UK Conservative election win - are more visa changes likely?

[durhamboy]

The devil will be in the detail.

Deport first appeal later for all cases except asylum is of particular concern with regard to foreign spouses and partners.

Seizing the wages of illegal workers is a headline grabber but I think means very little in practice. I think the vast majority of illegal workers send their money back home when they get it through numerous "corner shop" money transfer offices.

[Waterloo]

The devil will be in the detail.

Deport first appeal later for all cases except asylum is of particular concern with regard to foreign spouses and partners.

Seizing the wages of illegal workers is a headline grabber but I think means very little in practice. I think the vast majority of illegal workers send their money back home when they get it through numerous "corner shop" money transfer offices.

I would go one further and say that seizing of wages is a complete nonsense and they know it, Theresa May virtually admitted as much yesterday.

As you say in the majority of cases there will be no money to seize and just look at how successful they have been in seizing money from the mister big's.

[7by7]

I can't see much in either of those links which would overly effect members here; who are primarily concerned with family migration.

For example:-

1. Unless I missed it, the principle of 'deport first, appeal later' would only apply to foreign criminals. So hopefully no member here or their Thai spouse/partner/other family member is going to be effected. The worry, of course, would be if once such a principle is established that it could easily be extended to include family migrants refused LTR for some reason.
2. Cracking down on illegal workers and those who employ them is also something which, I hope, would not effect any members here.

My main worry is talk of being tougher on 'sham' marriages. This sounds to me like re introducing the primary purpose rule, or something very much like it. Such a measure will only make it harder for genuine couples to satisfy an ECO that they are indeed a genuine couple.

[durhamboy]

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

I think that is pretty clear that it includes foreign spouses. So if they introduce B1 for FLR we might well see instant deportations for relatively minor immigration problems. I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Waterloo]

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

I think that is pretty clear that it includes foreign spouses. So if they introduce B1 for FLR we might well see instant deportations for relatively minor immigration problems. I hope it doesn't come to that.

That was the impression I got on the way it was being reported yesterday, a shocking development if it comes to that!

[Donutz]

That would ne absolutely shocking, with pretty much zero effect on the migration numbers but a very deep inpact on the individuals involved. I don't now if such a bill could pass the house but certainly the ECJ in Luxembourg would overrule Britain, though some damage would already have been done by then (somebody would need to get deported, go to court, appeal all the way up to the ECJ... could take years).

[Richard W]

We’ll also crack down on the unscrupulous landlords who cram houses full of illegal migrants, by introducing a new mandatory licensing regime. And, a bit like ending jobs when visas expire, we’ll consult on cancelling tenancies automatically at the same point.

This had better be handled carefully. What happens if Briton and foreign spouse are joint tenants?

Also, checking immigration status when visas need renewing is the worst time to do it, for the Home Office are not good at knowing the status of an application for extension.

The problem we face isn't the clamping down on those illegally present; it's the clamping down on those legally present but not in possession of the right paperwork.

It’s not just through housing and jobs; we can track down illegal migrants through the banking system too.

We’ve already made sure banks can’t let illegal immigrants open new accounts. With our new Bill, we will ensure banks take action against existing accounts held by illegal immigrants. Of course, once we’ve found the illegal immigrants, we need to be tougher in removing them.

I hope this doesn't entail closing the accounts of those who need them to receive their pensions.

[fbf]

My main worry is talk of being tougher on 'sham' marriages. This sounds to me like re introducing the primary purpose rule, or something very much like it. Such a measure will only make it harder for genuine couples to satisfy an ECO that they are indeed a genuine couple.

Yes, that's a big worry for me too. I just hope the legislation doesn't come through this year!

The part about making employing illegal foreign workers a crime worries me too. I think many employers might not want to run the risk of hiring foreign nationals, even with the correct paperwork, in case they miss something and find themselves on the wrong side of criminal law.

Edited May 22, 2015 by fbf

[Richard W]

The part about making employing illegal foreign workers a crime worries me too. I think many employers might not want to run the risk of hiring foreign nationals, even with the correct paperwork, in case they miss something and find themselves on the wrong side of criminal law.

Knowingly employing an illegal worker is already a crime. The proposal is to make working illegally a crime. Unwittingly employing an illegal worker makes one liable for a £20,000 civil penalty unless evidence of the worker's right to work has already been checked. Only certain documents are permitted for this check, so many legal workers cannot take a new job unless they first submit to the regime of biometric residence permits.

[johnch1213]

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

I think that is pretty clear that it includes foreign spouses. So if they introduce B1 for FLR we might well see instant deportations for relatively minor immigration problems. I hope it doesn't come to that.

If this does indeed become law and it does become a requirement to have B1 for FLR then of course if a person fails to reach that standard then they should be deported.

[7by7]

<snip>Unless I missed it........

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

How the hell did I miss that?!

I'm not so much worried about a possible B1 requirement for FLR. Surely if someone has already passed A1 for their initial visa and then spent over 2 years living in the UK and, presumably, speaking English everyday then B1 in speaking and listening for FLR should be easy to achieve. Even if they haven't attended any English classes.

My main concern over this issue of 'deport first, appeal later' is the family who met the financial requirement for the initial visa but, though no fault of their own such as sickness or redundancy, cannot meet it for FLR or ILR; even though they are supporting themselves without the use of proscribed public funds.

[durhamboy]

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

I think that is pretty clear that it includes foreign spouses. So if they introduce B1 for FLR we might well see instant deportations for relatively minor immigration problems. I hope it doesn't come to that.

If this does indeed become law and it does become a requirement to have B1 for FLR then of course if a person fails to reach that standard then they should be deported.

Why????????????????

[durhamboy]

<snip>Unless I missed it........

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

How the hell did I miss that?!

I'm not so much worried about a possible B1 requirement for FLR. Surely if someone has already passed A1 for their initial visa and then spent over 2 years living in the UK and, presumably, speaking English everyday then B1 in speaking and listening for FLR should be easy to achieve. Even if they haven't attended any English classes.

My main concern over this issue of 'deport first, appeal later' is the family who met the financial requirement for the initial visa but, though no fault of their own such as sickness or redundancy, cannot meet it for FLR or ILR; even though they are supporting themselves without the use of proscribed public funds.

Yes most people will pass B1 after having been here for 2 years but not all. We saw in this forum just recently where someone mistakenly thought they had to renew their A1 pass for FLR and failed twice. So if someone can't pass A1 then there will surely be a minority who can't pass B1.

However, your point about failing to meet the financial requirement is very pertinent and there could well be more cases in that category.

What I find absolutely disgusting (and I'm sure you do too) is that their are members in the forum who think it is ok for HMG to deport these unfortunate people. Shame on them.

[johnch1213]

<snip>Unless I missed it........

7by7 - If you read Jay's second link Cameron says

"We’ve already introduced a “deport first; appeal later” rule for foreign criminals claiming a so-called right to family life. It means if you’ve committed a crime and you’re not meant to be here, you have to go home before you can appeal. Next we will extend that to all immigration appeals, except asylum cases."

How the hell did I miss that?!

I'm not so much worried about a possible B1 requirement for FLR. Surely if someone has already passed A1 for their initial visa and then spent over 2 years living in the UK and, presumably, speaking English everyday then B1 in speaking and listening for FLR should be easy to achieve. Even if they haven't attended any English classes.

My main concern over this issue of 'deport first, appeal later' is the family who met the financial requirement for the initial visa but, though no fault of their own such as sickness or redundancy, cannot meet it for FLR or ILR; even though they are supporting themselves without the use of proscribed public funds.

Yes most people will pass B1 after having been here for 2 years but not all. We saw in this forum just recently where someone mistakenly thought they had to renew their A1 pass for FLR and failed twice. So if someone can't pass A1 then there will surely be a minority who can't pass B1.

However, your point about failing to meet the financial requirement is very pertinent and there could well be more cases in that category.

What I find absolutely disgusting (and I'm sure you do too) is that their are members in the forum who think it is ok for HMG to deport these unfortunate people. Shame on them.

If they are the rules at that time then that is what a person would have to do why complain about something that has become law? The person would have plenty of time to study, to be able to pass the B1 test, after all it is not very hard. The same with the financial requirements if you do now not meet them then really that is your problem as harsh as that may sound. Are Thai immigration going to say when you extend your visa don't worry about not have the money in the back i'll just give you the extension so you don't get upset.

[wooloomooloo]

If they are the rules at that time then that is what a person would have to do why complain about something that has become law? The person would have plenty of time to study, to be able to pass the B1 test, after all it is not very hard. The same with the financial requirements if you do now not meet them then really that is your problem as harsh as that may sound. Are Thai immigration going to say when you extend your visa don't worry about not have the money in the back i'll just give you the extension so you don't get upset.

Can't argue with that. Rules are rules and everyone starts on a level playing field.

[keithsimmonds]

If they are the rules at that time then that is what a person would have to do why complain about something that has become law? The person would have plenty of time to study, to be able to pass the B1 test, after all it is not very hard. The same with the financial requirements if you do now not meet them then really that is your problem as harsh as that may sound. Are Thai immigration going to say when you extend your visa don't worry about not have the money in the back i'll just give you the extension so you don't get upset.

Can't argue with that. Rules are rules and everyone starts on a level playing field.

How is it a level playing field ???

[dageurreotype]

<snip>

As I have said many times before just look at what rights farangs have in Thailand. Zilch!

What a ridiculous argument.

"Just look at what rights people in North Korea have. Zilch!"

Hardly apples for apples, is it. How many 'farang' are denied basic rights, to access to citizenship/landownership in Korea? I would guess none as no one wants to/could live there. Bit of reciprocity well overdue.

There was a thread on a while back started by a poster asking whether or not he should step in to assist the Thai wife of an allegedly abusive English husband. She'd been resident in the UK for three years. Suggestions were being made as to her being eligible for free legal advice, alternative public housing. Doubt by some posters was cast on her version of events and rightly so. There are many who'd marry for the chance of citizenship in a welfare state. Should the British taxpayer be obliged to support them as well as every man and his dog from former British colonies?

[durhamboy]

"If they are the rules at that time then that is what a person would have to do why complain about something that has become law? The person would have plenty of time to study, to be able to pass the B1 test, after all it is not very hard. The same with the financial requirements if you do now not meet them then really that is your problem as harsh as that may sound. Are Thai immigration going to say when you extend your visa don't worry about not have the money in the back i'll just give you the extension so you don't get upset."

johnch1213 - forgive me for not taking you seriously but you sit there on your high horse pontificating about how passing B1 is not very hard but you yourself cannot use the most basic word in the English language - see your post #57 in this topic where you seem to think the correct use of the word "no" is "know". Lucky your British and don't have to do an English test isn't it?

Just because something is the law does not make it correct or morally right or did you agree with the apartheid laws in South Africa and the segregation laws in the US?

People did not vote for the Tories because of something about foreign spouses buried in their manifesto.

Never mind about what the Thai government would or wouldn't do. This topic is about the UK government.

And what would you do about the foreign spouse who has a British child or children. Would you be happy to see the break-up of families because they may not quite meet an arbitrary financial requirement even though they never claimed benefits?

The UK spent many years in its colonial past moving millions of people around the world to use as labour in other countries e.g. Indians and Chinese to Malaya. That nearly obliterated the Malay culture and made Malay a minority language in its own country. The UK didn't give a damn about that then because it suited them to use the labour to exploit natural resources. Now, because the foreigners are spoiling immigration figures we turn round and say you must speak English or be deported!

As for you Wooly - you should be ashamed of yourself for agreeing with this moron.

[wooloomooloo]

As for you Wooly - you should be ashamed of yourself for agreeing with this moron.

Nothing to be ashamed of.

Johnch has a point. We can lament the immigration rules until the cows come home, but, they are what they are.

I don't necessarily agree with the financial requirements in their present form but we've all had to conform with the rules, as there's no other choice. Though, I am in full agreement with the language requirements.

They really aren't that hard if the applicant puts in the effort to study.

[johnch1213]

"If they are the rules at that time then that is what a person would have to do why complain about something that has become law? The person would have plenty of time to study, to be able to pass the B1 test, after all it is not very hard. The same with the financial requirements if you do now not meet them then really that is your problem as harsh as that may sound. Are Thai immigration going to say when you extend your visa don't worry about not have the money in the back i'll just give you the extension so you don't get upset."

johnch1213 - forgive me for not taking you seriously but you sit there on your high horse pontificating about how passing B1 is not very hard but you yourself cannot use the most basic word in the English language - see your post #57 in this topic where you seem to think the correct use of the word "no" is "know". Lucky your British and don't have to do an English test isn't it?

Just because something is the law does not make it correct or morally right or did you agree with the apartheid laws in South Africa and the segregation laws in the US?

People did not vote for the Tories because of something about foreign spouses buried in their manifesto.

Never mind about what the Thai government would or wouldn't do. This topic is about the UK government.

And what would you do about the foreign spouse who has a British child or children. Would you be happy to see the break-up of families because they may not quite meet an arbitrary financial requirement even though they never claimed benefits?

The UK spent many years in its colonial past moving millions of people around the world to use as labour in other countries e.g. Indians and Chinese to Malaya. That nearly obliterated the Malay culture and made Malay a minority language in its own country. The UK didn't give a damn about that then because it suited them to use the labour to exploit natural resources. Now, because the foreigners are spoiling immigration figures we turn round and say you must speak English or be deported!

As for you Wooly - you should be ashamed of yourself for agreeing with this moron.

Never mind what the South Africans or the US has done we are talking about the UK, B1 is not very hard to achieve My wife passed the test within 9 months of being in the UK, She passed the life in the UK getting 23 questions correct now if she can do anyone can and if at the end of the day the person is not able to achieve the required level then they should leave the UK.

If you or anyone else did not read the manifesto correctly then that is there problem.

If you do not like the rules and laws or a Thai person does not like the rules and laws then it is very simple do not stay here.

Edited May 24, 2015 by johnch1213

[wooloomooloo]

johnch1213 - forgive me for not taking you seriously but you sit there on your high horse pontificating about how passing B1 is not very hard but you yourself cannot use the most basic word in the English language - see your post #57 in this topic where you seem to think the correct use of the word "no" is "know". Lucky your British and don't have to do an English test isn't it?

Most of us have forgiven johnch's indiscretion already. Let's move on.

People did not vote for the Tories because of something about foreign spouses buried in their manifesto.

Ignorance of the law is no defence. Notwithstanding, nothing has happened as yet.

Never mind about what the Thai government would or wouldn't do. This topic is about the UK government.

Hang on, you did pose the question "... or did you agree with the apartheid laws in South Africa and the segregation laws in the US?". What has apartheid got to do with it, anyway?

The UK spent many years in its colonial past moving millions of people around the world to use as labour in other countries e.g. Indians and Chinese to Malaya. That nearly obliterated the Malay culture and made Malay a minority language in its own country. The UK didn't give a damn about that then because it suited them to use the labour to exploit natural resources. Now, because the foreigners are spoiling immigration figures we turn round and say you must speak English or be deported!

You were insistent that this is about the UK government, so what have they got to do with the colonial years?

The applicant could appeal or reapply. It's not a total dead end.

You and they are also at liberty to lobby your MP. Let us know once you've attended your MP's surgery and vented some spleen. Would be great for your feedback.

[Richard W]

The applicant could appeal or reapply. It's not a total dead end.

Given the time frames, it would typically be from Thailand.

[durhamboy]

johnch1213 and wooly - I think you two are so extreme in your thinking that you are not worth responding to.

[Jay Sata]

Lots of worrry about nothing.

It is highly unlikely a Thai spouse will be affected by the changes.

The legislation is designed to kill the legal gravy train exploited by visa overstayers,illegal migrants and convicted criminals.

As for those having problems with the language test this will most likely affect those who live in a closed community where only their native tongue is spoken.

[durhamboy]

Jay, to a certain extent I agree with you but unfortunately legitimate spouses/partners may be caught up in all this. Not many I agree but a few and, in my opinion, that is not right. I think it's the Queen's Speech tomorrow maybe we will see a little more meat on the bones.

[johnch1213]

Integration is the KEY and you will only achieve this by having a fairly high requirement of English not the low level it is now. B1 speaking and listening should really be very easy to attain. The required level should be much higher, and with any luck this government will recognise that and increase the required level. If someone is unable to achieve this then they should have to leave this country. Simple as that really.

[keithsimmonds]

Integration is the KEY and you will only achieve this by having a fairly high requirement of English not the low level it is now. B1 speaking and listening should really be very easy to attain. The required level should be much higher, and with any luck this government will recognise that and increase the required level. If someone is unable to achieve this then they should have to leave this country. Simple as that really.

Nice post mate very caring and thoughtful...............A fully paid -up member of Margeret Thatchers IM All Right Jack Party.

[theoldgit]

I'm also inclined to agree with Jay on this, most of this is hypothetical at the moment but as duramboy rightly says there may be more information, or at least an indication of what HMG are actually thinking in the Queens Speech.

I'm also inclined to agree the real danger is that spouses of Brits from around the world will be caught up with any legislation that would hit the easy targets whilst not actually addressing the issue, but I suppose we will have to wait and see.

[MAJIC]

MOST CERTAINLY, Guaranteed!

[johnch1213]

At the end of the day the law is the law, if you don't like then move to another country. If it is decided to deport someone because they failed the Speaking requirement then so be it. Everyone knows the requirements before coming here so why complain about the requirements saying it is too hard or by saying the life in the UK test is too hard my partner can not do. If it really is too hard for your partner then the best course of action would be not to come to the UK