Immigration rule 'has split 15,000 children from a parent'

[Basil B]

At least 15,000 children are separated from a parent because of income rules affecting some migrants, says the Children's Commissioner for England.

The estimate comes from an analysis of a policy that bars the UK entry of a non-EU parent if their British spouse earns less than £18,600 a year.

Children's commissioner Anne Longfield said the UK was creating "Skype families" who had been forced apart.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34191606

While I see the need for control, I too have reservations on the way this issue is handled, but while we have PM who circumvents the Human Rights act 1998 rather than accepts it for the spirit in which it was created there will be no change.

At this time the UK may well be looking to accepting 10% of the displace people of Syria, (10% of 4million = 400 thousand), highly unlikely many of them will ever earn anything like the minimum requirement of immigration income rules, yet we see returning ex-pats having to seek work then work for six months just to reunite a family.

To me the rule would be fairer if a family were allowed to settle and given 2.5 years to get the minimum (subject to consideration that it would be achievable), this would then allow for the others partners earning to be taken into consideration.

[7by7]

As I have said many times before; whatever one's view of the actual minimum level, the current rule of a minimum income which takes absolutely no account of outgoings is ill thought out and ridiculous.

Many people earn less than £18,600 yet have no large outgoings, e.g. mortgage paid off, no debts to service, and are perfectly capable of supporting their family without state aid. These people are refused for not meeting the financial requirement.

Others earn over £18,600 but after servicing debts etc. have disposable incomes well below the minimum limit. These people

meet the financial requirement.

How can this make sense to any intelligent person?

I am not against a minimum income requirement as such; but it should take outgoings into account as well as income.

My view, and that of many including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, is that the minimum income should be the income support level for a British family of the same size, currently £114.85 pw (£5972.20 pa) for a couple both 18 or over, plus rent or mortgage and any other fixed outgoings such as debt repayments.

Case law meant that effectively this is what it was before July 2012.

The government expect a British family to live on that, why do they demand a family where one partner is an immigrant to have a higher income?

For as long as I have taken an interest, over 15 years, and I suspect for long before that, immigrant family members have not been able to claim any public funds and neither has their British partner been able any extra due to their immigrant family member(s) living with them. This includes social housing.

Except child benefit and tax credits as HMRC rules say these must be claimed by a couple jointly.

So, if taken at face value, the Home Office's (i.e. government's) response (excuse) "family life must not be established here at the taxpayer's expense" appears to be a reasonable view which, I'm sure, few would disagree with; it is actually, as anyone with any knowledge of the immigration rules knows, complete and utter <deleted>.

Maybe in the past it was possible for a British and foreign couple to establish family life in the UK at the taxpayers expense; but the prohibition on public funds means it has not been possible to do so for at least 15 years; probably much longer.

BTW, this is a serious subject of interest to many members here as it directly affects them.

So, fellow members, please do not use this topic to rage against the EEA freedom of movement regulations or refugees and asylum seekers.

[bobrussell]

The only way I see things changing is when someone challenges this through the courts as it has to breach the children's human rights.

Adults make their own choices and the implications of a marrying a non-EU citizen and returning to the UK are there to be considered. If they do not meet the financial requirements then they know in advance that settlement in the UK is not going to be possible under the present rules.

British citizen children do not have the ability to make that choice so really should have their best interests considered. Where children are involved the test should be means tested. Can the family involved afford to live in the UK without recourse to public funds for the non-EU spouse?

As I see it, 15000 children are having their basic human rights stamped upon by the UK government!

Edited September 9, 2015 by bobrussell

[7by7]

The High Court has already ruled on this, Bob.

From The Guardian, 11/7/14

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a legal challenge to Home Office rules for UK citizens who want their overseas spouses to live with them in Britain, affecting more than 3,600 families.

I don't know if those effected were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court or not; but even if they were I suspect that they will have to go all the way to the ECJ or ECtHR (not sure which is the relevant one) before anything changes; if at all.

[bobrussell]

High Court has ruled on the 'fairness' or otherwise for the partner but there has been no challenge based on the human rights of the children involved. I am no legal expert but surely the child has the right to be cared for by both parents under all but the most extreme circumstances.

I suspect challenges in the Supreme Court and/or the European Courts will be more favourable for applicants!

Edited September 9, 2015 by bobrussell

[biggles45]

" highly unlikely many of them will ever earn anything like the minimum requirement of immigration income rules, yet we see returning ex-pats having to seek work then work for six months just to reunite a family."

Not a problem as the government will use the taxes of the parents who are sepRated from their children to support the illegal migrants they will let in. All a matter of priorities I guess if you are a politician.

[ukguy51]

We have put an appeal in on our refusal mainly based on our disabled 6 year old son's human rights and that we strongly believe that the ECO did not follow or even use the rules laid down in " Change for children, Every child matters". Issued under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. He certainly never even mentioned our son in the refusal nor did it get reviewed by anyone other than the ECO as we can see.

Have to wait and see the response but we are hopeful but will pursue this as far as the courts allow.​

Edited September 10, 2015 by ukguy51

[Jonathon]

The UK government treats its own like sh1t whilst welcoming and funding the dross of the world.

[bobrussell]

It appears that the expected savings are not happening either!

A couple with British children becomes a single parent with British children. Some are unable to work full time because of childcare commitments. Less tax, more income related benefits.

A really bad system, introduced as a vote catching, knee jerk reaction to immigration. I suspect many ECO's and Home Office staff are struggling with the new rules!

The Chief Inspector of Borders has been very critical of the failure of UKVI to consider the best interests of children involved in applications but I doubt they will change until the courts make them.

Edited September 10, 2015 by bobrussell

[7by7]

High Court has ruled on the 'fairness' or otherwise for the partner but there has been no challenge based on the human rights of the children involved. I am no legal expert but surely the child has the right to be cared for by both parents under all but the most extreme circumstances.

I suspect challenges in the Supreme Court and/or the European Courts will be more favourable for applicants!

Remember Article 8 of the ECHR is a conditional right:

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the

law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the

country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection

of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms

of others.

The government argue that the financial requirement falls under the parts I have emphasised; and from what it says in Free Movement's report of the judgement, it appears that the High Court agrees with them.

As you say, we will have to see if the Supreme Court and then the ECJ or ECtHR do likewise or not.

If it gets that far; the government lost originally and appealed to the High Court. Whether it will be allowed to go further, I don't know; I hope so.

But one thing needs to be remembered; there has for many years been a financial requirement for family migration, and previous case law has determined that a refusal on financial grounds does not breach Article 8.

I believe that the argument is not whether a financial requirement is unfair, illegal or breaches Article 8; personally I don't think it's any of those three.

The argument is whether the current level and the way it is applied (ignoring outgoings, requiring a sponsor who has been living overseas to return alone and work for at least 6 months before their family can apply, etc.) is both fair and logical. As I've maintained ever since the current requirement was first mooted; in my opinion, it's neither.

From many reports, it seems that most MPs agree; but as the amendments to the Immigration Rules which, among other things, introduced this current financial requirement were made via a Statutory Instrument, they never got to vote on it!

[PattayaPhom]

Makes the 40k a month or 400k in the bank required here look such a measly amount, the parent separated could always stay in the country the child is living.............or maybe they cant due to visa requirements of that country...seems like some want cake and be able to eat it also

[maidee]

thank god all those illegal economic migrants from syria need to proof NOTHING and can bring all their relatives with no money & no visa

[hugh2121]

There is no need for children to be split from parents.

Parents, go home to your children.

[brewsterbudgen]

thank god all those illegal economic migrants from syria need to proof NOTHING and can bring all their relatives with no money & no visa

That's because they are refugees.

[Basil B]

The only way I see things changing is when someone challenges this through the courts as it has to breach the children's human rights.

Adults make their own choices and the implications of a marrying a non-EU citizen and returning to the UK are there to be considered. If they do not meet the financial requirements then they know in advance that settlement in the UK is not going to be possible under the present rules.

British citizen children do not have the ability to make that choice so really should have their best interests considered. Where children are involved the test should be means tested. Can the family involved afford to live in the UK without recourse to public funds for the non-EU spouse?

As I see it, 15000 children are having their basic human rights stamped upon by the UK government!

Bob as much as I agree with much of what you say, there have been many posters in this forum who have been married or in a relationship for many years with a family, probably the laws on immigration were different at the time they married, who at the time never intended to have to return to the UK but now their situations have changed.

One big stumbling block is the income issue, it is "chicken & egg" thing, I an sure almost anyone could find a job paying over 12K if they were desperate, and I am sure their wives/partners could get some form of part time job in excess 6K.

Another issue to which I absolutely agree with 7by7 is cost of living depends a lot on where one lives, and if one owns a house, rents or has a mortgage.

Going forward from this is young adults being deported when they reach 18, there has been much said by DC on children in care being kicked out on their 18th birthday, I agree with DC on this and young adults do need support for many years after their 18th birthday.

[7by7]

Makes the 40k a month or 400k in the bank required here look such a measly amount, the parent separated could always stay in the country the child is living.............or maybe they cant due to visa requirements of that country...seems like some want cake and be able to eat it also

No. what we want is a fair and equitable system. That other countries have immigration rules which are equally, or more, unfair and nonsensical is no reason for the UK to do the same!

One example of the stupidity of the new requirement.

Sponsor A earns £18,600 p.a. and as well as a mortgage has other debt repayments of £5000 p.a. He meets the financial requirement.

Sponsor B earns £18,599 p.a. He, too, has a mortgage with repayments the same as those of Sponsor A. He has no other debt repayments. He doesn't meet the financial requirement; even though his disposable income is actually higher than that of sponsor A!

Prior to July 2012, Sponsor A's debt repayments would have been taken into account when assessing if he could support his immigrant family members without the aid of public funds.

Now it is ignored!

How does that make any sense at all?

[Ghostnigel]

Ok, basically then, if they miss their kids so much, they have the option of going back to them, where ever that may be....sorted, next.

[theoldgit]

Off topic posts and a number of, reasoned, replies removed.

Kindly look at the thread title before you post.

[7by7]

Ok, basically then, if they miss their kids so much, they have the option of going back to them, where ever that may be....sorted, next.

Not always. There are many reasons why it is not possible for the British spouse/parent to remain in the country of their spouse's nationality.

In my situation, we would much rather have stayed in Thailand; but the prospect of me finding work there was minimal, whereas I had a profession to return to in the UK.

So the choice was live illegally, or on visa runs, in Thailand with insufficient income, live 6000 miles apart or move together to the UK.

What would you have done in that situation?

Others are working abroad on fixed term contracts, and those contracts have finished, so they have to return to the UK. Why should they be forced to leave their family behind?

Many have confirmed work in the UK paying above the minimum; but earned less than this whilst overseas. So they have to return alone and work for at least 6 months before they spouse can apply to join them. Why can't they all come together?

If a British sponsor can support their immigrant family members without the aid of public funds; why should they not be allowed to live in the UK together?

You have ignored the example in my post above of how nonsensical this fixed earnings minimum which totally ignores outgoings is.

Surely you must agree that using disposable income to asses a sponsor's finances makes far more sense than using their gross income?

BTW, I have no personal axe to grind as my wife and step daughter first entered the UK under the old, sensible financial rules.

The ECO took my net income, after tax and NICs, deducted my fixed outgoings to determine my disposable income and used that amount to decide whether or not I could support them both without the use of public funds; which I could.

Edited September 11, 2015 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

Ms May made specific reference to the Home Office being unwilling to consider specific family budgets. She was and is, not willing to consider applications from families unable to meet the financial requirements even if they are debt free.

The logical and fair method is to consider disposable income. I am not willing to subsidise any family wanting to return to the UK unless there are compelling, compassionate reasons for the return. A family should be able to demonstrate that they can afford to live in the UK without claiming additional funds for non-EU citizens.

These same families should appreciate that visas may be withdrawn if the family needs additional funding.

£18 600 is a good starting point as it is the level that a family will not be eligible for working benefits. Those unable to meet this level should be made to provide evidence they can afford to live in the UK. It may involve living with family etc but so be it.

[Jonathon]

Makes the 40k a month or 400k in the bank required here look such a measly amount, the parent separated could always stay in the country the child is living.............or maybe they cant due to visa requirements of that country...seems like some want cake and be able to eat it also

No. what we want is a fair and equitable system. That other countries have immigration rules which are equally, or more, unfair and nonsensical is no reason for the UK to do the same!

One example of the stupidity of the new requirement.

Sponsor A earns £18,600 p.a. and as well as a mortgage has other debt repayments of £5000 p.a. He meets the financial requirement.

Sponsor B earns £18,599 p.a. He, too, has a mortgage with repayments the same as those of Sponsor A. He has no other debt repayments. He doesn't meet the financial requirement; even though his disposable income is actually higher than that of sponsor A!

Prior to July 2012, Sponsor A's debt repayments would have been taken into account when assessing if he could support his immigrant family members without the aid of public funds.

Now it is ignored!

How does that make any sense at all?

"How does that make any sense at all?" If you are looking for common sense in UK government and public services then you will have a hard time finding it. Of course the rules are bent or totally ignored for the thousands of illegals entering the country.

Staying here might well turn out to be the better option.

[bobrussell]

The government have brought in rules to try to keep the immigration numbers within daft and impossible targets. They have so little control over the vast majority of people coming to the UK that they have hit the few they can, very hard.

This topic always ends up with anti-EU and illegal immigrants sentiments being expressed. There is little control on these groups so ranting about them is pretty pointless unless EU laws change.

Low income returnees, demanding housing after years away create plenty of friction and the rules were introduced to minimise this. Apparently the authorities are now discovering that single parent families (other parent stuck abroad) are often more needy than a two parent one. No surprise there!

A nasty bit of legislation affecting a relatively small number of families without a loud voice!

[7by7]

Low income returnees, demanding housing after years away create plenty of friction and the rules were introduced to minimise this.

The myth of immigrants arriving and immediately being given a council house is just that; a myth.

The prohibition on public funds includes social housing.

A British resident is entitled to social housing if they otherwise qualify for it; and their immigrant spouse is allowed to live there with them.

But they are not entitled to a larger property if, for example, extra accommodation is required for immigrant children.

The changes introduced in July 2012 did not effect that;

Indeed, earning above the minimum income of £18,600 p.a. would not necessarily disqualify a couple from social housing.

[farangmick]

Forgetting the asylum seekers and dregs of the EU who get state aid, British taxpayers pay to support low paid Britons. Even a single person needs to earn over £27,000 before they stop being a net drain on taxpayers. My pension is well above the figure for bringing a family to the UK, but not enough for a decent life, even with handouts, whereas we can live pretty well in Thailand. Why should British taxpayers support foreign families who cannot pay their way?

[7by7]

The Home Office always trot out the line that British taxpayers should not be expected to support immigrant families whenever challenged on this financial requirement.

No one I know would argue with that, I certainly don't.

But; what the Home Office don't say is that British taxpayers do not support, and never have supported, people entering under the family migration route because those people are prohibited from claiming any public funds until they have ILR; which now takes at least 5 years to obtain.

In addition their British sponsor, whilst able to claim any and all public funds to which they are entitled as an individual, cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant family members living with them.

How often does that have to be said before people accept the facts rather than May and her department's deceitful propaganda?

[bobrussell]

Low income returnees, demanding housing after years away create plenty of friction and the rules were introduced to minimise this.

The myth of immigrants arriving and immediately being given a council house is just that; a myth.

The prohibition on public funds includes social housing.

A British resident is entitled to social housing if they otherwise qualify for it; and their immigrant spouse is allowed to live there with them.

But they are not entitled to a larger property if, for example, extra accommodation is required for immigrant children.

The changes introduced in July 2012 did not effect that;

Indeed, earning above the minimum income of £18,600 p.a. would not necessarily disqualify a couple from social housing.

What is actually happening and what the so called 'Daily Mail' reader thinks is happening rarely seem to match. The idea that someone comes back from a life abroad, is homeless and therefore qualifies for emergency help does urk many, especially those sitting on social housing waiting lists. The problem with this is it is not an immigration issue because the non-EU spouse is irrelevant to qualifying for housing help.

There is insufficient social housing for those that need it and it is human nature to look for someone to blame!