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

[Kevin1908]

Inappropriate and racist remark deleted, cut it out.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the moderators to approve posts beforehand so that we don't have to put up with seeing offensive posts until they are deleted. just an idea.

[ava15]

Are the UK visit visa's still somewhat easily obtained?

Considering blowing 3 grand on flights for a short trip so my family can meet my daughter at last.

I know, im such a burden on british society!

[7by7]

Visit visas are relatively straightforward and these new financial requirements do not apply to visit applications. Although the right to appeal against the refusal of a Family Visit visa is due to be abolished this month (the government haven't set a definite date yet).

See UK Visit Visa Basics.

[MrZM]

Are the UK visit visa's still somewhat easily obtained?

Considering blowing 3 grand on flights for a short trip so my family can meet my daughter at last.

I know, im such a burden on british society!

You make it sound like its a chore.

It's your family for g-d sake.

It really Shouldn't matter (and this is to all of you) what it costs you, it your family your blood, make sacrifices to ensure your family's life.

I have taken my wife back n 3 visit visas, paying for my son my wife and I flights, etcetcetc.

If your family means to you what you want, then do by all means necessary to sort it out.

Including myself, the UK nation send more time complaining than actually doing.

[MAJIC]

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.

The difference is our agreement as a member state of the EEC, is the agreement to allow the Open Borders System i.e any other member state can walk into our country (as we can theirs) with no Visa required,and stay as long as they wish. Is it fair? of course not,considering the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries) obviously Thailand is not one of the exceptions,so consequently has to abide by the strict terms of obtaining a Visa,into the UK. What could be more stupid and divisive,on the one hand open house for Europe, and Draconian powers for most of the rest of the World.

such is the wisdom of our Stupid Politicians. Who have by their actions decreed,that some others Nations Citizens who have never paid a penny in UK Taxes can walk into our Country at will and bring their wives with them, while you as a Brititish Citizen by Birthright,can't bring your wife with you,until you comply with very stringent Immigration laws. This is Disgraceful Abuse of all of our Citizenships,to say the least,we have become second class Citizens with limited rights in our own Country! And then they have the Audacity to deny us Annual Pension increases,because of not living in the UK permanently!

In my view it's not the rest of the World,that is the Immigration problem,but patently obvious European lack of Immigration laws, having a knock on effect,of which the British Government of the day happily took on board in various treaties,to the detriment of the people.

Edited June 19, 2013 by MAJIC

[ava15]

No offence mrZM, but you repeat this same preaching every post almost.

Dont talk to me about sacrifice. You dont know everyones situation. Just saying.

[TCA]

No offence mrZM, but you repeat this same preaching every post almost. 

Matsky13's situation is a typical example of how the rules are flawed. Spouting self-righteous nonsense about having to sacrifice for family's sake does not take away from the fact that deserving applicants should not fail or have to go to ridiculous lengths like remortgaging when they shouldn't have to.

[MrZM]

No offence mrZM, but you repeat this same preaching every post almost.

Matsky13's situation is a typical example of how the rules are flawed. Spouting self-righteous nonsense about having to sacrifice for family's sake does not take away from the fact that deserving applicants should not fail or have to go to ridiculous lengths like remortgaging when they shouldn't have to.

That only then leaves one choice to separate your family.

[TCA]

MrZM, the choice of "sacrifice" or "separate" that you keep highlighting, is one that many of us are saying is unreasonable because of the current regulations. A more sensible approach to the rules would remove this ridiculous situation, but you seem to maintain that because you did it, then it's somehow ok and everybody should do it. The point of this discussion surrounds the fairness of the requirements. We all know you have to comply or you don't get the visa, but the lengths to which you're suggesting people should go to is just plain daft (because the rules are daft) and this should be recognised. Not saying it will though.

[theoldgit]

Off topic posts removed.

[MrZM]

MrZM, the choice of "sacrifice" or "separate" that you keep highlighting, is one that many of us are saying is unreasonable because of the current regulations. A more sensible approach to the rules would remove this ridiculous situation, but you seem to maintain that because you did it, then it's somehow ok and everybody should do it. The point of this discussion surrounds the fairness of the requirements. We all know you have to comply or you don't get the visa, but the lengths to which you're suggesting people should go to is just plain daft (because the rules are daft) and this should be recognised. Not saying it will though.

Unreasonable why?

It's a very small proportion, of applicants who can't apply for the visa.

A high proportion, of people who have complained, have had plenty of time to sort out the visas before the new rules came into affect, now that the choice has been taken away they now decide to complain! And deem it as unfair and unreasonable.

So your saying a man who gets a state pension from the UK, owns a house, has no debts has 2 kids with his Thai wife. With his income of £500 you really believe this man has adequate funds to live in the UK with 3 other occupants?

I didn't highlight separate, the title of the topic, pretty much is self explanatory.

It is terrible that families may be forced to separate, but some and from what I have read thought this topic are already separated, but that doesn't have anything to do with the new rules. The new rules because of the income requirement, has taken a choice away.

People have been together for 10 years have kids, and now that the choice of returning to the UK, is distant they are complaining, wether they had the intention of or not.

I'm not saying everyone should do it, but if it means that much to the certain someone, then do it.

I'm entitled to my opinion like everyone else.

[Kevin1908]

I'm entitled to my opinion like everyone else.

That is the trouble, I don't think anybody else is entitled to an opinion.

My opinion, based on the UK signing up to Human Rights, is that their should be no financial requirement.

As soon as you start making any sort of requirement, other that it is a genuine relationship, then it is a breach of somebody's human rights.

[MrZM]

I'm entitled to my opinion like everyone else.

That is the trouble, I don't think anybody else is entitled to an opinion.

My opinion, based on the UK signing up to Human Rights, is that their should be no financial requirement.

As soon as you start making any sort of requirement, other that it is a genuine relationship, then it is a breach of somebody's human rights.

http://http://immigrationadvicelawyers.co.uk/visaapplication/

[MrZM]

Did you know that for a Norwegian male/female who wish to take there spouse to live as a resident the minimum income requirement is £26,100.

All eu countries have a minimum requirement.

The UK was the last to enforce such limit.

[MrZM]

Did you know that for a Norwegian male/female who wish to take there spouse to live as a resident the minimum income requirement is £26,100.

All eu countries have a minimum requirement.

The UK was the last to enforce such limit.

This requirement was set in 2010 in Norway, although they have had many complaints, it is now 3 years and nothing has changed.

UK are a more lenient country, hopefully the rules will be changed, and made fairer.

[Kevin1908]

Did you know that for a Norwegian male/female who wish to take there spouse to live as a resident the minimum income requirement is £26,100.

All eu countries have a minimum requirement.

The UK was the last to enforce such limit.

This requirement was set in 2010 in Norway, although they have had many complaints, it is now 3 years and nothing has changed.

UK are a more lenient country, hopefully the rules will be changed, and made fairer.

What is the relevance of your point. Because the EU does something we have to follow suit? Norway hunts whales, should the UK also hunt whales.

[Waterloo]

Did you know that for a Norwegian male/female who wish to take there spouse to live as a resident the minimum income requirement is £26,100.

All eu countries have a minimum requirement.

The UK was the last to enforce such limit.

As you quote the figure for Norway I assume you have probably read the report, which makes me wonder why you choose not to mention that Britains income limit is only second to Norway?

[7by7]

The most ludicrous aspect of these new financial requirements is, as already stated ad nauseum, that no account is taken of outgoings.

Almost as ludicrous is that because dual British/Thai children do not need a UK visa they are not included in the financial requirement.

So a family of one British parent, one Thai parent and two dual British/Thai children need an income of £18,600 p.a., but a family where the two children are the British parent's step children and so also need visas need an extra £6,200 p.a.!

Does the government think British children are cheaper to feed and clothe than non British ones?

(N.B. I say 'Thai' because this is a Thai forum; but the same settlement rules and requirements apply to all non EEA nationals; despite MAJIC's erroneous statement to the contrary above.)

Edited June 20, 2013 by 7by7

[7by7]

The level of savings that is required is £64,500 (not £75,000)

As in the post quoted you are talking about matsky13, the actual level is £74,600.

You're forgetting the step child.

[7by7]

So your saying a man who gets a state pension from the UK, owns a house, has no debts has 2 kids with his Thai wife. With his income of £500 you really believe this man has adequate funds to live in the UK with 3 other occupants?

£500? Where did you get that figure from? A basic state pension is £110.15 per week; and I've not seen a single post that suggests someone can support a wife and two children on just that; even with no mortgage or rent to pay.

£500 per week, per month, per annum?

With no mortgage or rent to pay:-

• £500 p.w.; definitely; that's over twice the income support a British couple with two children get.
• £500 p.m.; pushing it a bit; probably not.
• £500 p.a.; couldn't support himself on that, let alone anyone else!

If you are, again, using matsky13 as an example and £500 is a typo which should read £5000 p.a.; read his post again. He has income from his business plus an income of £5000 p.a. from one of his properties. He says the two combined provides sufficient to support him and his family; I see no reason not to believe him.

I'm entitled to my opinion like everyone else.

Yes, like everyone you are entitled to your opinion; but the arguments you put forward to back that opinion up should make some sort of sense; even though others may disagree with them.

I'm afraid that, like the example above, very few of yours do.

[TCA]

I'm entitled to my opinion like everyone else.

That is the trouble, I don't think anybody else is entitled to an opinion.

My opinion, based on the UK signing up to Human Rights, is that their should be no financial requirement.

As soon as you start making any sort of requirement, other that it is a genuine relationship, then it is a breach of somebody's human rights.

I think you've misquoted when editing. It's MrZM who's entitled to an opinion. Not me.

[MAJIC]

Did you know that for a Norwegian male/female who wish to take there spouse to live as a resident the minimum income requirement is £26,100.

All eu countries have a minimum requirement.

The UK was the last to enforce such limit.

This requirement was set in 2010 in Norway, although they have had many complaints, it is now 3 years and nothing has changed.

UK are a more lenient country, hopefully the rules will be changed, and made fairer.

What is the relevance of your point. Because the EU does something we have to follow suit? Norway hunts whales, should the UK also hunt whales.

And that is the absolute truth,the UK most certainly do have to follow EU Laws and Legislation!

[TCA]

Unreasonable why?

Are you not reading anything anyone else posts? For the umpteenth time - it's unreasonable because it takes no account of a person's outgoings, third party support and certain types of income combinations, and therefore someone's real ability to support a spouse.

It's a very small proportion, of applicants who can't apply for the visa.

All applicants are applying for a visa.

A high proportion, of people who have complained, have had plenty of time to sort out the visas before the new rules came into affect, now that the choice has been taken away they now decide to complain! And deem it as unfair and unreasonable.

Rubbish. Firstly I think you'll find that many people commenting on this are simply fair-minded individuals with nothing at stake at all. I also think you'll find that for a variety of reasons, most people don't plan visa applications months and years ahead. You're probably referring again to people who should return to the UK and get a job to meet income requirements just because they know the rules are changing. Not quite that easy for everyone. And that's not even relevant anyway. If the rules were fair then nobody would have to go to such extremes, if in reality they could adequately support their spouse.

So your saying a man who gets a state pension from the UK, owns a house, has no debts has 2 kids with his Thai wife. With his income of £500 you really believe this man has adequate funds to live in the UK with 3 other occupants?

No idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to Matsky13, read his post again.

Edited June 20, 2013 by TCA

[Jay Sata]

I'm sorry but I'm with Mr ZM.

Anyone not meeting the financial barrier has more chance of sorting their own finances out to meet the requirements than any chance of changing what has been passed by an Act of Parliament. It's done dusted and would take years to change even if MP's were minded.

The numbers affected are so low they don't even register here on this forum.

Apart from a couple of people we have no evidence of tens of thousands of families being split by the new legislation.

It's a sad fact of life that any legislation will affect somebody else's freedom or rights.

[MrZM]

The most ludicrous aspect of these new financial requirements is, as already stated ad nauseum, that no account is taken of outgoings.

Almost as ludicrous is that because dual British/Thai children do not need a UK visa they are not included in the financial requirement.

So a family of one British parent, one Thai parent and two dual British/Thai children need an income of £18,600 p.a., but a family where the two children are the British parent's step children and so also need visas need an extra £6,200 p.a.!

Does the government think British children are cheaper to feed and clothe than non British ones?

(N.B. I say 'Thai' because this is a Thai forum; but the same settlement rules and requirements apply to all non EEA nationals; despite MAJIC's erroneous statement to the contrary above.)

"Catch 22"

The UK can't discriminate against British citizens as this would be a against human rights.

But at the same time

They are discriminating against non British citizens.

It doesn't seem fair.

It automatically makes it harder for the sponsor to meet the required income.

[MrZM]

The level of savings that is required is £64,500 (not £75,000)

As in the post quoted you are talking about matsky13, the actual level is £74,600.

You're forgetting the step child.

Apologies I must have misread. I thought both children were his.

You would b correct, the savings requirement would be £74,500

Which is ludicrous.

How many people actually have this amount of money?

The savings level is far too high.

It's also unfair, how they don't allow self-employment to be totalled up by using savings to meet the financial requirement.

[MrZM]

So your saying a man who gets a state pension from the UK, owns a house, has no debts has 2 kids with his Thai wife. With his income of £500 you really believe this man has adequate funds to live in the UK with 3 other occupants?

£500? Where did you get that figure from? A basic state pension is £110.15 per week; and I've not seen a single post that suggests someone can support a wife and two children on just that; even with no mortgage or rent to pay.

£500 per week, per month, per annum?

With no mortgage or rent to pay:-

• £500 p.w.; definitely; that's over twice the income support a British couple with two children get.
• £500 p.m.; pushing it a bit; probably not.
• £500 p.a.; couldn't support himself on that, let alone anyone else!

If you are, again, using matsky13 as an example and £500 is a typo which should read £5000 p.a.; read his post again. He has income from his business plus an income of £5000 p.a. from one of his properties. He says the two combined provides sufficient to support him and his family; I see no reason not to believe him.

I'm entitled to my opinion like everyone else.

Yes, like everyone you are entitled to your opinion; but the arguments you put forward to back that opinion up should make some sort of sense; even though others may disagree with them.

I'm afraid that, like the example above, very few of yours do.

Sorry again I forgot some minor details.

If a state pension is £110.15 a week, which would total up to £440.60 a month.

I will also change it slightly and add some savings, of say £3000 in the bank.

For the size family, (even with only one child) that amount of money, regardless wether they have minimal, if not no outgoings or debts etc.

It s not enough to live on.

Visas were being granted under this scenario under the old rules.

He would then be entitled to child tax credits, child benefits and childcare.

Anyway....

I wasn't referring to matsky13 in is post. It was an example. I understand his situation, and referring what you say in your last post, if both his children were British citizens, then he would meet the financial requirement of £18,600. With the rules how they are, its wrong and discriminating.

[somtampet]

Plenty of fors and against.My view is that a minimum amount should be enforced,but fall below that and no child credits should be allowed as a non eu person.Too many going back to uk and claiming for everything for spouse etc.also the spouse to work within 1 year to enhance the total income of family

[7by7]

If a state pension is £110.15 a week, which would total up to £440.60 a month.

£477.32, actually (110.15 x 52 divided by 12).

It s not enough (for a family) to live on.

A couple? Probably, it's just below the income support level for a couple; but children as well? No; and no one in this topic has said that it is!

Edited June 20, 2013 by 7by7

[7by7]

Sorry, missed this bit last night.

Visas were being granted under this scenario under the old rules.

In the scenario you describe it is extremely unlikely that the application would have met the maintenance requirement under the old rules; i.e. able to be supported and accommodated without recourse to public funds.

Yes, once in the UK the couple would have been able to claim tax credits and child benefit (child care? not sure), if they otherwise qualified, and in fact still can. But this would not have been an acceptable source of income for the actual application.

What would have been acceptable, but no longer is, was any income the applicant would have received had they a job offer in the UK and any support coming from a third party; and why not?

You seem obsessed with pensioners attempting to obtain visas for younger women and their children. I don't know about your circumstances, but mine and that of every couple we know where one partner is an immigrant suggest that in most situations the UK partner is working and quite capable of supporting their immigrant family; except that their actual income is below the limit set by the government.

I don't think anyone posting here believes that immigrant families should not be able to support themselves; yet you seem to think that this is what we are saying!

What I am saying is that the criteria used in judging whether an immigrant family has adequate finances should be the same as that used for a British family receiving income support. (Edit; I mean the actual amount received; not the cut off level where they would receive nothing.)

I am also saying that all sources of available finance should be taken into account; sponsor, applicant and any third party.

Finally I am also saying that it is not just income and/or savings which should be looked at; but outgoings as well. In other words it is disposable income after all regular outgoings which should count; not a set figure which takes no account of outgoings at all.

Taking outgoings as well as income into account would penalise those whose income is above the limit but have large outgoings, such as debt repayments. But the system would be fairer overall.

Although the majority of couples where the sponsor lives and works in the UK probably can meet this new income requirement; three groups are being unfairly penalised.

The self employed, who need to have been earning the required amount for at least 12 months, not six, and cannot use savings if they have them.

Expats who are returning home and have a definite job offer with an income over the limit, but have been earning less than the limit whilst abroad.

Couples where the British sponsor does not have a job in the UK, usually because they are the mother of young children, or does have a job with an income below the limit; whilst the immigrant partner does have a frim job offer once in the UK, but his income is ignored.

That other countries may or may not have requirements which are stricter than the UK's is irrelevant. Some other countries have public floggings; does that mean it's acceptable to introduce same to the UK?

Edited June 21, 2013 by 7by7