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

[Trevor1809]

The £200 per year per applicant is really going to make a difference to the health service, one can only hope that at some time we get a govenment with some balls and make all immigrants have proper health insurance so they do not become a burden on the NHS. The same with immigrants children if they decide to come to the UK then the parents should be prepared to provide private schooling for said child. One of the parents will of course be a step parent and will always be a step parent. If the childs biological parents can or will not provide money for said child then why should the state pay for the childs schooling. Just becuase one parent is a British Citizen and have paid taxes does nto mean that it should go towards an immigrant's child schooling or health care.

And why should my taxes go towards tax avoiding celebs and those in the black economy. I pay more tax than the UK arm of Facebook with a turnover of £110M per annum and still people bang on about immigrants.

[sandyf]

You will never get past the ' I am better off than you' brigade.

I started work when I was 11, up at 5am to deliver milk, paid NI contributions for 45 years and now live on state pension. My son lives and works in the UK and if I did want to spend the last few years of my life closer to him and his family I would have to leave my wife behind.

The UK government are hypocrites, they preach family values but your family has no value if they are foreign nationals.

The rules are there for a reason, if you do not have the required income level then tuff, theres not a lot of point moaning about it, if your wife came to the UK who is going to support her financially? do you expect the tax payer to provide her with the things she may need?

Of course the rules are always right.

If £18,600 is an indication of the required income level what does it say about the state pension arrangements.

Do you really think that all state pensioners are on benefits?

[dageurreotype]

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 higher echelons (earning more than 18 lousy K) of British society do not travel to third world countries to find foreign' brides'

[cjw121]

Can be difficult; but border runs for Farang living in Thailand are still possible.

The money for an immigrant child's education comes from their British step parents taxes, and their immigrant parent's if they, too, are working; which many are. This would be the case whatever the financial requirement.

Health care not only comes from the same source, but also the £200 per year per applicant health surcharge.

Like the new requirement, the old one could be met by savings, income or a combination of both. Under the old requirement the level of savings required had to be sufficient for the couple, plus any children, to live on without recourse to public funds.

I repeat:-

As I said earlier; the system in place prior to July 2012 was based upon net income after deducting regular outgoings including housing costs and debt repayments. This requirement is based purely on gross income before any deductions at all.

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!

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

Will you now respond?

Can be difficult; but border runs for Farang living in Thailand are still possible.

Since when has it been OK to live in a country on Tourist Visas? Considering I do not think you are really talking about people with either a Non O/B Multi Entry Visa.

Advocating a person to abuse a countries Visa system just about sums you up

[7by7]

cjw121,

If you read the Thai visa and residency forum you will see that many members of this forum live in Thailand by means of visa runs.

Maybe you should address the above remark to them and see what reaction you get; but I'd strongly advice not doing so in person!

From everything you have posted in this topic it is obvious that you believe that only wealthy British citizens should be allowed to live in the UK with a foreign spouse.

You believe that even then they should pay twice for their children's education; once via their and/or their partner's tax and again by being forced into the private sector.

You believe the same about their health care; except you want them to pay three times instead of twice as they do now; their and/or their partner's taxes and the surcharge and being made to go private.

As said previously, £200 per year is comparable to some private health insurance; more expensive than many; cheaper than very few, if any. Check if you don't believe me.

As private health insurance companies can charge this and still make a profit then any reasonable person must realise that the NHS will be able to at least cover the costs of treating immigrant family members of British citizens.

Of course there will be some people who, through no fault of their own, will cost the NHS more than this, but there will be many more who cost the NHS considerably less, even some who cost it nothing at all. It all balances out.

I believe that whilst your views may garner some sympathy from the BNP and similar, most people in the UK do not share it.

This doers not mean I believe immigrant family members should be supported by the state; I don't. As I made clear in my very first post in this topic I believe that it is right and proper that their British sponsor should show that they can be wholly supported from their own finances.

Lastly, I notice that you have, yet again, refrained from commenting on absurdities of the requirement, so I repeat for the final time:-

As I said earlier; the system in place prior to July 2012 was based upon net income after deducting regular outgoings including housing costs and debt repayments. This requirement is based purely on gross income before any deductions at all.

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!

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

Will you now respond?

(Edited for spelling and grammar)

Edited February 26, 2016 by 7by7

[Trevor1809]

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 higher echelons (earning more than 18 lousy K) of British society do not travel to third world countries to find foreign' brides'

Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health, he who is causing all the strikes by doctors in the U Kat the moment has a Chinese wife. And to those people complaining about immigrant children getting free education, Jeremy Hunt, a millionaire, used tax payers payer to learn Mandarin.

[cjw121]

Now if you can get health insurance to an unlimted amount which will also cover any pre existing condition for £200 PA you are doing very well and if you do know of any such policy then share it on here as I know many people that would jump at the chance to get insurance at that price.

It does not make any difference who is more disposal income as they rules state you need a set income level and that is it, plain and simple.

The income level really is not very high and if a person can't make it then get another job.

considering that immigration has become a big issue with this govenment and the general public I think that you will find that a majority of people would welcome stricter rules and to make the imcome level higher what should reduce immigration into the UK. After all the current govenment have pledge to reduce immigration into the UK now does that make them part og the BNP?

Edited February 26, 2016 by cjw121

[rasg]

About £80 with Bupa.th for an annual policy for my GF.

2 million medical expenses, 30 million emergency medical expenses.

I don't have a problem with the income requirement at all for families wanting to come here to live in the UK and have the benefits of our country. What I object to, as a UK national, is having to pay anything at all for the GF visas when I have paid tax, NIC and all the other rip off taxes in the UK from the age of 15. No kids and I haven’t taken anything from the system at all apart from a knee op a few years back. When the GF is here we take nothing from the system at all. Obviously we are not allowed to but I wouldn’t be bothered if we could.

I know a local Albanian family who claimed asylum here. Arrived here with three kids and the woman was separated from husband at that point. They hooked up again and she had another two. £1600 a month rent for the house paid by the tax payer. None of them have ever worked unless it was cash. The husband has cleared off and pays nothing for the kids. Five kids going to school. That is the type of thing that makes me angry. How they got asylum I have no idea. I aslked the mum once and she said something about the Mafia. Really?!

[7by7]

cjw121,

I see from your first topic on this forum that your wife was applying for British citizenship in September 2015.

Which means she must have been resident in the UK for at least three years and have ILR.

Which means she would not only have applied for her first settlement visa under the old rules, but she would also have obtained her ILR before the introduction of the NHS surcharge.

So tell us, so we can compare it to the NHS surcharge, how much is her private health insurance premium?

Maybe you don't bother with insurance and are rich enough to simply pay the private medical fees if she requires any treatment?

Or does she have any treatment she may require on the NHS?

I strongly suspect the latter.

BTW, check the latest figures from the ONS provided by Tony M in this topic.

Total immigration: 617,000 (source).

Family immigration: 37,859 (source).

So family immigration is just 6.1% of the total.

The stricter rules on family migration have made it harder for British citizens and their foreign partners to live in the UK than it was when your wife came here. But the effect on the overall net migration figure is infinitesimal.

Meanwhile families are being kept apart because they do not meet an arbitrary financial requirement even though they are perfectly able to support themselves in the UK without any aid from the state.

Edited February 26, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

<snip>

It does not make any difference who is more disposal income as they rules state you need a set income level and that is it, plain and simple.

I know the rules; probably far better than you.

But I didn't ask you what the rules state; I asked you:-

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

That you refuse to answer and instead dodge the questions speaks volumes.

[cjw121]

cjw121,

I see from your first topic on this forum that your wife was applying for British citizenship in September 2015.

Which means she must have been resident in the UK for at least three years and have ILR.

Which means she would not only have applied for her first settlement visa under the old rules, but she would also have obtained her ILR before the introduction of the NHS surcharge.

So tell us, so we can compare it to the NHS surcharge, how much is her private health insurance premium?

Maybe you don't bother with insurance and are rich enough to simply pay the private medical fees if she requires any treatment?

Or does she have any treatment she may require on the NHS?

I strongly suspect the latter.

BTW, check the latest figures from the ONS provided by Tony M in this topic.

Total immigration: 617,000 (source).

Family immigration: 37,859 (source).

So family immigration is just 6.1% of the total.

The stricter rules on family migration have made it harder for British citizens and their foreign partners to live in the UK than it was when your wife came here. But the effect on the overall net migration figure is infinitesimal.

Meanwhile families are being kept apart because they do not meet an arbitrary financial requirement even though they are perfectly able to support themselves in the UK without any aid from the state.

Not that it has anything really to do with you but my wife has private health insurance as I did not want her to become a burden on the state, so she pays £848 PA which is far more than what the surcharge is and people still want to complain about paying it.

Then if a family can not settle her due to money and settle in Thailand.

[7by7]

Not that it has anything really to do with you but my wife has private health insurance as I did not want her to become a burden on the state, so she pays £848 PA which is far more than what the surcharge is and people still want to complain about paying it.

Good for you; but remember that premium includes the insurance companies overheads and profits; which the NHS surcharge doesn't.

Will you continue with the cover once she is a British citizen?

Do you have cover as well?

In other words, did you really take it out just on your wife so that she would not become a 'burden on the state' or would have taken it out anyway because you already had it?

Such questions are relevant given your comments.

Then if a family can not settle her due to money and settle in Thailand.

There are many reasons why a British/foreign family may choose to settle in the UK rather than the foreign partner's homeland.

For us, we would much rather have settled in Thailand than the UK; but the likelihood of my obtaining suitable work in Thailand with an income high enough to support my family was slim. I already had such work in the UK.

I believe that the choice to live together in the UK should be open to all British/foreign families who can support themselves without state aid; you believe it should only be an option for the rich.

[makescents]

The UK should adopt the Thai spouse visa system renew every year and your not entitled to anything.

If my wife just need to visit a consulate to get a visa and take a trip to Ireland every 3 months it would be ok for a lot of folks.

[cjw121]

Not that it has anything really to do with you but my wife has private health insurance as I did not want her to become a burden on the state, so she pays £848 PA which is far more than what the surcharge is and people still want to complain about paying it.

Good for you; but remember that premium includes the insurance companies overheads and profits; which the NHS surcharge doesn't.

Will you continue with the cover once she is a British citizen?

Do you have cover as well?

In other words, did you really take it out just on your wife so that she would not become a 'burden on the state' or would have taken it out anyway because you already had it?

Such questions are relevant given your comments.

Then if a family can not settle her due to money and settle in Thailand.

There are many reasons why a British/foreign family may choose to settle in the UK rather than the foreign partner's homeland.

For us, we would much rather have settled in Thailand than the UK; but the likelihood of my obtaining suitable work in Thailand with an income high enough to support my family was slim. I already had such work in the UK.

I believe that the choice to live together in the UK should be open to all British/foreign families who can support themselves without state aid; you believe it should only be an option for the rich.

My wife already has citizenship and yes I have carried on her health insurance and will continue too. It is hardly just for the rich when the income level is only £18,400 which is not really very much to earn. If a person would really want to bring there partner to this country what is wrong with working hard and getting 2,3,4 Jobs to get to the required level surley it has to be worth it for the person.

Paying a £200 health supplement is a total bargin if you look at what you get for that, it is not only hospital care but seeing your GP, Dentist and so on. Even if you have a NHS prescription in a lot of cases you are getting the drugs much cheaper than if you had to pay the full cost.

Someone could come to the UK needing extensive medical treatment which would be covered by the tax payer at large. Is that fair and right? can you do that in Thailand for example?

A person can not claim benefits but that should also extend to health care and the applicant should be made to have private health insurance.

[rasg]

I agree with you. I have BUPA here in the UK and I am happy to pay for a BUPA policy for her when she is here. The thing that bugs me is I have to get a referral from a doctor to use BUPA. I don't see £200 as a bargain as it means I have to pay twice because I choose to have BUPA. If I have to go to any one of the three hospitals close to me I would prefer not to. One of them is falling down and my MP, Boris, has promised to have it rebuilt. How long will that take. Another gave my father MRSA after a heart bypass and basically killed him and the last was responsible for two of my mother's health problems before she died four years ago.

You might get to "see" your dentist but if you need any treatment you have to pay. I am just about to change my doctor because they are now suggesting a patient diagnoses themselves over the phone. Yeah. Right.

[rasg]

I believe that the choice to live together in the UK should be open to all British/foreign families who can support themselves without state aid; you believe it should only be an option for the rich.

It depends on your definition of rich. Somebody on £18,600 can hardly described as rich and there does have to be a threshold of some kind. And that figure is before tax as far as I know. Two thirds of that would be gobbled up in rent for a place within 50 miles of where I live. Plus council tax. £150 a month on gas and electricity, etc, etc, etc.

[Richard W]

BTW, as you should know, if a Brit living in Thailand cannot meet the Thai financial requirement then s/he has the option of border runs; an option not available in the UK.

Well, technically, they are also available for EU spouses in the UK. Indeed, I haven't heard of any British citizens getting the proper visas for their EU spouses, and the UK government doesn't yet bother to check that the visa runs actually take place.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Richard W

[HauptmannUK]

Truthfully the £18.6k requirement is very arbitrary because it is a gross figure.

On the one hand you could have someone with high levels of debt repayment and virtually no 'disposable' income. On the other you could have someone with house and car paid for and no debt, living in a lower cost part of the country.

I imagine its particularly hard on older guys who have maybe taken early retirement but have no mortgage etc and find themselves on a pension coming it a bit below this figure.. Probably not much chance of getting a job to boost their income.

[billd766]

Not that it has anything really to do with you but my wife has private health insurance as I did not want her to become a burden on the state, so she pays £848 PA which is far more than what the surcharge is and people still want to complain about paying it.

Good for you; but remember that premium includes the insurance companies overheads and profits; which the NHS surcharge doesn't.

Will you continue with the cover once she is a British citizen?

Do you have cover as well?

In other words, did you really take it out just on your wife so that she would not become a 'burden on the state' or would have taken it out anyway because you already had it?

Such questions are relevant given your comments.

Then if a family can not settle her due to money and settle in Thailand.

There are many reasons why a British/foreign family may choose to settle in the UK rather than the foreign partner's homeland.

For us, we would much rather have settled in Thailand than the UK; but the likelihood of my obtaining suitable work in Thailand with an income high enough to support my family was slim. I already had such work in the UK.

I believe that the choice to live together in the UK should be open to all British/foreign families who can support themselves without state aid; you believe it should only be an option for the rich.

My wife already has citizenship and yes I have carried on her health insurance and will continue too. It is hardly just for the rich when the income level is only £18,400 which is not really very much to earn. If a person would really want to bring there partner to this country what is wrong with working hard and getting 2,3,4 Jobs to get to the required level surley it has to be worth it for the person.

Paying a £200 health supplement is a total bargin if you look at what you get for that, it is not only hospital care but seeing your GP, Dentist and so on. Even if you have a NHS prescription in a lot of cases you are getting the drugs much cheaper than if you had to pay the full cost.

Someone could come to the UK needing extensive medical treatment which would be covered by the tax payer at large. Is that fair and right? can you do that in Thailand for example?

A person can not claim benefits but that should also extend to health care and the applicant should be made to have private health insurance.

If you think that earning £18600 is easy in the UK take a look at these links of jobs and salaries. If your Thai wife has good marketable skills, assuming that the UK would accept her Thai Uni qualifications at the same value as the UK and also assuming that she can speak,read and write English fluently here are a couple of links to jobs and there average salaries. Remeber that the salaries vary depending on what part of the UK you live in.

You also have to figure in what marketable skills your wife has and perhaps there may be prejudices simply because she is Thai and the perception that many UK people have of Thai people.

http://www.icalculator.info/news/UK_average_earnings_2014.html

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/wages

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/worklife/careers/a33179/average-job-salaries-uk/

Even the Daily Mirror has an input

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

[cjw121]

looking at the links you provided show that the average UK income is higher then £18,600 they also do not say how many hours are worked. If you take it at the new minimum (In April That is) of £7,20 working 50 hours per week which really is not very much wil give you an income of £18,720 PA. That is just on minimum wage.

[rasg]

You also have to figure in what marketable skills your wife has and perhaps there may be prejudices simply because she is Thai and the perception that many UK people have of Thai people.

I assume you are talking about prejudices against Thai people as far as work is concerned? In my experience since me and my GF became involved and have traveled around the UK a lot. Our experiences have been very positive. The Thai people I have met in the UK always seem to be very hard workers.

[7by7]

I believe that the choice to live together in the UK should be open to all British/foreign families who can support themselves without state aid; you believe it should only be an option for the rich.

It depends on your definition of rich. Somebody on £18,600 can hardly described as rich and there does have to be a threshold of some kind. And that figure is before tax as far as I know. Two thirds of that would be gobbled up in rent for a place within 50 miles of where I live. Plus council tax. £150 a month on gas and electricity, etc, etc, etc.

I agree that a salary of £18,600 does not make one rich; but cjw121, to whom my remark was addressed, has stated he believes the minimum should be much higher.

Furthermore he believes that, despite at least one partner paying tax, the NHS surcharge and the 500 to 600% profit the government makes on the visa and LTR fees, that the immigrant family members should not have access to the NHS and that any children should be forced into private education.

Though he doesn't say how long for. Until ILR? Citizenship? Forever?

You are correct when you say that living costs, notably housing costs vary greatly depending on where you live; and so does income.

But this requirement takes no account of that; which can lead to the absurd situation I described earlier.

That is why I firmly believe the old system was better.

Under that, all these factors were taken into account, and if, after deduction regular expenses (income tax, NICs, housing costs, any other fixed expenses) the amount left was the same, or more, than the income support level for a British family of the same size then the financial requirement was met.

So, not only was the old system fairer, it was far more logical.

This requirement was introduced so the government could tell the British public that they were 'doing something' about immigration.

But, as shown earlier, those who have to meet it, family migrants, account for just 6% of total immigration.

The effect has been devastating on families who could easily support themselves in the UK without state aid, but has had an infinitesimal effect on the government's aim of reducing net migration.

[7by7]

billd766,

It is irrelevant what marketable skills the foreign partner may have.

For the initial visa application, only the sponsor's income is taken into account.

So the foreign partner could have a definite job offer in the UK paying well above the minimum; but if their partner's income is below £18,600 then, unless they had sufficient savings, they would be refused.

A situation not uncommon where the British partner is female and the couple have pre school children. Indeed, the APPGM report linked to earlier cites at least one such case.

cjw121;

Yes, the average UK income is above £18,600 p.a. But that average includes everybody; from a Premiership footballer on £50K a week to a Tesco shelf filler on minimum wage.

Over 40% of the working population earn less than £18,600. (source)

[Asheron]

Naturally people on this forum are thinking along the lines of white man, Thai bride.

Of course the majority of spousal applications are from South Asia followed by sub-Saharan Africa.

There is a large industry of arranged marriages in which settlement in the UK can be sold through a network of brokers. This income hurdle provides the very minimum of protection for the British taxpayer.

Even though the facts show that the vast majority of immigrants are actually net beneficiaries TO the state rather than of it. In other words, that they overall pay in far MORE in taxes and VAT etc TO the state than they take out in benefits. In which case the 'British taxpayer' does not need 'protection'.

Are you really saying that immigrants in UK are aliens compared to immigrants to Sweden? Because immigrants in Sweden has been a deficit since 1980's and the deficit has been around 2% of GDP and in that was not calculated shitton of benefits like social benefits (unemployed yadda yadda), child benefits and housing benefits. All this can be read in a report the swedish government ordered in 2009 and quickly buried (never mentioned it). Lets also not forget that after 10 years in Sweden barely half of immigrants work.

In Sweden the "working rate" has to be about 85-86% for the welfare state to "go around". I have a hard time believing that the rate would be much different in the UK with it's benefits, NHS etc.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Asheron

[7by7]

Whatever the situation may or may not be in Sweden; this topic is about the UK!

Immigrants to the UK, whether from the EEA or outside it, taken as a whole do pay more in taxes etc. than they take in state benefits and services.

What have the immigrants ever done for us?

Edited February 27, 2016 by 7by7

[cjw121]

Your source information can not really be taken very seriously when they have not included how the figures where come by. What proporation of market reasearch did they do? I would prefer a higher level income to reduce net migration, but at the current level and with the new minimum wage comming in it really would not be that hard to earn more than that if you really do put yourself out and work harder. Which should not be a problem if you really do want your partner to come to the UK.

If a person has brought someone elses child to the UK, why should that child ever be entitled to Free Schooling? that is the responsibility of the biological parents not the UK tax payer.

As has been said before, if someone has a life long illness and then comes to the UK why should the NHS be responsible for that persons treatment? do you think that they would ever get private health care to cover there illness?

You are still to provide a link where you can get unlimted health care covering everything be it cost £1 or unlimted amount of money for £200 PA?

[Asheron]

Whatever the situation may or may not be in Sweden; this topic is about the UK!

Immigrants to the UK, whether from the EEA or outside it, taken as a whole do pay more in taxes etc. than they take in state benefits and services.

What have the immigrants ever done for us?

What kind of employment rate does middle eastern, south east asians, north africans, central africans, carribeans, indians, pakistanis, chinese etc etc etc have in the UK compared to indigenous british people? I'm asking because surely it should be quiet known that in general some immigrants are just better for a country compared to other immigrants.

An immigrant != an immigrant just as a car != a lorry just because both have wheels.

[7by7]

Your source information can not really be taken very seriously when they have not included how the figures where come by. What proporation of market reasearch did they do?

As you seem to be incapable of clicking on the link in that source to the actual research by Oxford University's Migration Observatory; try clicking here to be taken directly to it.

There are other links in my source as well, see if you can find them (hint; the words in bold).

A little bit of research by yourself will also confirm from many different sources that it is a fact that over 40% of British workers earn less than £18,600.

I would prefer a higher level income to reduce net migration,

Except, as the governments own figures prove, reducing family migration has had an infinitesimal effect on the total net migration figures.

Figures which include EEA migrants, work visa holders and student visa holders.

but at the current level and with the new minimum wage comming in it really would not be that hard to earn more than that if you really do put yourself out and work harder. Which should not be a problem if you really do want your partner to come to the UK.

As you, yourself, say; even with the increase in the minimum wage from April, someone would have to work 50 hours a week to meet the requirement.

As most jobs paying minimum wage are 40 hours a week or less, this means either doing at least 10 hours overtime a week, if it's available which it would have to be each and every week of the year; or finding a second job.

But why should someone work 50 plus hours a week when they are perfectly capable of supporting their family without state aid on a lower income?

If a person has brought someone elses child to the UK, why should that child ever be entitled to Free Schooling? that is the responsibility of the biological parents not the UK tax payer.

Because the step parent, and in many cases the biological parent as well, IS a UK tax payer.

As for NHS treatment; does your insistence to non taxpayers being barred from NHS treatment extend to British citizens who don't pay tax; the young, the unemployed, pensioners on a low pension income?

BTW, when I said that £200 p.a. was comparable to private health insurance, I was quoting Theresa May's remarks when this surcharge was introduced. So take it up with her.

It is obvious that my earlier comment that you believe only the rich should be allowed to marry a foreigner and live in the UK with them is perfectly true.

That having got your wife here and got her through to British citizenship, you now want to stop others from doing the same because you don't consider them to be of a similar quality to you and your wife!

[7by7]

Whatever the situation may or may not be in Sweden; this topic is about the UK!

Immigrants to the UK, whether from the EEA or outside it, taken as a whole do pay more in taxes etc. than they take in state benefits and services.

What have the immigrants ever done for us?

What kind of employment rate does middle eastern, south east asians, north africans, central africans, carribeans, indians, pakistanis, chinese etc etc etc have in the UK compared to indigenous british people? I'm asking because surely it should be quiet known that in general some immigrants are just better for a country compared to other immigrants.

An immigrant != an immigrant just as a car != a lorry just because both have wheels.

I see where you're going with this; it seems that you believe British citizens should only be allowed to marry people you consider to be good for the country; and that you base that qualification mainly on race.

As said earlier, you must have missed it, regardless of where a non EEA immigrant is from, their British partner has to meet the financial requirement.

Furthermore, the immigrant partner is barred from access to public funds and their British partner is barred from claiming any extra due to their immigrant partner living with them.

It seems tha

[SgtRock]

7by7, on 27 Feb 2016 - 17:50, said:

Whatever the situation may or may not be in Sweden; this topic is about the UK!

Immigrants to the UK, whether from the EEA or outside it, taken as a whole do pay more in taxes etc. than they take in state benefits and services.

What have the immigrants ever done for us?

You sound like a typical bureaucrat. Very good at quoting laws, regulations and providing links, but actually devoid of reality.

There is around 250,000 Somali's in the UK. How much do you think that they contribute to society through taxes ? At an average figure of £1000 per month per person. You do the maths. Just one example

There is 21 million in the UK that are in permanent employment. 20 million who are outwith the considered parameters for employment. That leaves about another 25 million that are either, unemployed, disabled, short term contracts, zero hours contracts or part time work.

Those 45 million, in some capacity are costing the state money.

I do not care what the Government says. It is inconceivable to believe that migrants are a net gain to the UK. 21 Million do not support 45 Million. That is one of the reasons the CofE is currently borrowing an average of £ 8 Billion a month.

To get it back on topic.

Successive Governments have made a total arse of immigration, not that they will ever admit. If an arbitrary monetary figure was to be placed on securing a place in the UK then it should have been applied to every Citizen of every Country, part of the EU or not. When families from other EU Countries can waltz into the UK and UK Citizens are hampered by a financial penalty, the rules are a ******* ****. ( insert your own words )