'Absurd' visa rules on income force UK citizens into exile, court told

Jessica Elgot Monday 22 February 2016, theguardian.com

Minimum income of £18,600 to be able to bring over non-EU spouse is ‘unachievable’ for many people, supreme court hears

UK citizens are being forced into exile by the Home Office’s “irrational and absurd” minimum-income visa requirements, with some couples having no hope of ever being able to live together in Britain, the supreme court has heard. UK nationals must earn more than £18,600 to bring over a non-EU spouse, rising to £22,400 if they have a child who does not have British citizenship, and by an additional £2,400 for each subsequent child.

Seven supreme court justices including the court’s deputy president, Lady Hale, will decide after a three-day hearing whether the rules contravene article 8 of the European convention on human rights, covering respect for private and family life.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/22/absurd-minimum-income-visa-rules-forcing-uk-citizens-into-exile-court-told

This amount of money may seem like peanuts to anyone living in the south or around London but in other parts of the country where jobs can be rare enough , well paying jobs can be very thin on the ground indeed. 15,000 would be a more realistic amount for areas outside greater London.

Manjit Singh Gill QC, said the law barred up to 47% of the working British population from living with a non-EU spouse in their home country.

Hardly justice... or maybe it needs to be over 50%.

Obviously we can't think non-PC thoughts about how British the spouse is - by descent etc...

I suspect having failed once, this is the last just at the supreme court. Don't hold your breath on this, at least 6 months for a decision which is likely to uphold the lower court.

whether 18 600 or a lower level something has to be set, and the cost for two people to live in "average UK' is probably something akin to this number.

That is pre-tax and NI so the take home amount is irrelevant.

Couples, or families need to be able to support themselves. Spouses and family need to speak English, but as for passing a 'British culture 'test what a load of poppy cock

This does affect me, and whilst empathise, do not think the amount unreasonable.

What is totally unreasonable is the cost of the visas themselves imho.

If somebody doesn’t have an income of £18,600, what chance is that they will find the £3-4K for settlement and that is without flights, tests etc.

I think UK nationals who have lived in the UK all their lives and have paid their taxes etc should have a huge discount on their visa fees if they have the temerity to fall in love with somebody outside the EU.

NHS surcharge? Disgusting. Just make it a requirement that the visa applicant has medical health insurance for the duration of their stay.

"A Decision is expected in 6 Months" ?

The government's argument is that this requirement does not breach Article 8 of the ECHR due to the following caveat;

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......the economic wellbeing of the country.....

So far the lower courts have agreed with government that this caveat means the financial requirement does not breach Article 8.

Whatever the outcome in the Supreme Court I am certain that the losers will seek to take the case to the ECtHR; a process which could easily mean at least another two years before a final decision is reached

Now, there is a strong argument that ensuring immigrants can support themselves, or be supported by their British partner, without the benefit of state aid is definitely in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the country; an argument with which I agree.

Which means, of course, I have absolutely no problem with the applicant and sponsor being required to show that the applicant can be financially supported in the UK and the applicant being barred from receiving public funds until they have ILR; except those they have paid the relevant NICs for, of course.

So the question as I see it, and I'm no lawyer, is whether or not the current financial requirement is a fair way of ensuring this.

In my opinion, and that of many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration; it isn't.

As I said in the concurrent topic on this case; prior to July 2012 applicants and sponsors had to show they could support themselves or be supported by their sponsor without recourse to public funds. There was no fixed minimum income, but in practice, based on case law, this meant they needed an income, after deducting housing and other fixed outgoings such as debt repayments, of at least the income support level for a British family of the same size.

Which for a couple is currently £114.85 p.w., £5972 p.a.

Now, as well as the minimum income required being well above that which the government expect a British couple to live on, outgoings are completely ignored!

Which means we have the ludicrous situation whereby, for example, Mr A who has an income of £18,600 p.a. but mortgage and other debt repayments of £15,000 p.a. meets the requirement; but Mr B who has an income of £18,599 p.a. but his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts doesn't!

Plus, as said by Denim above, the old system took into account the sometimes large variations in wages and housing costs in different parts of the county; this one doesn't.

To me, the old requirement prior to July 2012 was fair and equitable; this new one in force since then isn't.

So if the people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

NHS surcharge? Disgusting. Just make it a requirement that the visa applicant has medical health insurance for the duration of their stay.

My argument against this surcharge is that the British sponsor is paying tax and if working once in the UK, so will the applicant be.

Even if not working, the applicant will still be paying VAT on most things they buy.

Plus the fact that the government make a vast profit, around 500%, on settlement and LTR fees.

Having said that; £200 p.a. is comparable to many private health plans.

Furthermore, unlike private health plans, pre-existing conditions are covered and it does not get more expensive as you get older.

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO!

So if the people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights and it's court have nothing to do with the European Union.

They were established by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member, in 1950.

The Council of Europe currently has 47 members, including all 28 members of the EU.

The UK was a member of the ECtHR long before we joined what was then the EEC and will still be if we leave the EU.

So even if the UK does leave the EU, that will have no effect on this case nor any other human rights cases or legislation in the UK.

£18,600.

It's hardly a kings ransomed.

I certainly couldn't live on that amount, not even here in Thailand.

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO

I don't see £200 as a bargain........i see it as a bloody insult to charge some one who has paid Tax and Ni contributions for nearly 4 years (as in my wife's case).

As per usual it,s the one size fits-all policy..........and it stinks. Every case should be treated on it,s own merits imho.

why are people still complaining about the income level it really has not been set very high and it has been around for a few years now. I would prefer for it to be higher but I dout it will be. If you swap it around you need to show money to stay in Thailand and then that only allows 1 year at a time. So stop moaning about the income level and if you do not earn enough money to statisfy it then simple get another job.

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO

I don't see £200 as a bargain........i see it as a bloody insult to charge some one who has paid Tax and Ni contributions for nearly 4 years (as in my wife's case).

As per usual it,s the one size fits-all policy..........and it stinks. Every case should be treated on it,s own merits imho.

If you are really that insuted by it then don't pay and leave the UK

18k a year ? Christ if thats all they are earning how did they afford a holiday in Thailand to find a foreign bride in the first place ? Making 300 quid a week and expecting the tax payer to subsidise their fags, booze and any future kids.. The self entitled gang all expect a millionaires lifestyle on a tuppeny ha'ppenny budget.. What next ? Ferraris for all ?

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO

I don't see £200 as a bargain........i see it as a bloody insult to charge some one who has paid Tax and Ni contributions for nearly 4 years (as in my wife's case).

As per usual it,s the one size fits-all policy..........and it stinks. Every case should be treated on it,s own merits imho.

If you are really that insuted by it then don't pay and leave the UK

That,s exactly what we are doing......leaving......wife,s Brp runs out Sept and we are off.

18k a year ? Christ if thats all they are earning how did they afford a holiday in Thailand to find a foreign bride in the first place ? Making 300 quid a week and expecting the tax payer to subsidise their fags, booze and any future kids.. The self entitled gang all expect a millionaires lifestyle on a tuppeny ha'ppenny budget.. What next ? Ferraris for all ?

The MAC's proposed income threshold would be £25,700 gross per annum, but they're all worthless Brits right?

Not everyone comes to Thailand (or indeed Aus/USA) to 'find a bride' - perhaps that should be on the application?

...http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995

• Bar staff £7,317 (-1.0%)
• Playworkers £7,400 (-3.8%)
• Waiters & waitresses ( £7,654 +8.3%)
• Cleaners £8,067 (+1.9%)
• Florists £8,960 (-6.0%)
• Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
• Fitness instructors £10,378 (-8.4%)
• Shopworkers £11,174 (+0.3%)
• Cooks £11,346 (-7.4%)
• Nursery nurses £11,163 (-0.4%)
• Beauticians £12,418 (+5.3%)
• Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
• Receptionists £12,595 (+1.8%)
• Care workers £12,804 (+0.9%)
• Childminders £12,949 (+2.3%)
• Telephonists £14,032 (+1.5%)
• Tailors & Dressmakers £14,482 (-23.5%)
• Caretakers £16,114 (+3.9%)
• Secretaries £16,384 (+1.1%)
• Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
• Customer service £16,525 (+9.5%)
• Undertakers £16,526 (0%)
• Packers £16,820 (-0.4%)
• Tele sales £17,362 (-1.1%)
• Chefs £17,391 (+0.3%)
• Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
• Street cleaners £17,616 (-3.8%)
• Butchers £17,681 (+1.2%)
• Hospital porters £17,748 (+5.8%)
• Farm workers £17,925 (+4.9)
• Traffic wardens £18,065 (-4.2%)
• Travel agents £18,344 (+10.7%)
• Van drivers £18,744 (+2.9%)
• Tyre & exhaust fitters £18,888 (-4.2%)
• Bank clerks £19,908 (+9.3%)
• Youth & Community workers £20,240 (+2.6%)
• Civil servants £20,330 +1.2%
• Council administrators £20,351 (+2.9%)
• Vicars £20,568 (-3.6%)
• Security guards £20,841 (+2.2%)
• Plasterers £21,155 (+0.1%)
• Lab technicians £21,168 (+0.2%)
• Fork lift drivers £21,444 (+0.3%)
• Musicians £21,492 (+6.8%)
• Roofers £21,921 (-1.5%)
• Bricklayers £22,476 (-7.0%)
• Painters £22,700 (+1.9%)
• Ambulance staff £22,854 (+5.6%)
• Housing officers £23,001 (-0.6%)
• Bus & coach drivers £23,095 (+3.0%)
• Posties & messengers £23,178 (+17.5%)
• Librarians £23,940 (-0.3%)
• Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
• Photographers £24,242 (-4.8%)
• Farmers £24,520 (+5.5%)
• Estate agents £24,783 (-8.2%)
• Publicans £25,222 (+10.7%)
• Mechanics £25,238 (-0.7%)
• Lorry drivers £25,602 (+1.4%)

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

From my point of view it is. I am 59 with no kids and the only "drain on the system" that I have ever made is a knee op a while back. And they very kindly gave me a hospital acquired infection at the same time. I don't use libraries, NHS dentists or anything else that I can think of. I have been self employed since I was 21. I collect VAT for the government, pay a lot of tax and NIC, and yes, it's a disgrace. The GF is 38, has never smoked and has no pre existing conditions.

I have BUPA myself in the UK and I would rather cut my own leg off than go to my local hospital. There should be a mechanism where you are allowed to opt out of the NHS surcharge if you can show valid valid medical insurance.

Well, don't countries have the rights to set some rules and policies on immigration, medical, communicable diseases, means of support, income, net worth etc? If UK laws don't quite line up with some EU documents, that will be interesting to see what the court rules. If the ruling is simply to determine that the UK rule is in conflict with the EU charter or whatever, well, so what? Exactly how binding are the EU things?

Just looked at the minimum income calculator for UK http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/calculator/ and for a person living alone after tax the minimum income is considered to be around 17,000. with a wife and kid it goes up to 36,000, which is the absolute minimum needed to survive apparently according the research...

£18,600.

It's hardly a kings ransomed.

I certainly couldn't live on that amount, not even here in Thailand.

I roughly earn that amount here in Thailand. I have a wife and young child to support and am the the sole breadwinnner. We live in a decent condo, eat well, drive a very nice car and I still manage to save 20-30K a month. If you can't live on 77,000 Baht a month, there is something seriously wrong with you.

why are people still complaining about the income level it really has not been set very high and it has been around for a few years now. I would prefer for it to be higher but I dout it will be. If you swap it around you need to show money to stay in Thailand and then that only allows 1 year at a time. So stop moaning about the income level and if you do not earn enough money to statisfy it then simple get another job.

An extremely blinkered and self-centred view.

Just try applying your logic to those (and there are a great many) who are now retired and obliged to live on the pittance that HMG calls a State Pension.................

More countries have rules like this in Europe.

So it will be a very interesting case for many countries with the angel they take in this case.

If you have a pittance of a uk pension then it means you did not save for the future when you were young. If you earn below the required income level you will be entitled to all sorts of uk benefits at the expense of the U.K. Taxpayer. If you earn under the minimum income and you are younger it means you did not work hard enough to progress in your career or get further qualifications. I personally think the minimum is generous.

Quite reasonable!! Should help reduce some of the

Debt and help with the economy....more people

Pay into the system, less to pay out!

So if the

people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights and it's court have nothing to do with the European Union.They were established by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member, in 1950.The Council of Europe currently has 47 members, including all 28 members of the EU.The UK was a member of the ECtHR long before we joined what was then the EEC and will still be if we leave the EU.So even if the UK does leave the EU, that will have no effect on this case nor any other human rights cases or legislation in the UK.

Not 100% correct.It may well have an effect read this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/david-cameron-prepared-to-break-with-europe-on-human-rights

On another note,why does it take up to 6 months to reach a decision?

Well, I have £17,000/annum as a pension (after tax), comprising: nothing whatever from the private pension scheme to which I contributed for many years which all went down the tubes in the recession, a trivial sum as a state pension for my many years contributions in the UK and a £13,500/annum Luxembourg state pension (for a mere 11 years working there). I don't own a property and when I did my calculations a year or two before I was due to retire, I realized, fairly rapidly, that there was no way that I could afford to live in the UK or that at least not anywhere south of the Humber Estuary nor indeed anywhere much in Europe and that is how I ended up in Thailand. Personally, I am truly delighted it worked out the way it did as, if I had had just a few £1000 a year more, I would have settled down to a life of relative poverty in the cold, miserable UK, whereas, with that pension, I am obscenely affluent in Thailand.

So no, I don't think their demands are unreasonable at all. I really don't know how any couple could live in Britain today in any sort of comfort on less than about £25,000. If your prospective partner is Thai or from somewhere else with a tropical climate, would you really doing them any favours by taking them back to the UK where you will both be living in relative poverty? Would you you be able to afford to heat your residence to 24° or 25°C so that your partner would feel at least comfortable. Could you afford to stump up the hundreds of £s it would cost to outfit your partner with warm enough clothing and footwear to survive the UK's wonderful climate? These are the questions I would be asking someone in that position.

Manjit Singh Gill QC, said the law barred up to 47% of the working British population from living with a non-EU spouse in their home country.

Hardly justice... or maybe it needs to be over 50%.

Obviously we can't think non-PC thoughts about how British the spouse is - by descent etc...

How scary is that! 47% of of the British population live on around £18,000 year

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO

I don't see £200 as a bargain........i see it as a bloody insult to charge some one who has paid Tax and Ni contributions for nearly 4 years (as in my wife's case).

As per usual it,s the one size fits-all policy..........and it stinks. Every case should be treated on it,s own merits imho.

Do you know what the cost would be to assess each case on its own? Absolutely astronomic. As with the winter heating allowance for OAPs it's cheaper to give it to all than means test it. There has to be a nose size fits all from the government otherwise nothing would ever be done.