

If a couple clicks, then they click..............."

I agree 100%.

[tahaan]

I resent the assumption that a returning expat will be a burden on the taxpayer.

My services pension is not enough to satisfy the requirements for settlement but it was more than enough to exclude me from benefits while looking for work on my return to the UK a couple of years ago.

I'm now a higher rate tax payer. My wife works and contributes as do most of the Thai wives I've met here. The only benefit that I know of that is widely claimed by TWs is child allowance and I really don't think that getting pregnant is a deliberate ploy to rip off the taxpayer despite what some posters may think.

[tahaan]

They have set a minimum requirement for non eu/eea spouse to gain spouse visas to the UK. As its the maximum income that you can't claim benefits on.

No they haven't and it isn't.

That women is not representative and the article is not balanced. It's purpose is to inflame. There's always going to be some who abuse the system. It's a price we have to pay for living in a civilised society.

There are some who take advantage of immigration rules in Thailand.

[MrZM]

A

Edited June 12, 2013 by MrZM

[Jay Sata]

Just to clear up a point. Once a Thai spouse has ILR and they have a small part time job they are entitled to claim working tax credits and credits for children,family allowance for children in the UK and have their rent and community charge paid.

This will all be rolled up in to https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-the-welfare-system-and-making-sure-work-pays/supporting-pages/introducing-universal-credit next year.

I have one friend who is separated but not divorced from his Thai wife. He is retired so gets a basic state pension plus pension credit and apartment/community charge paid.

His ex partner on ILR has two children in further education. She works part time and has her £600 a month rent paid plus council tax. On top of that she receives £600 a month from the state. She is approaching 50 and aware that if she returned to Thailand with no savings life would be hard.

The same will apply to the new wave of migrants from Romania and Bulgaria soon. Self employment is an easy way to access the tax credit system hence the sudden wave of EU migrants selling the Big Issue.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

How would you suggest the rules be changed?

Should the required income be lowered or be non existent?

If so how should it be decided then?

If there was no requirement, but only the fact you have a subsisting relationship, would this be suffice.

Many posters here seem to be under the impression that there was no financial requirement before the rule change last July.

This is not so.

Under the old rules, a person applying for settlement had to show that they would be adequately maintained once in the UK without recourse to public funds.

There was no actual amount specified in the rules, but case law suggested that it would be wrong for an immigrant family to live on less than the income support level for a British family of the same size.

Currently this is just under £6000 p.a. plus housing costs for a couple plus, of course, extra for each child.

So ECOs used this as an unofficial minimum income.

They also based it upon net income after tax etc. and looked at other regular outgoings, such as debt payments, and deducted these before deciding whether or not the financial requirement was met.

So, I feel that making what was an unofficial minimum income official is all that was required rather than setting a minimum income way above the minimum the government expect a British family to live on but which takes no account of any outgoings.

For expats returning with their family I would base the assessment on their potential earnings once in the UK, as before, and remove the new requirement that they must have been earning the amount for up to 12 months abroad before returning to the UK with their family.

I would allow the applicant's potential earnings once in the UK, if any, to be included in the calculation, as under the old rules.

As under the old rules, I would allow all savings to be used in assessing whether the applicant(s) could be adequately supported, not just those over a set limit.

I would allow third party support again.

I agree with extending the qualifying period for ILR as this causes few or no problems for genuine families but could reduce sham marriages. But I do not see why people should have to make an expensive FLR application half way through, so I would abolish that; or at least make it free. The fee for the initial visa and for ILR are both set way over cost, so could easily absorb the cost of this FLR application.

I would reintroduce ILE where sponsor and spouse/partner applicant had been living together outside the UK for a set minimum period; I suggest the same as that required for ILR; 5 years.

I would use the same financial requirements when assessing adult dependent applications as those for a spouse or partner. I would also reduce the current extremely exorbitant application fee to the same as for a spouse/partner.

[Jay Sata]

It' a fact that most people these days do not wait on council lists but rent from private landlords and this is paid by the local authority for those claiming benefits.

A retired couple are entitled to around £220 a week in pension/pension credit plus housing support/community charge payments.

If you add those numbers together and factor in extras you arrive at a number in excess of £18,500.

It's not correct to say that an immigrant spouse makes no demands on the public purse. They are entitled to free healthcare and access to further education to mention just a couple of benefits. A child will be eligible for healthcare and schooling on arrival which in the case of friends of mine resulted in two non English speaking children having one to one tuition and becoming fluent in a year. We knock the system in the UK sometimes but we have some great social infrastructure.

The point I'm making is the figure of £18,500 seems reasonable.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

It' a fact that most people these days do not wait on council lists but rent from private landlords and this is paid by the local authority for those claiming benefits.

Tell that to the English friend of ours who has been living with her son in a grotty bed and breakfast for nearly a year after her husband threw her out; simply because she became pregnant and he didn't want a baby!

I repeat, social housing is on the list of proscribed public funds.

Ditto for housing benefit and community charge benefits, which you wont get anyway unless you are also getting housing benefit.

Read the rules on what is and is not available, on what can and cannot be claimed; those rules have not changed.

Unless you are suggesting that immigrant family members of British citizens should not be entitled to NHS care nor state schooling, this part of your argument does not make sense. If you are, see my rebuttal to that notion earlier in this thread.

If £18,500 is a reasonable minimum figure to live on, why does the government pay less than a third of this to a British couple on income support?

Edited June 13, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

Unless you are suggesting that immigrant family members of British citizens should not be entitled to NHS care nor state schooling, this part of your argument does not make sense. If you are, see my rebuttal to that notion earlier in this thread.

I'm not saying that 7by7 but I am pointing out the fact that there are indirect costs.

With immigration over the last decade topping 10 millions there has to be a knock on effect. Hospitals are facing big problems especially at A and E.

We have not built an extra several million homes so rents and property prices have escalated. There is little chance we will build enough houses for a fraction of the demand in the future.

It's a bit like having friends to stay. Extra demand on the bathroom,water,electricity but at least they leave after a few days.

You proposals are aimed at those of us with Thai partners but would have a knock on effect with the millions from India,Pakistan and Afrcica who want a slice of UK life.

In my opinion we could take a leaf out of Thailand's book when it comes to the family. Your friend and her baby must have a mum and dad and possibly grandparents? Where are they in her time of need?

Old people lose their homes and are placed in care here waiting to die at great cost to society because the family just care about their own well being.

The UK is facing major infrastructure problems and with the prospect of more from Bulgaria and Romania arriving soon I question why we should even consider lower the entry requirements for those elsewhere.

[Kevin1908]

It's not correct to say that an immigrant spouse makes no demands on the public purse. They are entitled to free healthcare and access to further education to mention just a couple of benefits. A child will be eligible for healthcare and schooling on arrival which in the case of friends of mine resulted in two non English speaking children having one to one tuition and becoming fluent in a year.

That is not correct. My wife is treated as an international student just the same as anybody coming on a student visa. Kids under 16 (not sure of the age limit now) must attend compulsory education so I don't see how you can claim that as a demand on the public purse plus I have a contribution record of 44 years. Ditto my wife getting healthcare.

If people want to start picking on the healthcare and education issue then I think we need to start looking at the use of these facilities by the people paid in cash and people who overuse the services.

I get a little tired of going into places like Costco and getting stuck behind somebody who wants to pay with a wodge of cash the size of a brick.

[MrZM]

For the attention of 7by7:

"Under the old rules, a person applying for settlement had to show that they would be adequately maintained once in the UK without recourse to public funds"

You could show bank accounts that had no outgoings, and kept an adequate amount of funds. Also a small income was suffice, a pension of £400 a month was suffice.

"There was no actual amount specified in the rules, but case law suggested that it would be wrong for an immigrant family to live on less than the income support level for a British family of the same size."

"Currently this is just under £6000 p.a. plus housing costs for a couple plus, of course, extra for each child"

Then it's not just under £6000, it's plus plus plus. Like the article yesterday she claims £32,000 a year. Government have claimed £26,000 is a suffice amount of money to live on.

So ECOs used this as an unofficial minimum income.

"They also based it upon net income after tax etc. and looked at other regular outgoings, such as debt payments, and deducted these before deciding whether or not the financial requirement was met"

Everyone has expenditures, a man who earns £100,00 a year has a house car etc etc etc ... And his net income after this may be the same as someone who earns £10,000 a year. This person on £10,000 a year, may decide to by a car, a house etc etc or more likely claim on benefits, in my eyes the guy who earns £100,000 is in a much better position.

"For expats returning with their family I would base the assessment on their potential earnings once in the UK, as before, and remove the new requirement that they must have been earning the amount for up to 12 months abroad before returning to the UK with their family."

I don't want this to sound discriminating to age, but a man of 50,55,60,65, will not earn in the UK unless already doing so!

"I would allow the applicant's potential earnings once in the UK, if any, to be included in the calculation, as under the old rules"

So a friend can write out a contract claiming he will earn £20,000 a year, when he returns. That's good.

"I would allow third party support again."

Like the many applicants who have rich family members in the UK offered this support, and once in the UK no support was given. Who had this choice to bypass into the UK. Me myself I could have used last year, though mine would actually have been genuine.

All in all the new rules are just right, the UK government t have claimed £26,000 is a suffice amount to live on. £24,000 is the average wage someone in the UK earns. £18,600 is the maximum income that doesn't entitle you to majority of benefit and is currently the set limit for a spouse visa.

The new set requirements are reducing fraudulent visas and migration into the UK.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

You have your view, and your answers are to the book, I don't see any thinking outside the box.

You can't please everyone it's impossible. The UK is screwed. They are looking in every area to cut down the budgets. They should have done this 10 years ago maybe even longer.

These affects on just causing problems for spouses who which to reside in the UK, but it's also affecting current british citizen residents living in the UK.

[Waterloo]

It' a fact that most people these days do not wait on council lists but rent from private landlords and this is paid by the local authority for those claiming benefits.

Tell that to the English friend of ours who has been living with her son in a grotty bed and breakfast for nearly a year after her husband threw her out; simply because she became pregnant and he didn't want a baby!

I repeat, social housing is on the list of proscribed public funds.

Ditto for housing benefit and community charge benefits, which you wont get anyway unless you are also getting housing benefit.

Read the rules on what is and is not available, on what can and cannot be claimed; those rules have not changed.

Unless you are suggesting that immigrant family members of British citizens should not be entitled to NHS care nor state schooling, this part of your argument does not make sense. If you are, see my rebuttal to that notion earlier in this thread.

If £18,500 is a reasonable minimum figure to live on, why does the government pay less than a third of this to a British couple on income support?

Given that the Average wage in the UK is £26,500. How does £18,600 compare?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

Coming late to this party but I didn't want to comment until I had , had a chance to read the report.

Having read it I am shocked that to learn that 47% of the working population will not meet the financial criteria set by the new policey & that furthermore when this level was set in 2011 they knew it would be at least 45% of the working population.

The level was set by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) & they stated.

the issue of family migration is complex with economic, legal, moral and social dimensions. Nevertheless, the question that was put to us was an economic one and we address it on that basis.

So whilst recognising this was a complex issue they washed their hands of the probable impact & conesquences & produced a number.

They also stated that they did not see a clear case for regional variations in the income level, "presumably on the grounds that it would be more complicated to administer, rather than fairness"

In there defence they also suggested!

It would be understandable if the UKBA allowed some exemptions to be made with regards to the application of the income requirement, offering three examples: "if the sponsor's spouse/partner or dependant has a firm job offer in the UK, it might be reasonable to include their pay in the calculation; if there is areasonable expectation that the spouse/partner or dependant will gain employment after they enter the UK, then it might also br reasonable to include their expected pay in the calculation; and it might be reasonable to make an exception in those cases where the sponsor works abroad at the time of the application

of course the UKBA ignored these reasonable and fair suggestions as they would stand in the way of the driving objective

at these levels it is not about stopping the scroungers it is just about reducing the numbers.

at 47% there is a lot of hard working people who if they make the mistake of falling in love with what the goverment have decided is the wrong person will be faced with some very difficult decisions.

Some people might give that some thought if they are unlucky to be in hospital whilst the low paid care assitant is wipeing your posterioir!

[Waterloo]

And regarding hospitals, the BMA gave evidence to the inquiry stating they had already lost some very senior staff due to the changes & that they were concerned for the future implications to staffing of the NHS.

[MaprangHolmes]

If you are saying under the old rules you would have had to have an income of £32,000 to get a visa then that is total rubbish you could get a visa without having any income and using saving which could be no where near the figure you are saying.

[MrZM]

I didn't say that, there is a mother in England who earns £32,000 a year tax free of tax payers money, her benefits will be cut to £26,000 a year, the government see this as enough for a family to live on.

Exactly you could get a visa with minimal savings and get 3rd party support.

Which increased migration and also fraud.

The requirement set is just and suffice.

I have been through it all and I'm considerably younger then the majority of complainers, I managed to sort out my circumstances in order to secure my families future.

From what I have read, majority if the family separation would be temporary and although I agree it's wrong, it can be done and if there desire is to reside in the UK then it can be done. Majority of the people who have complained have had many opportunities to return to the UK before the new rules were in affect.

It has taken 4 years and now eventually my family can return to the UK permanently.

[Jay Sata]

There is a special debate in the House of Commons next Wednesday.

The Immigration Minister and the Shadow Immigration Minister will be required to attend

http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/WestminsterHall/2013/6/19/events.html

It's worth noting that the number of migrants from Thailand is so small it does not even feature on the table below which demonstrates where the bulk arrive from. 75% from the Indian sub continent and Africa. Somalia and Nigeria exceed the USA. Note the number from the Philippines and ask yourself why is Thailand not there?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2013/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2013#admissions-3

I would imagine that less than a few hundred spouse visa's from Thailand are refused each year.

Nationalities granted permission to stay permanently

Data for grants by nationality in 2012 are planned to be published in Immigration Statistics April–June 2013, due to be released in August 2013 when further analysis of 2012 data is included.

Of the total 166,878 grants in 2011, over half (53% or 88,528) were to Asian nationals and a further quarter (25% or 42,148) were to African nationals.

The chart below shows current data

.

Top 10 nationalities granted permission to stay permanently, 2011

(Total 166,878)

Edited June 13, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Jay Sata]

I think my estimate of refusals is wrong in the above post.

The Office for National Statistics estimates that, in 2009, 35,000 Thai-born people were living in the UK.

Which suggests we could be looking at less than a few hundred refusals per year.

[bobrussell]

The comments have strayed a long way from the original post subject!

EU migration is irrelevant, immigrant welfare and benefits are a marginal issue.

The government/Home Office chose to accept a £18,600 figure because they could tell the general public that non-EU immigrants are not going to be subsidised by the taxpayer. EU immigration is a distraction!

The UKBA on the orders of its masters failed to include any adequate degree of flexibility in the way sponsors could demonstrate either how the family could meet the new financial restrictions in other reasonable ways or (preferably IMO) demonstrate that the family unit can exist without the need for any extra input from the taxpayer. A typical example would be someone on a pension but owning their own home, debt free.

Where an applicant has a firm job offer why on earth should this be excluded from the calculation? Where is any flexibility on compassionate grounds?

Nobody should be allowed to scrounge on the system but this is something to be addressed by the benefits system not the immigration rules.

[Jay Sata]

The problem with 'firm job offer' is they can quickly disappear and in the case of some large migrant groups are easy to engineer. The same applies to 'sponsors' unless they are bonded.

I agree with your point on owning a home or perhaps allowing the equity in it being included in the savings component.

We are of course discussing how this issue affects those with links to Thailand.

The greater picture encompasses migration from India and Pakistan which were countries exploiting the student loophole and bogus college route until it was closed.

Any change has to be applied across the board and not just to those of us aligned to Thailand.

On a personal level I'd like to see an equal playing field so we got reciprocal rights on marriage to a Thai.

I don't think anyone would accuse the Thai's in the UK of being scroungers. Most are very hard working and they integrate well unlike others who live in close knit communities.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Jay Sata

[TCA]

The 47% who earn below the requirement, are entitled to claim certain benefits which would take them above the minimum income.

Out of interest, what can Joe Bloggs, living in private rented accommodation earning minimum UK wage of £6.19 per hour (just over £11k gross p.a.), claim to get up to this magical £18,600 figure?