Interesting story in todays UK Guardian regarding a protest in London to highlight the issues over the £18600 threshold.

The newspaper claims immigration laws leave an estimated 33,000 people unable to remain with spouses in Britain as they do not earn enough to satisfy visa requirement

Many in Thursdays protest who had successfully managed to settle in the UK said they had used a legal technicality known as the Surinder Singh route after the landmark case.

It paved the way for Britons to work abroad in another European Economic Area country before bringing a non-European spouse to the UK, so EEA law on spouses, which is more generous, can take precedent.

More here http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/couples-protest-18600-minimum-income-rule-foreign-spouse-uk

i am not sure wether brits.are right or wrong to protest.

look at it this way,the average wage in britain is 26,000 gbp.per yr.yet they must show they earn 18,500 =355gbp.per week.seems fair.below the average.

why i say seems fair,lets look at our [thai] rules on our living here.

average wage for thai's is 156,000bht,per yr.yet we have to show to stay here yearly either 400,000 or 800,000 well above their average wage.

as for rules a spouse married to a british citizen with an ilr.can work,buy land,own houses,open any bank acc,pay into pension scheme's and dont have to report to immigration as if they are on probation.so they are entitled to quite a lot.

as for us living here we dont have any right's yet have to show at least double or 5times the average wage.

MY gf is lying to me 156,000 but says she only earns 84k as average wage c'mon many bargirls 3 to 4k per month i think another liar is balancing da books.

i am not sure wether brits.are right or wrong to protest.

look at it this way,the average wage in britain is 26,000 gbp.per yr.yet they must show they earn 18,500 =355gbp.per week.seems fair.below the average.

why i say seems fair,lets look at our [thai] rules on our living here.

average wage for thai's is 156,000bht,per yr.yet we have to show to stay here yearly either 400,000 or 800,000 well above their average wage.

as for rules a spouse married to a british citizen with an ilr.can work,buy land,own houses,open any bank acc,pay into pension scheme's and dont have to report to immigration as if they are on probation.so they are entitled to quite a lot.

as for us living here we dont have any right's yet have to show at least double or 5times the average wage.

Just because the Thai rules may be more unfair than the UK rules doesn't make the rules in the UK fair. It's irrelevent what rules Thailand has.

The new rules are in place purely to clamp right down on non EU immigration because it is the only area they have any power to control - there is nothing the government can do to stop immigration from the EU as long as the UK is still part of the EU.

Many in Thursdays protest who had successfully managed to settle in the UK said they had used a legal technicality known as the Surinder Singh route after the landmark case.

Emphasis mine.

Call it a '' Legal Technicality '' a '' Back Door Entry '' or any other terminology you care to use.

The Surrender & Sing ( to the EU's tune ) route to the UK has been foisted upon the UK by the EU.

Democracy EU style.

Ridiculous law and serves no purpose whatsoever. A friend recently returned to the UK with 2 of his 3 children. The youngest,less than a year old, stayed with the mother here.They have been married for over 10 years.How on earth does it help anybody that the family is split in two,the children have no mother and he has no one to help look after the kids.

Many in Thursdays protest who had successfully managed to settle in the UK said they had used a legal technicality known as the Surinder Singh route after the landmark case.

Emphasis mine.

Call it a '' Legal Technicality '' a '' Back Door Entry '' or any other terminology you care to use.

The Surrender & Sing ( to the EU's tune ) route to the UK has been foisted upon the UK by the EU.

Democracy EU style.

It's very much democratic when it comes to these directives, all memberstates agreed on it. If the UK had any issue with the right of. Brittons to move freely through the EU with their family they should never have agreed on the directives that regulate this. But back in the day, as far as I know, most EU members had more relaxed immigration rules then the freedom if movement directives. So those gave people from the EU atleast some protection if they wished to settle elseswhere in the EU. That years down the line national legislation became more strict then the EU directive isn't something you can blame the EU for.

The members could ofcourse draw up a new directive but not many memberstates seem interested (see Greenbook meetings from err 2011 or 2012?) so that isn't going to happen anytime soon. My countries administration (NL) was one of the few who favoured changing the directive but there was little support from the ministers of other states. My countries administration(s) disgust me when it comes to immigration, acting though on immigration is something to gain votes from since 2005 or so. So they come up with the mist ridiculous or silly rules for people with a foreign lover while I fail to see why you would wish to impose anything more then "you as a national can have your direct familymembers join you aslong as you are not an unreasonable burden: be able to take take care of your own family. That's exactly what the current Freedom of Movement directive also states.

And leaving the EU wouldn't change a thing to people who oppose freedom of movement. One would need to leave the EEA aswell, giving up all economic treaties, directives etc. Wouldn't be too good for import/export. You'd need to draw up new treaties with EU/EEA as a non EU/EEA member. I doubt any memberstate will go that way any time soon, would't be do good for business and money makes the world go around...

An old Brit needs that amount to get a Retirement Visa i think. Tit for Tat.

It's very much democratic when it comes to these directives, all memberstates agreed on it. If the UK had any issue with the right of. Brittons to move freely through the EU with their family they should never have agreed on the directives that regulate this. But back in the day, as far as I know, most EU members had more relaxed immigration rules then the freedom if movement directives. So those gave people from the EU atleast some protection if they wished to settle elseswhere in the EU. That years down the line national legislation became more strict then the EU directive isn't something you can blame the EU for.

There is nothing democratic about over-riding a Countries legislation by making a ruling that allows Surrender & Sing.

That some of the UK's Laws are a farce is not really the point. The point is the EU should not be trumping them.

Right or wrong, there are Right - Wing, Anti - Immigration Parties rising throughout Europe. There is a reason for that. When the Dutch population reaches the dizzy heights of 70 Million, come back and tell me you feel that free movement is a great thing.

I am not trying to suggest that the UK's current legislation is correct. I am saying the opposite. It is a farce. What makes it even more of a farce is the EU ruling that forget the Laws of the UK, just use Surrender & Sing, job done, bypass the UK Law.

There is nothing democratic about over-riding a Countries legislation by making a ruling that allows Surrender & Sing.

So the UK used to have more relaxed rules then the EU directives, the UK rules became more strict and you'd then expect them to stop abiding EU rules? Rules that the UK itself has given it's thumbs up to back in the day when these directives were drawn up and put up for vote?

That would be like your local council voting for more strict local rules and then deciding it no longer likes certain national regulations drawn years earlier which overrule those in specific situations and then complain about the system being undemocratic rather then trying to get national legislation to change. Just as the EU directives can chanche via the EU parlaiment (new EU Commission) or if the ministers of all memberstates come together to talk about a certain subject. Something they did regarding the current freedom of movement directive in +/- 2012 during the Greenbook meetings (under EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström of EU Home Affairs), but apart from NL there was very little support from the other ministers to make any changes.

So if you wish to blame anyone, blame the UK administrations which agreed on the directives that dictate freedom of movement. If Britain had said 'no, not a chanche that we will accept (this final draft of) this directive' back in the day then they wouldn't have been in de situation which the administration and certain parties moan about these days.

Some may find this an interesting read:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/free-movement-europe-past-and-present

Edit: That the EU parlaiment abnd EU council could be more democratic issomething I'd agree on but tha't s an other subject. The current setup of the EU isn't too blame for the directives.

Some may find this an interesting read:

http://www.migration...ast-and-present

Your linked article is about EU citizens and free movement.

Mr Singh was an Indian National who had divorced from his wife whilst he had '' Limited Leave '' to remain in the UK.

What was the Surinder Singh case all about?

Mr Singh was an Indian citizen who worked with his British wife in Germany for several years. The couple then returned to the UK where he was allowed to reside with his wife on the basis of the UK immigration rules (limited leave to remain). The couple then divorced. The UK authorities decided to curtail his leave to remain and order his removal from the UK. Mr Singh challenged the decision before the UK courts, which then decided to refer the matter for an opinion from the EU Court of Justice on whether Mr Singh had a right to reside in the UK on the basis of EU law.

https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/eu-rights-clinic/2013/06/26/the-surinder-singh-route-understanding-the-law/

As he was a Non-EU Citizen and was on '' Limited Leave '' to remain in the UK. Please explain what it had to do with the EU ?

I was under the impression that the EU had no say in the UK's Policies / Laws regarding Non - EU Nationals.

Just like the current case that is at the European Courts regarding the unfortunate shooting of Jean Charles De Mendez in London.

He was an Illegal Immigrant, who's Visa had long expired and should not have been in the Country. If he had not been an Illegal Immigrant, perhaps he might still be alive today.

That is straying off topic. It just highlights where the EU gets involved in stuff that they shouldn't be involved in.

A British Subject, who wishes to bring a Non - EU spouse to the UK has to comply with financial requirements according to UK Law. Those Laws may be unfair and unjust. That is a separate topic.

If a British Subject is forced to comply with financial requirements for bringing his Non - EU wife to the UK, then so should everyone else, regardless of where they are from.

The spouse of SS was a British national (who excersized her freedom of movement abroad in an other memberstate, Germany) and therefor covered by the Freedom of Movement directive. Technically it's the EU national who excersizes his/her right and the the non-EU spouse is then entitled to joi them of they meet the conditions layed out in the directive. So the history of freedom of movement for EU workers, later EU nationals and their family members very much has to do with how we ended up with the current state of events.

Oh and I just found that in English the 2012 meeting was called " Green paper on family reunion" and started in 2011:

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.nl/2014/04/family-reunion-for-third-country.html

There was not much interest by most memberstates in changing the rules apparantly.

And how on earth could you expect EU regulations respect UK national law? That would be like a lower legislative level such as a city council deciding that they wish to impose a fee/taks or other requirements/restrictions on citizens who wish to bring a spouse from out of town and also impose those rules on families who are entirely new into town. Legislation does not work that way.. Britain should either not have accepted freedom of movement or wait it's chanche to change the content of freedom of movement. Given that in 2011 there wasn't much supported for such a thing I doubt we will see changes to freedom of movement anytime soon.

For the 2nd time.

Mr SS was an Indian Citizen. He was divorced from his UK Citizen spouse. He was on a '' Limited Leave '' to remain in the UK. His limited leave expired when he got divorced from his UK spouse. He was then presumably asked to leave the UK.

As a Non - EU Citizen this should have been nowhere near the EU Courts. As the EU has NO jurisdiction over the UK when it comes to Non - EU Citizens.

Freedom of movement for EU Nationals and Non EU Nationals are 2 separate things.

From your link.

It should be noted that the Directive applies to 25 Member States, ie not the UK, Ireland or Denmark, which exercised their opt-outs.

It's the 5 years of hoops that pisses me off... not just the initial 18.6K income hoop - plus limiting time allowed outside of the UK for the spouse for 5 years... will always have that 'what if' feeling...

I see on another site that the Surinder Singh route has other advantages over directly applying for a UK Visa.

Ireland usually process EU spouse visa applications within a month compared to the UK processing time , which can take up to 6 months and is liable to be refused.

Other advantages are the ability to claim benefits on the return to the UK , access to the NHS free of charge and obtain a student loan for your spouse.

The UK visa route limits access to welfare for 5 years for both spouses.

For the 2nd time.

Mr SS was an Indian Citizen. He was divorced from his UK Citizen spouse. He was on a '' Limited Leave '' to remain in the UK. His limited leave expired when he got divorced from his UK spouse. He was then presumably asked to leave the UK.

As a Non - EU Citizen this should have been nowhere near the EU Courts. As the EU has NO jurisdiction over the UK when it comes to Non - EU Citizens.

Freedom of movement for EU Nationals and Non EU Nationals are 2 separate things.

From your link.

It should be noted that the Directive applies to 25 Member States, ie not the UK, Ireland or Denmark, which exercised their opt-outs.

Fair enough, I'm not a legal expert so the legal details of the SS ruling ins something I wouldn't know (and to be honest don't really care about). To me it simply makes perfect sense to have allow EU/EEA citizens to reside in other memberstates with their direct family members. So if a Briton goes to say Spain to work/live their and happens to have a Thai wife, asling as they are not a burden to Spain, why object to their pressence? Now imagen that they wish to move back to the UK (employer decided to relocate the Briton, the Briton changed jobs etc.). Now I think it would be perfectly fair to apply the same conditions as say a German with thai wife would have when it comes to residency in the UK and also ensuring that they keep their current rights. It would be quite nasty if suddenly the Briton would need to be seperated from his Thai wife after having lived together in Spain without being a burden to anyone and without going to be burden in the UK to anyone.

So that's my reasoning why it would make sense to apply freedom of movement (currently that is Directive 2004/38/EC) to anyone and thus get rid of the current income requirements.

Other types of eyebrown rising legislation such as access to NHS and wellfare could ofcourse be changed, the UK isn't obligated to offer wellfare services to EU wellfare tourists so to say. Only after certain conditions have been met (certain duration of stay if I'm not mistaken?). And if the current directive(s) are abused and for instance burden the state unreasonably (wellfare leeching etc.?) then get try to get the various states to change the directives concerned. You can't opt out on a directive that's into force, just as you cannot opt out on current national legislation.

As for the green paper on family reunification, it seems that was on an other directive (Family reunification 2003/86/EC) to which the UK indeed has opted out. How exactly that relates in a legal way to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens and their family (directive 2004/38/EC) , -the UK has not opted out on that-, I wouldn't know. I shouldn't have brought the Greenpaper up.

Yet again, some members are showing they do not understand the EEA freedom of movement regulations and the Surinder Singh judgement.

The EEA freedom of movement treaties, which the UK freely signed up to, and the regulations deriving from them allow any EEA national to live in another EEA state provided they are exercising an economic treaty right and that their qualifying non EEA national family members, if any, can live there with them.

These rights apply to all EEA countries and all EEA nationals.

The Surinder Singh ruling determined that this right would be unlawfully restricted if the EEA national could not return to their home state with their non EEA family member. The ruling was based on the EEA national having their freedom of movement rights restricted, so was and is an EEA matter. As was the case of O and J v The Nether lands which made further adjustments to this right.

Despite what some people may think, it is not a matter of simply turning up at a UK port of entry and demanding admittance. Certain conditions must be met, see European Operational Policy Team; Regulation 9 (Surinder Singh Cases).

BTW, this is, as already said by Donutz, an EEA regulation, not an EU one. Google is your friend if you don't know the difference.

Other advantages are the ability to claim benefits on the return to the UK , access to the NHS free of charge and obtain a student loan for your spouse.

The UK visa route limits access to welfare for 5 years for both spouses.

Any idea about

• Child Benefit
• Child Tax credit

Are British citizens treated differently from mere residents ?

I think many of the problems stem from the lower income limit being unfairly applied to British citizens.

<snip>

,the average wage in britain is 26,000 gbp.per yr.yet they must show they earn 18,500 =355gbp.per week.seems fair.below the average........

OK, but how many people earn that?

In calculating the average wage, all incomes are taken into account; including Premier League footballers on tens of thousands of pounds a week and city fat cats on over a million a year!

Plus, of course, wages vary considerably across the country. Someone working in London may easily meet the requirement, whilst someone doing the same job for the same employer in Belfast wouldn't.

The income support level for a British couple, both over 18, is currently £114.85 p.w. (£5972.20 p.a.) plus housing costs; rent or mortgage interest.

The government expect a British couple to live on this, but demand that a couple where one is an immigrant to have an income much higher; why?

But the most absurd aspect is that this £18,600 p.a. is gross income and takes no account of any financial commitments the sponsor may have. So a sponsor who earns £18,600 p.a. but has a mortgage and other debt repayments of £10,000 p.a. meets the requirement. A sponsor who earns £18,599 p.a., has paid off his mortgage and has no other debts etc. doesn't! How does that make any sense at all?

Are British citizens treated differently from mere residents ?

I think many of the problems stem from the lower income limit being unfairly applied to British citizens.

The sponsor of a family member applying for settlement in the UK can be a British citizen or a non citizen who is legally resident in the UK.

But all need to meet the requirements of the immigration rules, including the financial requirement.

Unless the sponsor is an EEA national exercising an economic treaty right in the UK or a British citizen who meets the requirements for using the Surinder Singh route; in which case the EEA regulations apply.

Are British citizens treated differently from mere residents ?

I think many of the problems stem from the lower income limit being unfairly applied to British citizens.

The sponsor of a family member applying for settlement in the UK can be a British citizen or a non citizen who is legally resident in the UK.

But all need to meet the requirements of the immigration rules, including the financial requirement.

Unless the sponsor is an EEA national exercising an economic treaty right in the UK or a British citizen who meets the requirements for using the Surinder Singh route; in which case the EEA regulations apply.

yup... as I said... unfair to British citizens.

How?

The rules are the same for all.

Edit:

If you are referring to the EEA regulations, then remember that tens of thousands of Brits are using these to live in other EEA states.

No doubt on some, for example, Spanish immigration forum a Spaniard is complaining that Brits can use the EEA regulations to live in Spain with their non EEA spouse whereas he has to comply with the Spanish immigration rules (whatever they are)!

<p>

Other advantages are the ability to claim benefits on the return to the UK , access to the NHS free of charge and obtain a student loan for your spouse.The UK visa route limits access to welfare for 5 years for both spouses.

Any idea about

• Child Benefit
• Child Tax credit

As I understand it you can claim these in the same way for example a Polish worker would claim if he was coming to the UK. No need for any English language tests either.

<p>

Other advantages are the ability to claim benefits on the return to the UK , access to the NHS free of charge and obtain a student loan for your spouse.The UK visa route limits access to welfare for 5 years for both spouses.

Any idea about

• Child Benefit
• Child Tax credit

As I understand it you can claim these in the same way for example a Polish worker would claim if he was coming to the UK. No need for any English language tests either.

No need to worry about English Language tests.

A Pakistani student who was paid to sit immigrants’ English tests in a visa scam was caught...after posing as a CHINESE man.

The 23-year-old, of Giles Street in Longsight, who is an illegal overstayer himself, admitted assisting unlawful immigration and has now been jailed for 10 months for the scam which the judge described as ‘blatant’.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jail-pakistani-student-who-posed-9583137

Couldn't make it up.

Not all public funds are available to EEA migrants; there is a general rule that they must not become an unreasonable burden on the state.

What funds they can claim is a matter for, and determined by, the British government; nothing to do with the EU or EEA.

For example: New migrant jobseekers from the European Economic Area (EEA) will no longer be able to get Housing Benefit from April 2014.

@ Donutz

Fair enough, I'm not a legal expert so the legal details of the SS ruling ins something I wouldn't know (and to be honest don't really care about). To me it simply makes perfect sense to have allow EU/EEA citizens to reside in other memberstates with their direct family members

Precisely my point. Mr SS was neither an EU or an EEA Citizen. He was an Indian National who was invited to leave the UK when he divorced from his Spouse.

This case should never have got near the EU Court.

His Limited Leave to remain expired when he got divorced.

It might be an EEA directive, it is the EU Court that rules on it.

And lets be absolutely clear here.

The old Court of Justice of the European Union case of Surinder Singh provides a potential means of bypassing the harsh UK immigration rules by relying instead in European Union free movement laws.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/

When they returned from Germany, the Singh's were still married.

Although they subsequently divorced, the court did explain why it found in Mr Singh's favour.

The Surinder Singh Route – Understanding the Law

The Court explained that a European citizen might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to work in another EU country if, on returning to his home country, his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the citizen’s country of origin under the same conditions that apply to an EU citizen going to live in an EU country other than his home country.

The EU Court therefore ruled that an EU citizen who has gone to another Member State in order to work there and returns to his home country has the right to be accompanied by his spouse and children whatever their nationality under the same conditions as are laid down by (what is now) Directive 2004/38 which governs residence rights.

In addition to the link provided earlier, the following also explain how the UK treats applications under this ruling.

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

Apply for an EEA family permit; 6. Surinder Singh

EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? (‘Surinder Singh’ cases)

Some will find them educational.

Not all public funds are available to EEA migrants; there is a general rule that they must not become an unreasonable burden on the state.

What funds they can claim is a matter for, and determined by, the British government; nothing to do with the EU or EEA.

For example: New migrant jobseekers from the European Economic Area (EEA) will no longer be able to get Housing Benefit from April 2014.

Indeed not all but atleast some such as certain unemploymenet benefits, NHS etc. after a certain amount of time. Not sure about all the conditions though. Most of the abuse is simply due to bad national legislation to wellfare related funds such as the horror stories around NHS and so on. Some seem to wish to ban EU and non-EU immigrants from such things entirely, thus changing the " cannot be an unreasonable burden upon the state" to " shall not cost the treasury a single dime", but such changes would need to be agreed upon by all memberstates. Not likely to happen and probably would conflict with other national and international legislations: paying taxes but no access to anything once the immigrant finds himself in need of help/assistance would probably not stand up into court I'd imagen...

@ Donutz

Fair enough, I'm not a legal expert so the legal details of the SS ruling ins something I wouldn't know (and to be honest don't really care about). To me it simply makes perfect sense to have allow EU/EEA citizens to reside in other memberstates with their direct family members

Precisely my point. Mr SS was neither an EU or an EEA Citizen. He was an Indian National who was invited to leave the UK when he divorced from his Spouse.

This case should never have got near the EU Court.

His Limited Leave to remain expired when he got divorced.

It might be an EEA directive, it is the EU Court that rules on it.

And lets be absolutely clear here.

The old Court of Justice of the European Union case of Surinder Singh provides a potential means of bypassing the harsh UK immigration rules by relying instead in European Union free movement laws.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/

As far as I can tell the logic is simply this: he should have been granted the rights that can be derived from freedom of movement (currently D. 2004/38, back then it was something else). from the day he returned with his wife. And thus he should have ended up wit a status that by the time he had devorced would still have meant he could have gotten residency (long term EU resident rights I'd think?) and therefor he could stay despite being devorced. But that's my educated guess without diving into the details of SS.

If I'm right what happend made perfect sense in atleast a legal way so the ECJ was quite right with it's ruling. And such a thing would then possible be prefentable if the freedom of movement had an explicit article on under which conditions one would lose freedom of movement rights or permanent EU residency rights which would be something that would need to be incooperated in a succesor for D. 2004/38 with all memberstates agreeing upon it. It woulld still keep the EU route open though for EU nationals and their direct family to migrate within the EU and back to their home country after a while without loss of such rights.

I have no opinion under which conditions one should lose EU rights as I'd need to know the impact would be of individuals such as SS who wish to remain in the country (ie would they become a big burden on the state? or not be bothering anyone with their pressence?). I do know I support the basis of freedom of movement for EU nationals and their family and I'd like to apply that legislation to all. Scratching silly income requirements such as the £18,600 rule.

Just as 7by7 says, there is a big difference between ' avarage' income, which is much higher then the minimum income one would need to survive without being a(n unreasonable) burden upon the treasury or state.

I have no opinion under which conditions one should lose EU rights as I'd need to know the impact would be of individuals such as SS who wish to remain in the country (ie would they become a big burden on the state? or not be bothering anyone with their pressence?). I do know I support the basis of freedom of movement for EU nationals and their family and I'd like to apply that legislation to all. Scratching silly income requirements such as the £18,600 rule.

I think the fact that he was stamped into the UK under '' Limited Leave '' says everything.

Highlighted above the whole point of my argument. He was NOT an EU National and he only applied to the ECJ when he was already divorced and was being removed from the UK.

I do not know the whole story of the SS case, but due to his passport stamp, I will assume that it was considered that his was a sham marriage, to go along with all the other shams that were commonplace at the time.

Silly income rule 18,600. I suppose it depends on what way you look at it. Considering I, and many like me, require a couple of grand less to stay in Thailand, I would say it is a bargain. Others wont.