Jay Sata Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Kevin, No one is saying you can't bring a spouse here. It's just a case of passing all the relevant hurdles. This thread is about three plaintiffs, two of whom were on long term benefits,including housing, trying to bring a partner to the UK. I'm saying,as are others, that cannot be fair. The judge agreed and the appeal was lost. For every sponsor who fails the financial test there are more than likely three whose wife can't pass the English exams. I'm talking about migrants as a whole and not just Thailand. Perhaps you think the English test are unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin1908 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Kevin, No one is saying you can't bring a spouse here. It's just a case of passing all the relevant hurdles. This thread is about three plaintiffs, two of whom were on long term benefits,including housing, trying to bring a partner to the UK. I'm saying,as are others, that cannot be fair. The judge agreed and the appeal was lost. For every sponsor who fails the financial test there are more than likely three whose wife can't pass the English exams. I'm talking about migrants as a whole and not just Thailand. Perhaps you think the English test are unfair. What on earth has that got to do with I wrote. My comment was specifically agreeing with the 2 points in 7by7's post about earnings from guaranteed work not being accepted for settlement visas. I pointed out that a non EU citizen can come on a work visa if they have a guaranteed job. But for a settlment visa a guaranteed job doesn't count for earnings reason. Another case of non British visa applicanys having more rights than British sponsors of settlement visas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 What exactly do you mean a non EU citizen can come on a work visa if they have a guaranteed job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Never heard of the PBS? PBS applicants do not have to meet these financial requirements; merely show that they can support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. Edit to add link. Edited July 11, 2013 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Kevin, No one is saying you can't bring a spouse here. It's just a case of passing all the relevant hurdles. This thread is about three plaintiffs, two of whom were on long term benefits,including housing, trying to bring a partner to the UK. I'm saying,as are others, that cannot be fair. The judge agreed and the appeal was lost. Wrong; yet again. Read the judgement. For every sponsor who fails the financial test there are more than likely three whose wife can't pass the English exams. The basic A1 speaking and listening requirement is very easy. If the applicant can hold a simple conversation in English with their sponsor then they will be able to pass. Your assumption is based on no evidence whatsoever; as are all your assumptions, and is illogical. The LitUK test and B1 speaking and listening required for ILR are a much higher standard, but the applicant does have 5 years in which to study for and pass these. Personally I see nothing wrong in requiring an applicant to be able to communicate with their sponsor before being granted the initial visa and then being able to communicate effectively in the UK before being granted ILR. Before anyone accuses me of double standards I reiterate what I have been saying ever since the consultation on these financial requirements way back in 2012. I see nothing wrong in requiring immigrant family members to be able to support and accommodate themselves without state aid. I do, however, firmly believe that the financial requirement should be fair and reasonable; this one is neither, for reasons I have posted many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I said the appeal was lost and it was 7by7. I agree the judge made comments regarding the current financial gate but are you trying to defend admitting the spouses even though the applicants lived on benefits and were long term unemployed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Yes, the appeal was lost; but not for the reasons you state; read the judgement. Under the old rules it did not matter if the sponsor was in receipt of public funds; as long as they did not need to claim any extra in order to support and/or accommodate the applicant(s). They could not do so anyway as such public funds were proscribed; they still are. I see nothing wrong in that old rule. Still ignoring my 7 questions, I see. I've answered all of your questions; when will you answer mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterloo Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) I said the appeal was lost and it was 7by7. I agree the judge made comments regarding the current financial gate but are you trying to defend admitting the spouses even though the applicants lived on benefits and were long term unemployed?I don't recall 7by7 commenting on these 3 individuals at all, just stating his consistent position on the rules in generale Edited July 11, 2013 by Waterloo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 He avoids commenting on them apart from suggesting that they possibly paid for all the expensive lawyers themselves. The three parties to the case could no doubt argue they could support a spouse without further access to benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Sata Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) duplicate post removed Edited July 11, 2013 by Jay Sata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Mr. Sata, I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the details of the judgement which is not contained in the judgement itself. Instead making snide comments about what I have and have not said, why wont you answer my 7 questions? Edited July 11, 2013 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterloo Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I thought the point of this thread was the Judges summing up & what it say's about the current rights & wrongs of the rules. whether the 3 individuals mentioned should or should not have got visas is immaterial. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ava15 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 It was. As usual the right wing jump aboard with nothing but negativity to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin1908 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 What exactly do you mean a non EU citizen can come on a work visa if they have a guaranteed job? I mean a non eu citizen, like an Indian Doctor, a Filipino nurse, an American Banker apply for a job that the company couldn't fill and has applied to recruit somebody from outside the EU. They come on a work visa against the guaranteed job. Got it now? I could find the actual figure but from memory I know that it is over 100,000 a year so dwarfing settlement visas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2yearvisitvisa Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Jay and 7by7 http://www.kilala.nl/Images/Blog/Wrong.png http://spicegag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/arguing-on-the-internet.jpg Think about it chaps. Edited July 11, 2013 by 2yearvisitvisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldgit Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Enough is enough, this thread has turned into a cat fight and is serving no purpose. Time to bring it to a close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts