UK Appeal Court dismiss £18,600 legal challenge

[Basil B]

Ten years is a long time and a lot can happen in that time, and at least two general elections.

Obviously the £18,600 rule has not been in force for 2.5 years so we have not seen this tested, but I would say if someone has been here 2.5 years or more and combined incomes do not meet the £18,600 yet they can exist without funds to which they are not entitled then further "Leave to Remain" should be granted, further more if they can demonstrate they can not afford the fees they should be waived.

Edit in: I am solely referring to situations that would split a family, "right to a Family Life"

Edited July 17, 2014 by Basil B

[loppylugs1]

Ten years is a long time and a lot can happen in that time, and at least two general elections.

Obviously the £18,600 rule has not been in force for 2.5 years so we have not seen this tested, but I would say if someone has been here 2.5 years or more and combined incomes do not meet the £18,600 yet they can exist without funds to which they are not entitled then further "Leave to Remain" should be granted, further more if they can demonstrate they can not afford the fees they should be waived.

Edit in: I am solely referring to situations that would split a family, "right to a Family Life"

What? after 2.5 years? So what happens in the next 7.5 years?,and after that? You can have the right to a family life in Thailand also

You see there are Food banks ,selling Big Issues, life living on the fringes,keeping your head down until the need inevitably arises where Public Funds are needed

Will never happen,the £18.600 needs to rise proportionally with cost of living

[Bernard Flint]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

Wow - full of compassion aren't you?

Don't forget to put your jackboots on when you frogmarch them to the airport.

.What has compassion to do with anything?

If you yourself are in the position of attempting to get wife/kids into the UK and there is any doubt that you could not permanently support them ,then you should not consider taking them

What has been happening in reality is that old men are taking much younger thai ladies to uk, and they are working illegaly.Old men have a government pension and a council house

[wolf5370]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

[wolf5370]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

Wow - full of compassion aren't you?

Don't forget to put your jackboots on when you frogmarch them to the airport.

.What has compassion to do with anything?

If you yourself are in the position of attempting to get wife/kids into the UK and there is any doubt that you could not permanently support them ,then you should not consider taking them

What has been happening in reality is that old men are taking much younger thai ladies to uk, and they are working illegaly.Old men have a government pension and a council house

Why working illegally? If they are married and she is on an ILR she can get a NI number and a job, legally.

[loppylugs1]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Returning from where? the UK? chances are none excepting the husband has ever set foot in the UK

All wishful thinking. The stable door is well a truly shut and bolted, and I would say heavily nailed into position as well

Griping about something that in substance will get everlastingly more difficult to overcome,and I think impossible to overcome in the foreseeable future may give a bit of temporary lift,but that is all it is temporary

[samran]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

since when has that ever been the case? As a former migrant to the UK (highly skilled migrant visa) my FLR (good for 1+3 years) was very clearly stamped 'no recourse to public funds'.

Seems you've drunken the anti-migrant kool-aid. I got to pay tax, was eligible for nothing public funds wise.

I must admit I have a bit of schadenfreude when I read threads like this. Many of the 'victims' are people who espouse the view which is essentially "no brown people to the UK" but add the caveat ("except my brown bird").

Democracy in action I guess. You vote for it, don't be suprised if you actually get it.

Edited July 17, 2014 by samran

[wolf5370]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Returning from where? the UK? chances are none excepting the husband has ever set foot in the UK

All wishful thinking. The stable door is well a truly shut and bolted, and I would say heavily nailed into position as well

Griping about something that in substance will get everlastingly more difficult to overcome,and I think impossible to overcome in the foreseeable future may give a bit of temporary lift,but that is all it is temporary

No, returning from somewhere else, to the UK (otherwise it would be off topic, no?). As with your scenario, a British man married to a foreigner living abroad and with kids by that marriage, should be able to return to the UK without being forced to split. This does not man they should have recourse to public funds directly, but it may not be possible in such a situation to show the income or a lump sum - in which case they should look at accepting such as job offers and family sponsorship. A citizen has the right to return to their country; a nation is not land, it is the people. It is immoral to spilt up a family. These are two truisms that combines should provide room for special consideration.

I'm not griping - I am discussing. It does not affect me, my wife and kids have dual nationality - we had a much harder course to run, though the Primary Purpose days - some 17 years ago now, which we luckily navigated fairly easy (many didn't).

The argument is that the decision is based on gross income/savings and not disposable income, I am suggesting at most they will probably get an extension (and extra hurdle if you will) based on disposable income of that gross - get it? Nothing in UK policy is nailed down - they can and so rework policy on public reaction and where there is issue - they did with Poll Tax, with Syria involvement (took it to Parliament, first time ever), and many, many other occasions. That is a working democracy.

[wolf5370]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

since when has that ever been the case? As a former migrant to the UK (highly skilled migrant visa) my FLR (good for 1+3 years) was very clearly stamped 'no recourse to public funds'.

Seems you've drunken the anti-migrant kool-aid. I got to pay tax, was eligible for nothing public funds wise.

I must admit I have a bit of schadenfreude when I read threads like this. Many of the 'victims' are people who espouse the view which is essentially "no brown people to the UK" but add the caveat ("except my brown bird").

Democracy in action I guess. You vote for it, don't be suprised if you actually get it.

I think you would have still been covered by public services though. NHS, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, post man, street cleaners, traffic cone hotline, etc.

Not all "public funds" come by way of cash.

[samran]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

since when has that ever been the case? As a former migrant to the UK (highly skilled migrant visa) my FLR (good for 1+3 years) was very clearly stamped 'no recourse to public funds'.

Seems you've drunken the anti-migrant kool-aid. I got to pay tax, was eligible for nothing public funds wise.

I must admit I have a bit of schadenfreude when I read threads like this. Many of the 'victims' are people who espouse the view which is essentially "no brown people to the UK" but add the caveat ("except my brown bird").

Democracy in action I guess. You vote for it, don't be suprised if you actually get it.

I think you would have still been covered by public services though. NHS, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, post man, street cleaners, traffic cone hotline, etc.

Not all "public funds" come by way of cash.

Indeed, NHS I would have gotten anyway due to the reciprocal agreement between Australia and the UK regardless of my visa status.

The rest of it, I paid council tax and I guess what was the fireman supposed to do if my house was on fire? Check my visa before he turns on the hose?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Basil B]

I think you would have still been covered by public services though. NHS, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, post man, street cleaners, traffic cone hotline, etc.

Not all "public funds" come by way of cash.

Most of those services will be covered by council tax payments which virtually every household in the UK pays directly or indirectly.

The NHS is not but would you deny NHS treatment to anyone who did not have a job???

[samran]

I think you would have still been covered by public services though. NHS, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, post man, street cleaners, traffic cone hotline, etc.

Not all "public funds" come by way of cash.

Most of those services will be covered by council tax payments which virtually every household in the UK pays directly or indirectly.

The NHS is not but would you deny NHS treatment to anyone who did not have a job???

clearly some of the generous souls on this thread would love to.

[loppylugs1]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Returning from where? the UK? chances are none excepting the husband has ever set foot in the UK

All wishful thinking. The stable door is well a truly shut and bolted, and I would say heavily nailed into position as well

Griping about something that in substance will get everlastingly more difficult to overcome,and I think impossible to overcome in the foreseeable future may give a bit of temporary lift,but that is all it is temporary

No, returning from somewhere else, to the UK (otherwise it would be off topic, no?). As with your scenario, a British man married to a foreigner living abroad and with kids by that marriage, should be able to return to the UK without being forced to split. This does not man they should have recourse to public funds directly, but it may not be possible in such a situation to show the income or a lump sum - in which case they should look at accepting such as job offers and family sponsorship. A citizen has the right to return to their country; a nation is not land, it is the people. It is immoral to spilt up a family. These are two truisms that combines should provide room for special consideration.

I'm not griping - I am discussing. It does not affect me, my wife and kids have dual nationality - we had a much harder course to run, though the Primary Purpose days - some 17 years ago now, which we luckily navigated fairly easy (many didn't).

The argument is that the decision is based on gross income/savings and not disposable income, I am suggesting at most they will probably get an extension (and extra hurdle if you will) based on disposable income of that gross - get it? Nothing in UK policy is nailed down - they can and so rework policy on public reaction and where there is issue - they did with Poll Tax, with Syria involvement (took it to Parliament, first time ever), and many, many other occasions. That is a working democracy.

Rubbish. Choice,...now the Brit guy chose,his own choice to marry and have kids in whatever country other than the UK. It is not immoral to split up a family because the Brit guy now gets fed up in whatever country he chose in the first place,if he has baggage ,his problem,he stays where he is

Look not my problem or decision,this is the UK parliaments and more importantly the vast majority of the UK populations decision

Face it,majority want to get back to the UK with their baggage because life is easier,in time they probably will be on all sorts of freebies (poll tax ,syria have nothing to do with anything with this problem). Universally the UK population do not want extra migrants,it is a vote loser for any political party that would allow it

It will never happen

[durhamboy]

I was really quite surprised that the moderators in this forum did not delete your first post and my reply to it. I could get into a long argument with you about how morally and factually wrong your comments are. However, frankly you are not worth it. The sort of views that you express were those of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. In my opinion you and your sentiments have no place in this forum.

You can be damned sure this one is looking for a way in regardless of what restrictions are applied

The old chestnut "nazis" " morally""factually" what the hell has that to do with anything? Simply if you or your family cannot pay your way in the UK you should and will be denied entry, and am all in favour,not only personally, but the the UK gov. and the overwhelming majority of the UK tax payers say so.

1 example English guy falls in love with Thai woman (who by the way has 3 kids,not his) after a spell the Thai woman believes ghosts are after her,into the looney bin for a year or so,meanwhile the 3 kids are not only struggling with everything and anything the English guy obviously draws on "public funding" to help alleviate his problems. To my mind the lot of 'em should be bundled on the next Thai airways jet that happens to be warming up at Heathrow Could go on Thai women lining up at county courts to take English husband for all they are worth with a few months of landing in the UK

If as you say 7 by 7 no public funding is now available that would be a magnificent achievement by UK govt. to control immigration

And how many British people with British wives and children can't and/or won't pay their way and live off benefits? What do you think the government should do about them? Shoot them?

IMO you are just blaming immigrants for the woes of the UK. Amazing that with all your delusional rantings you want to bring your Thai GF to the UK! Oh yes, but not before having a pre-nuptial agreement first!

[7by7]

,snip>

If as you say 7 by 7 no public funding is now available that would be a magnificent achievement by UK govt. to control immigration

Not only is 'no public funding now available', it never has been!

[theoldgit]

I've asked before, please keep this thread civil.

One flame removed, any more and there will be posting suspension.

[7by7]

<snip>

What has been happening in reality is that old men are taking much younger thai ladies to uk, and they are working illegaly.Old men have a government pension and a council house

Stereotyping? Or based upon your own situation?

We know about a dozen British/Thai couples well, and a lot more casually. Our age difference is the largest we know of; 7 years.

But even if the age difference is large; who are we to judge? One of the most stable and loving marriages I have ever come across was between a man in his 60s and a girl in her 20s; both were British, BTW.

If the Thai spouse is in the UK with a settlement visa, FLR or ILR, they can legally work. Why would you want to stop them from so doing?

British sponsors are able to claim any and all public funds to which they are entitled; including the state pension and a council house.

But, as said previously, they cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant spouse or family member(s) living with them.

This includes social housing.

If the sponsor is already living in a council house or flat then their immigrant spouse moving in with them wont effect the public purse in any way. Hang on, that's not quite right; they'd lose the single occupancy discount on their council tax, so would actually pay more council tax more than before!

However, if they requires a bigger house or flat, due to immigrant children for example, they wont get it..

[WhamBam]

I did read this ruling and the newspaper reports at the time.

I feel this ruling is unfair for any genuine marriage. As ever, with this government, I feel it is all about money.

A ruling could have been made whereby some temporary visa for the wife would be allowed and said visa revoked if the marriage broke down within a set period - say 5 years.

Yes, a genuine marriage can fail before 5 years, but it would at least give people a chance to make a go of it in their own country. As it now stands you need to have income / savings set at such a high level and I feel that is wrong.

[theoldgit]

A post in breach of Forum Rules removed.

11) Do not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[7by7]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Any amendment is unlikely, unless the government is forced to do so by the courts.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

The APPGM report linked to earlier includes a case of a nurse whose income is below the limit and so cannot obtain a settlement visa for her husband.

If she was doing the same job on the same pay grade in London then her London allowance would put her income above the minimum and she would meet the requirement. Even though the cost of housing in London would use up more than her London allowance and effectively she would be earning less!

How can anyone claim that makes sense?

[Bernard Flint]

<snip>

What has been happening in reality is that old men are taking much younger thai ladies to uk, and they are working illegaly.Old men have a government pension and a council house

Stereotyping? Or based upon your own situation?

We know about a dozen British/Thai couples well, and a lot more casually. Our age difference is the largest we know of; 7 years.

But even if the age difference is large; who are we to judge? One of the most stable and loving marriages I have ever come across was between a man in his 60s and a girl in her 20s; both were British, BTW.

If the Thai spouse is in the UK with a settlement visa, FLR or ILR, they can legally work. Why would you want to stop them from so doing?

British sponsors are able to claim any and all public funds to which they are entitled; including the state pension and a council house.

But, as said previously, they cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant spouse or family member(s) living with them.

This includes social housing.

If the sponsor is already living in a council house or flat then their immigrant spouse moving in with them wont effect the public purse in any way. Hang on, that's not quite right; they'd lose the single occupancy discount on their council tax, so would actually pay more council tax more than before!

However, if they requires a bigger house or flat, due to immigrant children for example, they wont get it..

Not my experience whatsoever, but i do go back to uk periodicaly and see this regular.Even know some who are dole scroungers and sell drugs etc etc,but the new law will stop this. i Also know at least 6 thais who are living in the uk illegaly. I WOULD NEVER GO BACK TO THE UK AGAIN, I AM HAPPY IN tHAILAND AND MY PARTNER OF 10 YEARS WOULDNT GO TO THE UK TO LIVE

[Bernard Flint]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Any amendment is unlikely, unless the government is forced to do so by the courts.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

The APPGM report linked to earlier includes a case of a nurse whose income is below the limit and so cannot obtain a settlement visa for her husband.

If she was doing the same job on the same pay grade in London then her London allowance would put her income above the minimum and she would meet the requirement. Even though the cost of housing in London would use up more than her London allowance and effectively she would be earning less!

How can anyone claim that makes sense?

In theory i agree but i have to show nearly 15,000gbp/ 800,000 baht to live here, is that fair too?????

[7by7]

<snip>

A ruling could have been made whereby some temporary visa for the wife would be allowed and said visa revoked if the marriage broke down within a set period - say 5 years.

Which is exactly why the qualifying period for ILR was increased from 2 years to 5.

If the marriage/relationship breaks down before the immigrant spouse/partner has ILR then they wont get ILR and will have to leave the UK.

There are some exceptions; the most common being if the marriage breaks down due to domestic violence (which has to be proven, e.g. police and medical reports) or if the British spouse/partner has died.

Speaking personally, I have no problem with this.

A genuine couple wont find it that arduous, but it may very well discourage sham marriages.

[7by7]

i do go back to uk periodicaly and see this (old husband, young wife) regular.

As I said before; if both parties are happy, what business is it of ours?

Even know some who are dole scroungers and sell drugs etc etc,but the new law will stop this. i Also know at least 6 thais who are living in the uk illegaly.

I fail to see how this, not so new, law will stop dole scroungers, drug dealers and people living in the UK illegally; who by definition aren't complying with any immigration law!

As you know of people so doing, why not do your civic duty and report them to the relevant authorities?.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

In theory i agree but i have to show nearly 15,000gbp/ 800,000 baht to live here, is that fair too?????

As I said much earlier in this topic; two wrongs don't make a right!

Remember that this financial requirement applies to all non EEA nationalities, not just Thais.

NB, quotes have been trimmed for clarity and to comply with forum software.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Any amendment is unlikely, unless the government is forced to do so by the courts.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

The APPGM report linked to earlier includes a case of a nurse whose income is below the limit and so cannot obtain a settlement visa for her husband.

If she was doing the same job on the same pay grade in London then her London allowance would put her income above the minimum and she would meet the requirement. Even though the cost of housing in London would use up more than her London allowance and effectively she would be earning less!

How can anyone claim that makes sense?

In theory i agree but i have to show nearly 15,000gbp/ 800,000 baht to live here, is that fair too?????

if you were married, it would only be 400k, so yes, that is fair.

[wolf5370]

<snip>

A ruling could have been made whereby some temporary visa for the wife would be allowed and said visa revoked if the marriage broke down within a set period - say 5 years.

Which is exactly why the qualifying period for ILR was increased from 2 years to 5.

If the marriage/relationship breaks down before the immigrant spouse/partner has ILR then they wont get ILR and will have to leave the UK.

There are some exceptions; the most common being if the marriage breaks down due to domestic violence (which has to be proven, e.g. police and medical reports) or if the British spouse/partner has died.

Speaking personally, I have no problem with this.

A genuine couple wont find it that arduous, but it may very well discourage sham marriages.

7by7, if ILR was pushed to 5 years, was Citizenship also pushed for married couples? I remember it was possible to apply for citizenship after just 3.5 years if married (I'm pretty sure my wife did - but that was more than a dozen years ago now I think). I think she was one of the first lot to get ILR (after 2 years - so about 15 years ago) before that I think it was a different system - could be wrong, long time ago.

[wolf5370]

<snip>

What has been happening in reality is that old men are taking much younger thai ladies to uk, and they are working illegaly.Old men have a government pension and a council house

Stereotyping? Or based upon your own situation?

We know about a dozen British/Thai couples well, and a lot more casually. Our age difference is the largest we know of; 7 years.

But even if the age difference is large; who are we to judge? One of the most stable and loving marriages I have ever come across was between a man in his 60s and a girl in her 20s; both were British, BTW.

If the Thai spouse is in the UK with a settlement visa, FLR or ILR, they can legally work. Why would you want to stop them from so doing?

British sponsors are able to claim any and all public funds to which they are entitled; including the state pension and a council house.

But, as said previously, they cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant spouse or family member(s) living with them.

This includes social housing.

If the sponsor is already living in a council house or flat then their immigrant spouse moving in with them wont effect the public purse in any way. Hang on, that's not quite right; they'd lose the single occupancy discount on their council tax, so would actually pay more council tax more than before!

However, if they requires a bigger house or flat, due to immigrant children for example, they wont get it..

I agree. Here in Thailand I see larger gaps (although mostly not married) - in the UK many of our friends are Anglo-Thai couples and most have a small age gap. The largest is a guy who is in his 80s married to a woman in her late 40s. Most of the younger couples are like you, and my, age gap - less than 10 years (my wife and I are 7 years apart also - now married 17 years, we met when we were both in our 20s through family) - I have one male friend in his 20s that has a long term Thai partner (they have a son of 2) who is about ten years older than him (he is German though, not English).

[wolf5370]

I think you would have still been covered by public services though. NHS, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, post man, street cleaners, traffic cone hotline, etc.

Not all "public funds" come by way of cash.

Most of those services will be covered by council tax payments which virtually every household in the UK pays directly or indirectly.

The NHS is not but would you deny NHS treatment to anyone who did not have a job???

Council tax only pays towards these services, not for them. If you do not pay council tax for whatever reason, you will still get a copper at your door in you call, and the fire brigade will still put your house-fire out etc. They are still subsidised from the public purse - and there are many other national items (like motorways, parks and woodlands, and far too many to mention that people do not even realise the state pays for). Anyway, point I was making is that taxes are not just to pay for benefits. NHS is free, most other countries do not give you treatment for free, working citizen or not. Taxes go to pay for the NHS and covers all treatment as necessary within its remit free of charge.

I would not deny NHS service btw - I simply state that it has to be paid for and that is one destination of taxes - I gave no moral stance on whether it should or not.

[7by7]

7by7, if ILR was pushed to 5 years, was Citizenship also pushed for married couples? I remember it was possible to apply for citizenship after just 3.5 years if married (I'm pretty sure my wife did - but that was more than a dozen years ago now I think). I think she was one of the first lot to get ILR (after 2 years - so about 15 years ago) before that I think it was a different system - could be wrong, long time ago.

The residential qualifying period for citizenship if the spouse of civil partner of a British citizen is still three years.

However, one of the other requirements is that the applicant has no time limit on their stay in the UK; i.e. holds ILR or the equivalent; which it now takes at least 5 years to obtain.

BTW, anyone who applied for their initial settlement visa prior to 9/7/12 comes under the old rules and so can apply for ILR after 2 years.

[Richard W]

You can have the right to a family life in Thailand also

In general, no. There is no provision allowing the spouse of a Thai citizen to take employment in Thailand.