7by7 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I for one will try and leave work early to attend the meeting today Unfortunately, I'm unable to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Can I remind members that this thread is about the recent High Court Judgement, nothing more. Hahahahahahahahaha The inability of a member to follow a topic really bemuses me. As you all come across as really intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ava15 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Regarding these snobbish remarks suggesting its impossible to live on less than the requirements. Have a look at many families "up north" in the UK and other places outside london. Jesus. Just because YOU may require more money to live your life your way, dont be thinking many british families dont live and adapt with their smaller incomes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norrona Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 The UK government believes a couple can live on £5852.60 p.a. plus rent; otherwise they would increase the income support level. No one, as far as I am aware, wants immigrants coming into the UK and being a burden upon the state; which they can't as they can't claim public funds until they have ILR (except contribution related benefits that they qualify for through their NICs)! How many more times have people got to be told that before they believe it? Just because Thailand does it as well doesn't make it right. Norrona, who called you racist? Wasn't me, all I accused you of was falling for right wing propaganda. Immigrants do not come into the UK and 'milk the system' simply because they can't. Despite what the anti immigrant lobby say. I didn't say you called me it did I, if we are going to get literal then please check whats actually been written! I just pointed out a major reason as to why we have come to this situation in my opinion....because you didn't agree with me or like it I was jumped upon as if I was singling that race out in hatred....I don't blame them I blame the people that have allowed this....but, Pakistani immigrants who came and were yes invited to the UK to work were and have been the main the ones who then sent for their families long before all this English test business, that is a fact and yes they milked it big time with lots of their elders who received benefits and health care... I know this because my family worked within the social housing in the east end of London..... If the above is that out of order then please ban me from Thai Visa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I have checked, again, what was written and still cannot find anyone calling you racist nor 'jumping' on you for singling any race out in hatred. Maybe it is you who should read what is written! If your family worked in social housing they should know the rules regarding the availability of social housing to immigrant or part immigrant families; i.e. that social housing is on the list of proscribed public funds. I must admit my knowledge of the rules only extends back about 10 years, so maybe at the time your family worked in social housing the rules were different. But we are talking about the situation now, are we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norrona Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I have checked, again, what was written and still cannot find anyone calling you racist nor 'jumping' on you for singling any race out in hatred. Maybe it is you who should read what is written! If your family worked in social housing they should know the rules regarding the availability of social housing to immigrant or part immigrant families; i.e. that social housing is on the list of proscribed public funds. I must admit my knowledge of the rules only extends back about 10 years, so maybe at the time your family worked in social housing the rules were different. But we are talking about the situation now, are we not? look you have been a real asset to this forum and now you are letting yourself down a bit by making a mountain out of it all.....just to be clear, I was referring to how it has come to this with my observation and the flood of immigrants from years ago...now it is not people from that country so much but eastern europe...if you lived in London and specific parts of it you would see it with your own eyes...we are full to the brim and can't take much more so for now the rules they have put in place are what they deem correct to stem the flow, sadly it's all a bit too late....my family worked in that industry late 80's onwards. No more from me....crack on with the current topic cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 That is my view as well Norrona. I don't want to keep families apart but the gate should be set so that it's not too easy to bring all and sundry here. If I was trying to bring my spouse here today and could not get to the magic figure I'd take three jobs to get to £18600. There is work everywhere if you want to find it. Job Centres are a waste of time which is why there are so many recruitment agencies. As Norman Tebbit once said.."My father got on his bike". 7by7 I think you are having a laugh suggesting the three applicants got their families to pay for the High Court case we are discussing. The money for all these legal challenges comes from the public purse via legal aid to the fat cat lawyers who love immigration cases because they know they'll clock up nice fees. Our little friend who has just decided he is happy to return to Jordan and Abu Hamza certainly did not pay for their legal aid which topped a couple of million. If you introduced a system where every case was handled on merit we'd see another spike in civil servants to process the applications and appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 @ 7by7 Post No 51 ....................(too many quotes to reply normally) As the government expects a British couple to survive on £5852.60 p.a. plus rent, why do they demand an immigrant couple earn so much more"? The same reason that Thailand Immigration demands seasoned money in Thai Bank accounts,because they do not want Foreigners to be a burden on the State. Needless to say,much more than Thais need to live on! Hardly the same issue is it. Yes it is the same issue! every Country has their Immigration rules,why accept it from Thailand,but not the UK,could it be that there are those that think the UK should change their Immigration rules to suit everyone in the world??? or is it we have a very soft Track Record,and we are expected to cave in to every demand.This Home Secretary is on a mission,with the backing of the People,don't expect too many giveaways,on this one! No it isn't the same issue. Thailand is making the Immigrant pay. The UK is making the Sponsor pay so it is not the same issue. In the UK the immigrant has no recourse to public funds. The Home Secretary has the backing of the people. I wonder if the people realise that over half a million immigrants are coming to the UK and settlement visas number 12000. The Home Secretary has you fooled. The half a million new Immigrants you quote are coming from Europe! mainly Rumania and Bulgaria, their application for membership of the EU will be finalised this year,so whether we agree with it or not,Teresa May the home Secretary has no power to stop them entering the UK, such is the folly of open borders,in Europe. And also,how is The UKBA forcing the Sponsor to pay for non European Applications,they happily pay for their Partner,because in most cases the applicant for a Visa have no money of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamme Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 That is my view as well Norrona. I don't want to keep families apart but the gate should be set so that it's not too easy to bring all and sundry here. If I was trying to bring my spouse here today and could not get to the magic figure I'd take three jobs to get to £18600. There is work everywhere if you want to find it. Job Centres are a waste of time which is why there are so many recruitment agencies. As Norman Tebbit once said.."My father got on his bike". 7by7 I think you are having a laugh suggesting the three applicants got their families to pay for the High Court case we are discussing. The money for all these legal challenges comes from the public purse via legal aid to the fat cat lawyers who love immigration cases because they know they'll clock up nice fees. Our little friend who has just decided he is happy to return to Jordan and Abu Hamza certainly did not pay for their legal aid which topped a couple of million. If you introduced a system where every case was handled on merit we'd see another spike in civil servants to process the applications and appeals. I agree with you that there should be controls to immigration, but the reason why the High Court has referred the UKBA income/savings policy for judicial review is because the policy is too simplistic Personally I think it is tick box method of control and has no bearing to what you're trying to mitigate (risk of migrant drawing public funds). Actually, pensions is a good example of control, where the new immigrant cannot draw on state funds until sufficient NI contributions have been made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Going round in circles again. If you want to talk facts then fine. The fact is the current rules are set. The minimum required income is £18,600. If you have a non british citizen child then you require more income. (Take into consideration extra cost for application, for flights etc) Under the old rules you could be refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights. The income set is not high, in fact it's the lowest in the whole of Europe. Fact the new rules are not logically thought out. Ie a self employed person should be allowed to use there savings towards meeting the requirement. The savings level is far to high, they require you to have 3/4 times the minimum income. Fact everyone in this topic and previous topics are going round in circles. If you don't meet the requirement get an extra job and do so. It's an English trait, to complain. We complain when's there no sun in England and when there is we complain its too hot. Just get on with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaprangHolmes Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Going round in circles again. If you want to talk facts then fine. The fact is the current rules are set. The minimum required income is £18,600. If you have a non british citizen child then you require more income. (Take into consideration extra cost for application, for flights etc) Under the old rules you could be refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights. The income set is not high, in fact it's the lowest in the whole of Europe. Fact the new rules are not logically thought out. Ie a self employed person should be allowed to use there savings towards meeting the requirement. The savings level is far to high, they require you to have 3/4 times the minimum income. Fact everyone in this topic and previous topics are going round in circles. If you don't meet the requirement get an extra job and do so. It's an English trait, to complain. We complain when's there no sun in England and when there is we complain its too hot. Just get on with it. Could you please show me where under the old rules you could have a visa refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights? The booking or paying for flights where never part of the visa application you just had to show that you could support yourselves without recourse to public funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 You sum it up well Mr ZM. I cannot argue with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) 7by7 I think you are having a laugh suggesting the three applicants got their families to pay for the High Court case we are discussing. The money for all these legal challenges comes from the public purse via legal aid to the fat cat lawyers who love immigration cases because they know they'll clock up nice fees. Pure supposition on your part; still. My suggestion that the families paid is just as valid, as is the suggestion that the lawyers took the case on a pro bono basis; which I note you have failed to mention. Not all immigration appellants receive legal aid. The suggestion that someone such as a nurse should be forced to take another job on top of the long hours they already work in order to meet an income level set way above the actual amount needed to live on would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting! Edited July 9, 2013 by 7by7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) 7by7 continues to avoid the central plank of this case. Two applicants on long term benefits and housing and the third a refugee from Lebanon. Surprisingly although MM claims he can't go back to his home country his father can pledge money from that country to assist him. His brother offers the same pledge.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1900.html From the High Court synopsis. MM is a 34 year old national of the Lebanon. He entered the United Kingdom in 2001. He subsequently sought refugee status and has been granted limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee until 28 January 2014. He has two brothers with similar leave to remain. He lives with his sister EF who has discretionary leave to remain arising from the breakdown of her marriage. She has a son AF who looks to MM as a father figure. MM became engaged in the summer of 2010 to a Lebanese woman. As a result of his refugee status he was unable to visit his fiancée in Lebanon but they met in Syria where they originally planned to marry in 2012. Those plans have had to change because of the deteriorating security situation in Syria. Since the issue of these proceedings, MM and his fiancée have met twice in Cyprus on visit visas, and in January 2013 married by proxy in Lebanon. Now what we have here is a scenario where an extended family are trying to use the courts and benefit system to bring in a partner who has had little or no contact with the sponsor. Read that quote above and explain to me how he became engaged in Lebanon in 2010? He met her in Syria in 2012 and met twice in Cyprus before marrying by proxy in Lebanon last January. He claims he cannot go back there so 'by proxy' means marrying on the phone which is not recognised in the UK. 7by7 I rest my case. For those interested the lawyers for MM are http://www.jmwilsonsolicitors.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=57 They were involved in a crazy case funded by legal aid here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/16/overseas-spouses-speak-english From that article in the Guardian The top five nationalities of those coming to marry UK citizens are Pakistan (8,570 people), India (5,110), Bangladesh (2,780), US (2,110) and Thailand (1,776). If we assume 75% success rate in spouse visas from Thailand that means around 440 refused. Take off the language failures and I reckon we are just talking numbers in the tens. What is interesting on this thread is the lack of dozens of 'I've been refused' posts. Methinks 7by7 is making a mountain out of a molehill because of a personal issue with UKBA or whatever they call themselves now. You provide some great help on this site 7by7 so I think it's time you agree to some latitude on this issue. Edited July 9, 2013 by Jay Sata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ava15 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) The income set is actually the 2nd highest in europe. Its actually higher than all Western countries besides Norway. People resting their limited arguements on just one or two cases. What about the thousands of british they ignore? Edited July 9, 2013 by ava15 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 The central plank of this case is the financial requirement! This is an issue that effects all British citizens who have partners who are non EEA nationals, and all those who will do so in the future. It is not just a Thai issue. Saying that it is a molehill is wrong; it's a mountain for those unjustly effected by it! Saying I have a personal issue with the UKBA is wrong, I don't. I have an issue with these new regulations; but as my wife and step daughter have been British citizen's for many years; it isn't personal. Instead of posting red herrings and making up lies, maybe you should have a go at answering the 5 questions I posted yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Going round in circles again. If you want to talk facts then fine. The fact is the current rules are set. The minimum required income is £18,600. If you have a non british citizen child then you require more income. (Take into consideration extra cost for application, for flights etc) Under the old rules you could be refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights. The income set is not high, in fact it's the lowest in the whole of Europe. Fact the new rules are not logically thought out. Ie a self employed person should be allowed to use there savings towards meeting the requirement. The savings level is far to high, they require you to have 3/4 times the minimum income. Fact everyone in this topic and previous topics are going round in circles. If you don't meet the requirement get an extra job and do so. It's an English trait, to complain. We complain when's there no sun in England and when there is we complain its too hot. Just get on with it. Could you please show me where under the old rules you could have a visa refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights? The booking or paying for flights where never part of the visa application you just had to show that you could support yourselves without recourse to public funds If I could be bothered digging up my refusal letter. But the funny thing is the flights were booked, but my agent told me not to disclose them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Waterloo Posted July 10, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) The income set is actually the 2nd highest in europe. Its actually higher than all Western countries besides Norway. People resting their limited arguements on just one or two cases. What about the thousands of british they ignore? Beat me to it but just to add as 47% of the working population cannot meet this figure and there is no allowance for regional variation yes this figure is set to high. No one is saying it would be easey to live on less, but blanketly excluding hard working people like nurses & cleaners is not a situation I for one am comfortable with. Edited July 10, 2013 by Waterloo 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin1908 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Going round in circles again. It's an English trait, to complain. It is our democratic right to complain. Get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaprangHolmes Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Going round in circles again. If you want to talk facts then fine. The fact is the current rules are set. The minimum required income is £18,600. If you have a non british citizen child then you require more income. (Take into consideration extra cost for application, for flights etc) Under the old rules you could be refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights. The income set is not high, in fact it's the lowest in the whole of Europe. Fact the new rules are not logically thought out. Ie a self employed person should be allowed to use there savings towards meeting the requirement. The savings level is far to high, they require you to have 3/4 times the minimum income. Fact everyone in this topic and previous topics are going round in circles. If you don't meet the requirement get an extra job and do so. It's an English trait, to complain. We complain when's there no sun in England and when there is we complain its too hot. Just get on with it. Could you please show me where under the old rules you could have a visa refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights? The booking or paying for flights where never part of the visa application you just had to show that you could support yourselves without recourse to public funds If I could be bothered digging up my refusal letter. But the funny thing is the flights were booked, but my agent told me not to disclose them. Not that it really matters but there is nothing in the old rules about flights: 2 recent passport photographs and your passport - see the Photographs and passport page evidence of your age and your partner's age your marriage or civil partnership certificate evidence that you were both free to marry or enter your civil partnership, if either of you was previously married or in a civil partnership evidence that you have met evidence of your English language ability - see the English language page evidence that you can can maintain yourselves and any dependants adequately without needing public funds - see the Maintenance (funds) page evidence of your accomodation http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/partners-families/citizens-settled/spouse-cp/before9july/documents/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobrussell Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Absolutely going round in circles. Nothing wrong with a sensible minimum income requirement (I understand why they chose £18,600) but as has been said there needs to be a degree of fairness. Savings requirements are crazy, self employed people have to jump through immeasurable hoops . There should be other ways to show the minimum income level is achieved (including confirmed job offers for the applicant)and a mechanism to allow individuals to show that they can maintain themselves adequately on less. I am not interested in subsidising returning families through my taxes and like many others am frustrated by suggestions of benefits abuses but this should be dealt with through the benefits system not the immigration one! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter. But no one has answered any of the questions! I wonder why? Surely it cannot be because they don't have any answers? Answers, gentlemen, please. If you don't answer, I'm sure readers of this topic will draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for your silence. Edited July 10, 2013 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Going round in circles again. It's an English trait, to complain. It is our democratic right to complain.Get on with it. I didn't want to separate my family, so the easy but hard option was to get my wife a tourist visa, which enabled me to go home work for 6 months and then apply for a settlement visa this year which has been successful and under the new rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Going round in circles again. If you want to talk facts then fine. The fact is the current rules are set. The minimum required income is £18,600. If you have a non british citizen child then you require more income. (Take into consideration extra cost for application, for flights etc) Under the old rules you could be refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights. The income set is not high, in fact it's the lowest in the whole of Europe. Fact the new rules are not logically thought out. Ie a self employed person should be allowed to use there savings towards meeting the requirement. The savings level is far to high, they require you to have 3/4 times the minimum income. Fact everyone in this topic and previous topics are going round in circles. If you don't meet the requirement get an extra job and do so. It's an English trait, to complain. We complain when's there no sun in England and when there is we complain its too hot. Just get on with it. Could you please show me where under the old rules you could have a visa refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights? The booking or paying for flights where never part of the visa application you just had to show that you could support yourselves without recourse to public fundsIf I could be bothered digging up my refusal letter.But the funny thing is the flights were booked, but my agent told me not to disclose them. Not that it really matters but there is nothing in the old rules about flights: 2 recent passport photographs and your passport - see the Photographs and passport page evidence of your age and your partner's age your marriage or civil partnership certificate evidence that you were both free to marry or enter your civil partnership, if either of you was previously married or in a civil partnership evidence that you have met evidence of your English language ability - see the English language page evidence that you can can maintain yourselves and any dependants adequately without needing public funds - see the Maintenance (funds) page evidence of your accomodation http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/partners-families/citizens-settled/spouse-cp/before9july/documents/ Well if you thought logically, the reason was they didn't believe I could afford, £2,500 for flights for my wife and child, though I don't know how they worked out the figure. I don't need to lie, I am very open on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter.But no one has answered any of the questions! I wonder why? Surely it cannot be because they don't have any answers? Answers, gentlemen, please. If you don't answer, I'm sure readers of this topic will draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for your silence. 7by7 wrote: You want answers Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? "I do not believe this should be acceptable, I agree that you should be allowed to reside in your families home, as expats, may have sold up before leaving the country. But using 3rd party support does not in anyway show that you are able to take care of your family" 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? "I think a job offer should be acceptable if it meets the financial requirements only if you have been in employment and earning within the last 6 months and can show some savings I could write you out a contract now, saying you will start employment xxx and wil be earning xxx." 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? "I had to do it, I took my wife home on a tourist visa worked for the 6 months, and then returned with everything intact. Again written above answers this question." 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? "I don't agree, the minimum savings requirements are wrong, and extremely high. How many people have £64,500 of savings." 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? "His is wrong and illogically thought out." 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter."Again this is illogically thought out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter.But no one has answered any of the questions! I wonder why? Surely it cannot be because they don't have any answers? Answers, gentlemen, please. If you don't answer, I'm sure readers of this topic will draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for your silence. 7by7 wrote: You want answers Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? "I do not believe this should be acceptable, I agree that you should be allowed to reside in your families home, as expats, may have sold up before leaving the country. But using 3rd party support does not in anyway show that you are able to take care of your family" 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? "I think a job offer should be acceptable if it meets the financial requirements only if you have been in employment and earning within the last 6 months and can show some savings I could write you out a contract now, saying you will start employment xxx and wil be earning xxx." 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? "I had to do it, I took my wife home on a tourist visa worked for the 6 months, and then returned with everything intact. Again written above answers this question." 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? "I don't agree, the minimum savings requirements are wrong, and extremely high. How many people have £64,500 of savings." 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? "His is wrong and illogically thought out." 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter."Again this is illogically thought out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 7by7 wrote: You want answers Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:- 1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why? "I do not believe this should be acceptable, I agree that you should be allowed to reside in your families home, as expats, may have sold up before leaving the country. But using 3rd party support does not in anyway show that you are able to take care of your family" 2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why? "I think a job offer should be acceptable if it meets the financial requirements only if you have been in employment and earning within the last 6 months and can show some savings I could write you out a contract now, saying you will start employment xxx and wil be earning xxx." 3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why? "I had to do it, I took my wife home on a tourist visa worked for the 6 months, and then returned with everything intact. Again written above answers this question." 4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why? "I don't agree, the minimum savings requirements are wrong, and extremely high. How many people have £64,500 of savings." 5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why? "His is wrong and illogically thought out." 6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why? Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter."Again this is illogically thought out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Well if you thought logically, the reason (she was refused) was they didn't believe I could afford, £2,500 for flights for my wife and child, though I don't know how they worked out the figure. I don't need to lie, I am very open on this forum Didn't she apply under the old rules and wasn't she refused on maintenance grounds because you followed a dodgy agent's advice and only supplied 7 days bank statements? Or was that a different Mr and Mrs. ZM? I know the requirement is illogically thought out; yet you seem to be supporting it. Care to go into more detail and actually answer the questions? A simple "I don't know" will suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 As I have said in my previous post. The rules are set, the only problem is the savings requirement on top of an income of say £15,000 per annum is ridiculous. Being unable to use savings as someone who is self employed is ridiculous. An increase in income requirement if your child is not a British citizen is ridiculous. It has not been thought out logically only simply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts