Protest over £18,600 minimum income rule to bring foreign spouses to UK

[rockingrobin]

As some people are still struggling with the SS ruling, here is the judgement and background information

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61990CJ0370

section 12

It should also be observed that it is not alleged that Mr and Mrs Singh' s marriage was a sham. Moreover, although the marriage was dissolved by the decree absolute of divorce delivered in 1989, that is not relevant to the question referred for a preliminary ruling, which concerns the basis of the right of residence of the person concerned during the period before the date of that decree.

18 The provisions of the Council regulations and directives on freedom of movement within the Community for employed and self-employed persons, in particular Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68, cited above, Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 68/360, cited above, and Articles 1© and 4 of Directive 73/148, cited above, provide that the Member States must grant the spouse and children of such a person rights of residence equivalent to that granted to the person himself.

25 The answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must therefore be that Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148, properly construed, require a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of the State of which he or she is a national. The spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered and resided in the territory of another Member State.

Now the above is only a snapshot , and to get a full understanding the whole document should be read,

The SS route is well established and known

[phrodan]

The SS Rule is off topic.

The £18,600 figure is reasonable. The way it was before we had muppets going abroad to get a ready made family, then showing up in the UK and going straight on welfare.

Any Brit that supports that is nuts.

[wooloomooloo]

Lobby your MP if you feel so strongly about laws that are not to your liking.

Sorry, but another pointless thread that would appear to be morbidly focussed on your whims rather than law.

[rockingrobin]

The SS Rule is off topic.

The £18,600 figure is reasonable. The way it was before we had muppets going abroad to get a ready made family, then showing up in the UK and going straight on welfare.

Any Brit that supports that is nuts.

This is incorrect

The non eeu spouse of the muppet , as you so elegantly describe, is not entitled to recourse of public funds until they have ILR, although the British partner is entitled to claim for himself

As for being nuts , then yes I have to admit this, because I firmly believe that a person has a right to family life wherever they choose to live. I recognize people are human beings and as such nothing is simply black and white that a set of arbitrary rules can resolve.

My own personnel view on the £18,600 is that it is a ploy to reduce the number of non eeu immigrants , and allows the decision makers (politicians) to keep the issue of immigration in the spotlight to mask the real underlying issues in the uk, namely underfunding of the NHS, lack of house building

[barnsleyman]

I think the 18,600 pounds rule is a disgrace & wants ammending.

In my case,& probably thousands of other British Ex-pats, I worked in the coal mines nearly all of my working life,paid my taxes & I'm STILL paying income tax on my Industrial & state pensions.

I'm now legally married to a Thai lady, but my income is below the 18,600 pounds threshhold which prevents me bringing my wife back to the UK with me to live there permantly.

[gandalf12]

Forget the UK it isnt a 3rd world country it is a 10th world country (if one existed)

[barnsleyman]

Forget the UK it isnt a 3rd world country it is a 10th world country (if one existed)

I agree with you totally gandalf12,

I wasn't advocating,or having a desire to move back to the UK, I was just stating that I & many other Ex-pats can't go back even if they want to,unless you want to leave your family behind.

Maybe slightly off topic but it's just another thing to add to the Discriminating laws against Senior citizens ie:- state pensions frozen, because we don't reside in an EEC country,

[Baerboxer]

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...

Good comments. I had my office in NL before my wife became a British Citizen. The NL consulate were incredibly helpful, friendly and professional when she needed a Shengen visa to go with me. Even meeting us early in the morning before official opening and doing some photocopying. Breath of fresh air.

However, one of my Dutch colleagues and friends was married to a Russian. He was having a devil of a time trying to get her to NL. They were making him jump through hoops.

Yes, you are right. Immigration is now a vote catching issue for the politicians who want to show they're tough on it, in the areas where they can be tough.

Having different rules based on income and/or wealth is something Britain has never managed to get away from. Hang ups from the previous class system maybe. But, as with all discrimination, inherently wrong and very unfair to those affected.

[nontabury]

Forget the UK it isnt a 3rd world country it is a 10th world country (if one existed)

I agree with you totally gandalf12,

I wasn't advocating,or having a desire to move back to the UK, I was just stating that I & many other Ex-pats can't go back even if they want to,unless you want to leave your family behind.

Maybe slightly off topic but it's just another thing to add to the Discriminating laws against Senior citizens ie:- state pensions frozen, because we don't reside in an EEC country,

And most of these rules were put into play by the Labour Party,blindly supported by the people from where you come from and I once lived,Brampton Bierlow.

[Amo]

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.

How

does this affect him

His children will automatically become British citizen's by birth.

No need to prove income just birth certificate.

Not only that I'm sure there will be mitigating circumstances to every application.

Lets face it this is not for real brits, its a way to slow all he blow ins

[Zatoichi]

I think the UK is setting a good example actually.

[Baerboxer]

I think the 18,600 pounds rule is a disgrace & wants ammending.

In my case,& probably thousands of other British Ex-pats, I worked in the coal mines nearly all of my working life,paid my taxes & I'm STILL paying income tax on my Industrial & state pensions.

I'm now legally married to a Thai lady, but my income is below the 18,600 pounds threshhold which prevents me bringing my wife back to the UK with me to live there permantly.

It's disgraceful that as a person who worked in a hard and dangerous job, paid taxes, and now still pays taxes when retired isn't allowed to take his spouse to live in the UK.

How many British citizens marry non EU spouses each year and want to take them to the UK. Is the figure so high it will cripple the country? I think not.

The mass immigration of the 70's and 80's, the EU freedom of movement has created problems as more people came to the UK. That can't be addressed retrospectively so it's easier to target others.

[JockPieandBeans]

I think the 18,600 pounds rule is a disgrace & wants ammending.

In my case,& probably thousands of other British Ex-pats, I worked in the coal mines nearly all of my working life,paid my taxes & I'm STILL paying income tax on my Industrial & state pensions.

I'm now legally married to a Thai lady, but my income is below the 18,600 pounds threshhold which prevents me bringing my wife back to the UK with me to live there permantly.

It's disgraceful that as a person who worked in a hard and dangerous job, paid taxes, and now still pays taxes when retired isn't allowed to take his spouse to live in the UK.

How many British citizens marry non EU spouses each year and want to take them to the UK. Is the figure so high it will cripple the country? I think not.

The mass immigration of the 70's and 80's, the EU freedom of movement has created problems as more people came to the UK. That can't be addressed retrospectively so it's easier to target others.

Totally agree with both of you.

The damage has already been done.

Unfortunately, decent hard working people are going to get Regally shafted whilst Illegal Immigrants are lining up to get into the UK.

[pendingo]

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.

Bear in mind meatboy this is an average wage which does not imply that everyone of the UK working population is earning 26,000 GBP. In fact there is a large percentage way below this figure, even below the 18,600 threshold demanded by the Immigration Department. Please check out the following websites which will give you a better idea of salaries both in the UK and Thailand: http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages

Also being married to a British national does not automatically entitle his spouse to have the rights you mention. She also has to be in the UK for 2 years before she is entitled to free medical treatment.

Quite a few UK expats married to Thais are on pensions which although qualify them to stay in Thailand are still below the 18,600 GBP threshold so there is no way a they can bring their wives home with them on a permanent basis even if they wanted to.

The British Immigration rules are a total nightmare, different sets of rules for different sets of immigrants and weighted heaviest against minorities.

There are approximately 37,000 Thais in the UK compared with approximately 7.5 million of other nationalities.

In my opinion there should be a one size fits all immigration policy as with Australia and the US with exception of Asylum seekers who can prove without a doubt they are escaping tyranny in their own country.

Unfortunately the waters are muddied by EU immigration diktats so it's a whole can of worms.

Edited July 11, 2015 by pendingo

[Ace of Pop]

Rather funny Thai ladies never rush to marry Portuguese ,or any other Nationalities without Big Handouts.Norways the prime target.they can grab his pension easy.

[matman]

There should be no requirements or hoops to jump through for a British subject to be able to return to his or her country of birth with their chosen wife/husband, and nothing to prevent them from living there as being unable yo do do would be a breach of their human right to a family life.

Such reasons tendered to the Courts by immigrant criminals in order to avoid justified deportation

[coulson]

Demonstrate the marriage is legitimate & how you've actually considered supporting your family with a reasonable income, what's all the fuss about - 18k is modest, if you're not earning that, you should be doing overtime, not wasting your time protesting.

[JockPieandBeans]

Demonstrate the marriage is legitimate & how you've actually considered supporting your family with a reasonable income, what's all the fuss about - 18k is modest, if you're not earning that, you should be doing overtime, not wasting your time protesting.

I do not think you have grasped the concept of realities.

There are old age pensioners, who are married to Non Eu Nationals who cannot, even if they wanted to, return to the UK. Their pension is too small and they could not get work even if they wanted it.

In the meantime, there are 1000's lined up in France waiting on the chance to illegally enter the UK, once they are there, the chances of them being removed are slim.

The EEA in conjunction with the EU Court then issue dictats that facilitate sham marriages that allow Non EU Nationals entry to the UK.

[pendingo]

There should be no requirements or hoops to jump through for a British subject to be able to return to his or her country of birth with their chosen wife/husband, and nothing to prevent them from living there as being unable yo do do would be a breach of their human right to a family life.

Such reasons tendered to the Courts by immigrant criminals in order to avoid justified deportation

I agree absolutely matman.

The draconian rules introduced by clueless and spineless politicians in the UK albeit a knee jerk reaction to the British public's demand for a reduction in the amount of immigrants arriving in the country every year has done nothing to stem the tide to say nothing of the unknown numbers of illegal immigrants in the country.

What a perverse world we live in when foreign criminals have more rights than the innocent hard working individuals who have paid tax and national insurance over several years now being told to leave the country because their income no longer qualifies them to stay.

.

[coulson]

Demonstrate the marriage is legitimate & how you've actually considered supporting your family with a reasonable income, what's all the fuss about - 18k is modest, if you're not earning that, you should be doing overtime, not wasting your time protesting.

I do not think you have grasped the concept of realities.

There are old age pensioners, who are married to Non Eu Nationals who cannot, even if they wanted to, return to the UK. Their pension is too small and they could not get work even if they wanted it.

In the meantime, there are 1000's lined up in France waiting on the chance to illegally enter the UK, once they are there, the chances of them being removed are slim.

The EEA in conjunction with the EU Court then issue dictats that facilitate sham marriages that allow Non EU Nationals entry to the UK.

You missed my first sentence.

Maybe UK immigration does not consider an OAP recently married in LoS as anything other than a marriage of convenience.

[JockPieandBeans]

Demonstrate the marriage is legitimate & how you've actually considered supporting your family with a reasonable income, what's all the fuss about - 18k is modest, if you're not earning that, you should be doing overtime, not wasting your time protesting.

I do not think you have grasped the concept of realities.

There are old age pensioners, who are married to Non Eu Nationals who cannot, even if they wanted to, return to the UK. Their pension is too small and they could not get work even if they wanted it.

In the meantime, there are 1000's lined up in France waiting on the chance to illegally enter the UK, once they are there, the chances of them being removed are slim.

The EEA in conjunction with the EU Court then issue dictats that facilitate sham marriages that allow Non EU Nationals entry to the UK.

You missed my first sentence.

Maybe UK immigration does not consider an OAP recently married in LoS as anything other than a marriage of convenience.

There is UK Citizens here in Thailand that have been married in excess of 15 years, I know 2 personally, that cannot meet the financial requirements to return to the UK with their families.

But if you really want to update yourself with sham marriages and the UK. Start here.

"There is an industry of deceit in the UK which uses sham marriages to circumvent immigration control," he said.

"The estimated 10,000 sham marriages appears to be increasing at an alarming rate.

"One sham marriage can provide UK residence rights to an entire extended family who would otherwise have no right to be here."

http://news.sky.com/story/1307258/sham-marriages-rising-at-alarming-rate-in-uk

[MaeJoMTB]

I think the 18,600 pounds rule is a disgrace & wants ammending.

In my case,& probably thousands of other British Ex-pats, I worked in the coal mines nearly all of my working life,paid my taxes & I'm STILL paying income tax on my Industrial & state pensions.

I'm now legally married to a Thai lady, but my income is below the 18,600 pounds threshhold which prevents me bringing my wife back to the UK with me to live there permantly.

Get yourself a little apartment in Spain (25,000gbp or less) ..... or just rent year round.

Move over there for a month or two with your Thai family, using your EEA right to free movement in Europe.

Register them for a Spanish EEC residency permit.

Then you can all go in and out of the UK as much as you like, with them just showing their Spanish residency, no other documents needed.

Edited July 11, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[superal]

There should be no requirements or hoops to jump through for a British subject to be able to return to his or her country of birth with their chosen wife/husband, and nothing to prevent them from living there as being unable yo do do would be a breach of their human right to a family life.

Such reasons tendered to the Courts by immigrant criminals in order to avoid justified deportation

A true British subject who has spent all of their working life within the UK and paid taxes and N.I.C should not be subjected to such financial qualifications , it should

be their automatic right to bring his / her new spouse to the UK ., however there are precautions that should be taken , as follows .

An elderly person of say in their 70s and up who has married to a very young person of say 23 years would create a suspicion either because of a marriage of

convenience i.e. the Brit is being paid so as to allow the new spouse UK admittance .

There is always the question of how would the new spouse support themselves if their partner were to die ? would they have to be dependent on the state ?

These " what ifs " are easily overcome . I for one would sign any petition that would change this ridiculous rule . The True Brit seems to be a second class citizen

within his own country and I could go on and on about other unfair treatments but this one really gets up my nose , who the fxxk invented this discriminating rule .

[7by7]

<snip>

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

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......

You assume wrongly, and are merely showing your ignorance of the immigration rules; both at that time and now.

All spouses were and are at first granted limited leave to enter/remain in the UK (although at that time under certain conditions they could be granted indefinite leave straight away, that has now been abolished for most categories, including spouse).

Once certain conditions were and are met, mainly to do with length of residence, the spouse can apply for indefinite leave to remain.

That Mr Singh was in the UK with limited leave to remain is no indication of anything.

Especially since he would not even have got that in the first place if it was considered by the IND (since UKBA, now UKVI) that his marriage was a sham!

Even though the primary purpose rule (look it up) has long been abolished, couples still have to satisfy the decision maker that their relationship is genuine and subsisting when applying for the initial visa, FLR and ILR.

[7by7]

<snip>

But if you really want to update yourself with sham marriages and the UK. Start here.

"There is an industry of deceit in the UK which uses sham marriages to circumvent immigration control," he said.

"The estimated 10,000 sham marriages appears to be increasing at an alarming rate.

"One sham marriage can provide UK residence rights to an entire extended family who would otherwise have no right to be here."

http://news.sky.com/story/1307258/sham-marriages-rising-at-alarming-rate-in-uk

Whilst no one would deny there is a problem, Mr Vaz is forgetting several things in his desire as a Labour MP to chastise a Tory Home Secretary.

The two main ones being:

1) Sham or not, a foreign spouse needs to follow the route through to ILR; which takes a minimum of 5 years and with various application fees and the NHS surcharge costs several thousands of pounds.

2) Sham or not, being married to a Brit and living in the UK dose not mean that your family can come and live here, too. Your children under 18 can if they meet the requirements, the hardest one being showing sole responsibly. Adult relatives, no.

Unless they meet the requirements as an adult dependent relative; which basically means they are totally destitute, living on the street in their home country and have no living relatives there!

Whilst I am not surprised that some members here don't know that, it is shameful that the chairman of the Home Affairs committee apparently doesn't!

[Ace of Pop]

Recon the Redundancy Cash that Brits used to play Mr Big has run out,hence the Leftist Revolt.

[7by7]

<snip>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?

I see that none of those who have subsequently posted in support of the current requirement has addressed either of the above points.

No need to wonder why; there is no logical or reasonable answer to them; which is why May ignores them as well.

Don't get me wrong; I firmly believe that, as before July 2012, those entering the UK to live, in any category, should show that they can support themselves or be supported without access to public funds.

What I do believe is that the figure of £18,600 is too high and it should be, as it was prior to July 2012, the same as the income support level for a British family of the same size, plus housing costs.

I also believe that, whatever the figure, it should be net income after all financial commitments have been deducted, not gross income as at present.

Before anyone says "If you don't like it, write to your MP!" I have done so; ignored.

Also, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration said the same in their report back in 2013. The government ignored them.

This government, as others before them, has gone for the easy target.

EEA migration? Can't stop that without leaving the EEA.

Illegal immigrants? Make it look like something is being done, but it's a major problem; difficult to solve and all the government are really doing is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Family migration? Easy, soft target, even though the government know reducing the numbers will have no real significant effect on the net migration figures. But they can turn round to the Great British Public and say "We know you are worried about immigration; look, we are doing something.'

[coulson]

I think the 18,600 pounds rule is a disgrace & wants ammending.

In my case,& probably thousands of other British Ex-pats, I worked in the coal mines nearly all of my working life,paid my taxes & I'm STILL paying income tax on my Industrial & state pensions.

I'm now legally married to a Thai lady, but my income is below the 18,600 pounds threshhold which prevents me bringing my wife back to the UK with me to live there permantly.

Get yourself a little apartment in Spain (25,000gbp or less) ..... or just rent year round.

Move over there for a month or two with your Thai family, using your EEA right to free movement in Europe.

Register them for a Spanish EEC residency permit.

Then you can all go in and out of the UK as much as you like, with them just showing their Spanish residency, no other documents needed.

You see this is where a lot of these guys fall short, what you propose as a viable solution involves some spare cash.

[wooloomooloo]

Before anyone says "If you don't like it, write to your MP!" I have done so; ignored.

Someone who puts his money where their mouth is.

[JockPieandBeans]

Before anyone says "If you don't like it, write to your MP!" I have done so; ignored.

Someone who puts his money where their mouth is.

Yeah, I did. That's why I am Thailand not the UK.