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

[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.

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

I asked you what the employment rate is compared to ethnic british people... how did you register that as me saying anything about marriage? So, do you know the employment rates or not? It's not the end of the world if you do not know and admit it.

[7by7]

There is around 250,000 Somali's in the UK. How much do you think that they contribute to society through taxes ?

What is it you fail to understand about the phrase "taken as a whole?"

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.

Taking your figures at face value, you seem to be saying that you believe the 45 million not in work are all immigrants!!!!!

Surely not!

Yes, the disparity between the working population and the non working population, especially the elderly, is increasing and worrying.

But the vast majority of your 45 million are British citizens whose families have lived in the UK for generations!

The population is ageing, people are living longer and longer past retirement; those living on the pension need a large working population to support them.

But the indigenous working population is falling.

Without immigration, which I accept has to be controlled in some way, where will the workers and tax payers come from to pay the ever increasing state pensions bill?

[7by7]

Atherton,

How do you define 'ethnic British?

Whatever your definition, if you want to know the figure look it up for yourself; I'm not doing your research for you.

Given the context of this topic, my marriage comment is perfectly valid.

[SgtRock]

What is it you fail to understand about the phrase "taken as a whole?"

Do not misquote me again.

I fully understand the phrase taken as a whole, it is you that does not. That is why I also used, which you refrained from using '' As an example ''

Taking your figures at face value, you seem to be saying that you believe the 45 million not in work are all immigrants!!!!!

Surely not!

Yes, the disparity between the working population and the non working population, especially the elderly, is increasing and worrying.

But the vast majority of your 45 million are British citizens whose families have lived in the UK for generations!

The population is ageing, people are living longer and longer past retirement; those living on the pension need a large working population to support them.

But the indigenous working population is falling.

Without immigration, which I accept has to be controlled in some way, where will the workers and tax payers come from to pay the ever increasing state pensions bill?

Do not take anything I say at face value or try twisting my words, it is there in black and white. I never said anything of the sort. I said specifically

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.

Nowhere did I mention Brits or Migrants. I mentioned numbers that are all inclusive. Apart from the illegals that are working in the Black Economy.

Now unless you seriously believe that the 21 Million that are in permanent employment are actually Migrants then you are talking out your backside. Every group in the UK is a drain on the State. Except of course the single person from Timbuktu who is earning in excess of £30,000.

[cjw121]

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?

You really consider working 50 hours per week as a lot? if that is what the person needs to do then they should do that after all it really is not very much.

The report you are linking too still does not identify where they have got there figures from only that in 2012 it was 47% and in 2015 it was 40%.

[loppylugs1]

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.

Meaning half of the Indian sub continent,most of Africa,Pakistan Bangladesh will all be joining the bandwagon,no Calais there,straight in,most of them could and can live on half a banana for a month or so

Chancellor about to make further welfare/public spending cuts,the cupboard is really going to get bare

[7by7]

Sgt Rock,

Where did I misquote you?

Very odd that you tell me, and presumably everyone else, not to take anything you say at face value!

What you posted is there for all to see; that you are now saying you posted something different doesn't change that.

However, if you are now saying that you expressed yourself poorly and meant something different; fair enough.

cjw121,

Have you actually read the Oxford University report?

Had you done so you would have seen that they name their sources; have a look at the section "Close to 40% of British citizens working as employees in 2015 earned less than the income threshold. People are less likely meet the threshold if they are young or female. A higher share of people living in London meet the threshold compared to the UK average" and you will see that they name at least one source for all their figures.

As you can see from the note at it's foot, the figures from this Guardian article come from HM Treasury.


As already said to you, a little bit of research will show many other sources to prove this; but if you won't accept the government's own figures produced by the Treasury then I guess you wont accept them either!

The government say that you cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours a week (source); which if you are on minimum wage using the £7.20 effective from April, gives you an annual income of £17971.20.

So the government say that you can't work more than 48 hours a week, but also says that many people who do work 48 hours a week or less can't bring their foreign spouse to live with them in the UK!

Of course, people can choose to opt out of this and work more than 48 hours a week. But even if they are willing to do so, the cooperation of their employer is required. This extra work is usually in the form of overtime, which cannot be guaranteed and may not be enough over the required period to meet the requirement.

Self employed is different; when I was self employed, before ill health caused me top leave my profession and seek employment elsewhere, I usually worked at least 60 hours a week, often more.

But that was my choice; why should someone be forced to work those hours simply because they have fallen in love with a foreigner?

You have, yet again, dodged the vital, most important question. Namely, if a British citizen is capable of supporting themselves and their family in the UK without any recourse to public funds, why should they be prevented from so doing?

loppylugs1,

As with my question to cjw121, if a British citizen and their foreign partner can live on half a banana for a month or so, why should they be prevented from doing so in the UK?

Edited February 27, 2016 by 7by7

[cjw121]

You have, yet again, dodged the vital, most important question. Namely, if a British citizen is capable of supporting themselves and their family in the UK without any recourse to public funds, why should they be prevented from so doing?

Simple you can't because the law states as such, So if a person is earning say 10,000 pa are they going to be able to properly care for there child & wife I think not.

You can also have as many Jobs as you so wish if you would like to increase your income if someone is too lazy to find extra work to meet the requirements then tuff luck on them. I regulary work 80+ hours a week and have never complained to anyone.

If I was applying now for a settlement visa I would do whatever it takes to meet the requirements not sit and complain like a lot of people on here. If they are to lazy to do anything about it then it really is tuff luck on them.

You qutoed you can get top quailty private health care for £200 please do show where.

[loppylugs1]

As with my question to cjw121, if a British citizen and their foreign partner can live on half a banana for a month or so, why should they be prevented from doing so in the UK?

Eh! well for starters there ain't no banana trees to climb in UK,secondly there ain't no money to buy any at Tesco,so what you are saying is bring them over to starve

[sandyf]

Simple you can't because the law states as such, So if a person is earning say 10,000 pa are they going to be able to properly care for there child & wife I think not.

You can also have as many Jobs as you so wish if you would like to increase your income if someone is too lazy to find extra work to meet the requirements then tuff luck on them. I regulary work 80+ hours a week and have never complained to anyone.

If I was applying now for a settlement visa I would do whatever it takes to meet the requirements not sit and complain like a lot of people on here. If they are to lazy to do anything about it then it really is tuff luck on them.

The bottom line her is the lack of constructive thought.

Only the mentally challenged would believe that there are always children involved.

Only the mentally challenged would believe that there is never any family support available.

Only the mentally challenged would advocate that old age pensioners go out and find work.

Only the mentally challenged would see the family members of UK citizens as an immigration problem.

My wife has no desire to live in the UK but it is wrong that the option was removed by a change in the law that was effectively an underhand attempt at immigration control.

[cjw121]

Only the mentally challenged would believe that we should have an open door policy on immigration

Only the mentally challenged would believe that immigration control is not important

Only the mentally challenged would believe that is it OK not to work hard to allow there partner to come and live with them.

My wife has no desire to live in the UK but it is wrong that the option was removed by a change in the law that was effectively an underhand attempt at immigration control.

Why is it wrong to have a set income level? after all It is not very hard to get a job/s to allow you to have the require income to allow your wife to come and stay in the UK.

[sandyf]

Why is it wrong to have a set income level? after all It is not very hard to get a job/s to allow you to have the require income to allow your wife to come and stay in the UK.

I get it now, its a wind up. Jobs for 70 year olds - good one.

[cjw121]

Why is it wrong to have a set income level? after all It is not very hard to get a job/s to allow you to have the require income to allow your wife to come and stay in the UK.

I get it now, its a wind up. Jobs for 70 year olds - good one.

You can always retire to Thailand as that would be a bit cheaper as you would only need a yearly income around £16,154 plus yearly good health insurance so in the end you are nearly back to the same figure as in the UK so what is wrong with the UK having a set Income Requirement?

[7by7]

You have, yet again, dodged the vital, most important question. Namely, if a British citizen is capable of supporting themselves and their family in the UK without any recourse to public funds, why should they be prevented from so doing?

Simple you can't because the law states as such, So if a person is earning say 10,000 pa are they going to be able to properly care for there child & wife I think not.

You can also have as many Jobs as you so wish if you would like to increase your income if someone is too lazy to find extra work to meet the requirements then tuff luck on them. I regulary work 80+ hours a week and have never complained to anyone.

If I was applying now for a settlement visa I would do whatever it takes to meet the requirements not sit and complain like a lot of people on here. If they are to lazy to do anything about it then it really is tuff luck on them.

You qutoed you can get top quailty private health care for £200 please do show where.

In this, as in other situations, to quote Mr Bumble "The law is a ass; a idiot!"

However, I was not asking you what the law says; as I have said before I know the immigration rules; probably far better than you.

I was asking you why you believe that a British citizen who is perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their family in the UK without any recourse to public funds should be prevented from so doling simply because they cannot meet an arbitrary income level which is set above the income the government believes a British family needs (the income support level), an income level above the minimum wage, an income level which is more than 40% of the population earns?

It is all well and good saying the British partner should go out and get another job or jobs; but that is not always possible; and why should they be forced to do so when they can already support themselves and their family without recourse to public funds on their current income?

Don't say "because it's the law!" Say why you believe it to be right.

Private health insurance premiums are dependent on many factors; not least being the age of the insured. The NHS surcharge is the same for all.

So a young person is probably paying more than they would with private cover, an old person less.

But as I have already said; I quoted Mrs May when I said that the £200 p.a. NHS surcharge was comparable to private health insurance; so ask her where she got her figure from.

[cjw121]

I know the immigration rules; probably far better than you.

What and my dad is bigger than your dad!

[7by7]

As with my question to cjw121, if a British citizen and their foreign partner can live on half a banana for a month or so, why should they be prevented from doing so in the UK?

Eh! well for starters there ain't no banana trees to climb in UK,secondly there ain't no money to buy any at Tesco,so what you are saying is bring them over to starve

Are taking the pi$$?

No one is saying that there should be no financial requirement at all.

All we want is one that is fair an equitable; like that which existed prior to July 2012.

I repeat to you the basic question: why do you believe that a British citizen who is perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their family in the UK without any recourse to public funds should be prevented from so doing simply because they cannot meet an arbitrary income level which is set above the income the government believes a British family needs (the income support level), an income level above the minimum wage, an income level which is more than 40% of the population earns?

If you have a serious answer to that, I'd be glad to hear it.

But if you are merely going to post pathetic nonsense about bananas again; don't bother.

[7by7]

Only the mentally challenged would believe that we should have an open door policy on immigration

Only the mentally challenged would believe that immigration control is not important

Only the mentally challenged would believe that is it OK not to work hard to allow there partner to come and live with them.

Only the mentally challenged could possibly believe that those opposed to this fixed financial requirement want any of that!

No one is saying that they want an open door policy on immigration; not even family immigration.

No one is saying that immigration should not be controlled; but remember that family immigration makes up just 6% of all immigration to the UK. Even if all family immigration stopped, that would only reduce the total figure by that; just 6%! This measure has had a devastating effect on some families, families of British citizens, but an infinitesimal effect on the immigration figures as a whole.

No one is saying that a British citizen who marries a foreigner and wants to live in the UK with them should not have to work to support them.

What I and others who believe this current financial requirement to be wrong are saying is that what we want is more flexibility which will allow:

• a requirement which takes into account outgoings as well as income,
• a requirement which takes into account the sometimes vast differences in wages and living costs in different parts of the UK,
• a requirement which allows a British citizen who can support their family without recourse to public funds the right to live in the UK with their family.

Which is essentially the financial requirement prior to July 2012.

Why do you believe that to be wrong?

[7by7]

I know the immigration rules; probably far better than you.

What and my dad is bigger than your dad!

Rather than descend into childishness; answer the questions put to you.

[cjw121]

I think you find that you started the childish behaviour by trying to come over all superior which it par of the course for you thinking that you know it all and only your opinion counts still if it makes you happy then so be it.

If you are not able to meet the financal requierment then tuff luck as I have said before the level is already set very low if you are earning less then that get another job or stop moaning about it as you only have yourself to blame for having a low paid job.

So someone in the say midlands should have to show less money then say someone in london where the only difference is the cost of housing nearly everything else is pretty much the same cost.

Even down the southeast you have different house prices take london and southampton, London and parts of surrey. If you want to live in areas like that then have a good job to pay for it.

The requiremts before 2012 where far to low they used to take it at or around the income support level which is just plain wrong. As said before you could get a setllement visa with just showing £20,000 in the bank and having NO job is that a good system?

I think not there had to be a set income level it is just a shame they have set it so low.

[7by7]

Nowhere have I said that only my opinion counts.

What I have done is offer reasoned explanations, backed up where appropriate and relevant with independent evidence, of why I hold those opinions.

Something you have not done.

You also have still not answered the question.

Could it be because you have no logical answer and your beliefs are based purely on prejudice?

Prejudice which makes you believe those you consider beneath you should not have the same rights as you?

Edited February 28, 2016 by 7by7

[Tony M]

Here is some good background, and an update on the hearings of earlier this week :

https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/article-8-and-mir-appendix-fm-in-supreme-court/#more-6739

[cjw121]

I have said repeatedly if someone does not earn enougth money to meet the requirements it really is not hard to find more work to make up the shortfall a concepte you seem horrified at becuase someone maybe working more than 45 hours. You seem to have a problem with people that have some money and can meet the requirements I wonder why!

You have also not said anything about why the old rules where so wonderful when a person could get a settlement visa on earning or having savings not much higher than the income support level!

Can a person really look after his wife on such a low income when many British people have problems on so a low income and they are entitled to all and every benefit available to them.

The system they have now may not be perfect but it is what we have and as such you have to abide by the rules which has a clear cut income requirement and in my opion the income level is set too low, now that is not being racist as you have suggested a comment which is disgusting really.

If I was applying for a settlement visa for my wife I would not keep complainning about the requirements I would be doing everything I can to meet them.

[NCFC]

The people who suffer the most under the current rules are the retirees and pensioners who have gone off to Thailand perhaps for a number of years, got themselves married and then need to return to the UK at a later date because of ill health or other personal reasons.

Anyone who has been on a non-index linked pension for a length of time may not meet the current income levels in order to bring their Thai spouse back to the UK. It seems very unfair that a person who has paid tax and national insurance all their life can no longer get the benefits of the NHS simply because they married Thai - unless they accept to end their marriage by coming back to the UK alone.

Such a person is in most need of care at this time in their life and there is proably no better care giver than the spouse in these cases. What is the alternative? Break up a marriage and then provide a care giver on state resources to the returnee? That seems a ridiculous and unfair d scenario, and one that probably costs the government more in welfare payments than if they allowed the spouse in as a care giver.

It's all so easy to say tuff luck when one is in one's earnings prime and money is fairly easy to make. But that situation does not last for ever and everyone at some time will find their income tapering off as they get older.

So should people make provision for future, unplanned events? Yes of course they should. But the current rules mean that many folks who have endured a life time of work and reward themselves with a well-deserved retirement in a warm climate are being punished for their life choices by arbitrary rules that cause some very vulnerable people to be trapped in a foreign country in their later years. It is not a humane system and we can do better than this

[sunnyjim5]

The people who suffer the most under the current rules are the retirees and pensioners who have gone off to Thailand perhaps for a number of years, got themselves married and then need to return to the UK at a later date because of ill health or other personal reasons.

Anyone who has been on a non-index linked pension for a length of time may not meet the current income levels in order to bring their Thai spouse back to the UK. It seems very unfair that a person who has paid tax and national insurance all their life can no longer get the benefits of the NHS simply because they married Thai - unless they accept to end their marriage by coming back to the UK alone.

Such a person is in most need of care at this time in their life and there is proably no better care giver than the spouse in these cases. What is the alternative? Break up a marriage and then provide a care giver on state resources to the returnee? That seems a ridiculous and unfair d scenario, and one that probably costs the government more in welfare payments than if they allowed the spouse in as a care giver.

It's all so easy to say tuff luck when one is in one's earnings prime and money is fairly easy to make. But that situation does not last for ever and everyone at some time will find their income tapering off as they get older.

So should people make provision for future, unplanned events? Yes of course they should. But the current rules mean that many folks who have endured a life time of work and reward themselves with a well-deserved retirement in a warm climate are being punished for their life choices by arbitrary rules that cause some very vulnerable people to be trapped in a foreign country in their later years. It is not a humane system and we can do better than this

Those who choose to live and marry in Thailand should have also had the sense to insure themselves against inevitable health care costs.

The old "he paid in all his life" and is therefor "entitled" argument just demonstrates ignorance of how the system is funded/managed.

If anyone is "trapped" it is by their own failure to plan for the unexpected !

[7by7]

^^^^^

How about people in the same situation as a friend of mine?

He has had private health insurance for many years, both while he lived in the UK and since he moved to Thailand after taking early retirement there with his Thai wife two years ago.

He has recently been informed by his insurer that because he has reached 60 they are not going to cover him anymore!

Fortunately, during her 20 plus years of UK residence his wife naturalised as British, so if they do move back to the UK she wont be subject to this absurd financial requirement.

[7by7]

I have said repeatedly if someone does not earn enougth money to meet the requirements it really is not hard to find more work to make up the shortfall a concepte you seem horrified at becuase someone maybe working more than 45 hours. You seem to have a problem with people that have some money and can meet the requirements I wonder why!

If someone wants to work all the hours God sends to improve their family's lifestyle, that is, or should be, their choice. Not one forced upon them when they can already adequately support their family.

Assuming the extra work is available to them in the first place!

I do not have a problem with those who can meet the requirement nor with those on high incomes.

My problem, as I said much earlier, is with the "I'm all right Jack, sod the rest of you" brigade; of which you are obviously a member.

You have also not said anything about why the old rules where so wonderful when a person could get a settlement visa on earning or having savings not much higher than the income support level!

Can a person really look after his wife on such a low income when many British people have problems on so a low income and they are entitled to all and every benefit available to them.

I have explained at length why I believe the old system to be better than the current one. But I will briefly repeat, as simply as possible, for those who have difficulty in understanding.

The main reason is because the old requirement looked at disposable income after deducting tax, NICs and all regular outgoings such as housing costs.

If, after all deductions, the sponsor had enough left to adequately support his family without state aid, they met the requirement. There was no set figure in the rules, but case law meant that if this income was below the income support level for a British family of the same size then the application should be refused on financial grounds.

The new system is based purely on gross income.

Which means that a person who earns above the limit may have massive regular outgoings which leave him with a disposable income below the level needed to adequately support his family.

But he meets the requirement!

Whereas a person with minimal outgoings, for example because his mortgage is paid off, but who earns below the level doesn't meet the requirement.

Even though his disposable income is well above the first person's.

Tell us how that is logical and right.

If the British government expect a British family to be able to support themselves with a disposable income of the income support level, then surely they should accept that a couple where one partner is a foreigner can also support themselves on that same disposable income.

The system they have now may not be perfect but it is what we have and as such you have to abide by the rules which has a clear cut income requirement and in my opion the income level is set too low, now that is not being racist as you have suggested a comment which is disgusting really.

If I was applying for a settlement visa for my wife I would not keep complainning about the requirements I would be doing everything I can to meet them.

No system is perfect; but the old one was less imperfect than this current one.

Interesting that you automatically assume my remarks about your prejudices meant that I was accusing you of being racist when, given the subject and previous comments by you, they obviously meant your prejudice against those who have fewer financial resources than yourself!!

As indicated by you repeating that you want an even higher financial requirement.

Those applying for settlement do take whatever action possible to enable their family to live together; for many this means spending at least 6 months apart while the sponsor works in the UK simply because, although they do now meet the requirement in their UK job, they didn't in their overseas job.

Often this is because, as a poster said earlier when relating his own experience, in many cases when calculating this they don't take the total annual income, but the lowest month's and multiply it by 12.

There are other absurdities as well; such as the self employed not being able to combine their income and cash savings.

Lastly; you have again dodged the important question. So I am going to play Jeremy Paxman to your Michael Howard one last time.

If a British citizen is perfectly able to support his foreign family in the UK without recourse to public funds, why do you believe they should be prevented from so doing simply because their gross income is below a set figure which takes no account of their disposable income and actual living costs?

Edited February 29, 2016 by 7by7

[NCFC]

The people who suffer the most under the current rules are the retirees and pensioners who have gone off to Thailand perhaps for a number of years, got themselves married and then need to return to the UK at a later date because of ill health or other personal reasons.

Anyone who has been on a non-index linked pension for a length of time may not meet the current income levels in order to bring their Thai spouse back to the UK. It seems very unfair that a person who has paid tax and national insurance all their life can no longer get the benefits of the NHS simply because they married Thai - unless they accept to end their marriage by coming back to the UK alone.

Such a person is in most need of care at this time in their life and there is proably no better care giver than the spouse in these cases. What is the alternative? Break up a marriage and then provide a care giver on state resources to the returnee? That seems a ridiculous and unfair d scenario, and one that probably costs the government more in welfare payments than if they allowed the spouse in as a care giver.

It's all so easy to say tuff luck when one is in one's earnings prime and money is fairly easy to make. But that situation does not last for ever and everyone at some time will find their income tapering off as they get older.

So should people make provision for future, unplanned events? Yes of course they should. But the current rules mean that many folks who have endured a life time of work and reward themselves with a well-deserved retirement in a warm climate are being punished for their life choices by arbitrary rules that cause some very vulnerable people to be trapped in a foreign country in their later years. It is not a humane system and we can do better than this

Those who choose to live and marry in Thailand should have also had the sense to insure themselves against inevitable health care costs.

The old "he paid in all his life" and is therefor "entitled" argument just demonstrates ignorance of how the system is funded/managed.

If anyone is "trapped" it is by their own failure to plan for the unexpected !

And if Thailand were to arbitrarily change the rules on residence or merely throw out the foreigners? Would you still say tuff luck to those retirees who could not bring their spouses to the UK? You have no humanity. Edited February 29, 2016 by NCFC

[rasg]

There are other absurdities as well; such as the self employed not being able to combine their income and cash savings.

I was surprised at this when I found that when the GF applied for her settlement visa. It is absurd and it is a real anomaly.

If a British citizen is perfectly able to support his foreign family in the UK without recourse to public funds,

It's that old chestnut that you keep bringing up "without recourse to public funds". I honestly don't see how a couple on £18.600 gross can live adequately in the UK on that figure without financial help if they live in the South. The UK government is stupidly generous with the benefits system and it is a big reason why so many want to come here. Until the Government reign it in, the situation will never change.

[7by7]

Yes, property prices are variable depending on where you live, and in London the rent on a one bedroom property goes from under £250 per week to over £1800 per week depending on where you live (source).

Obviously, the higher housing costs are where you live, the higher income you will need.

All the more reason for factoring this into the calculation, surely?

Something the old requirement did, but the current one doesn't.

The government may be 'stupidly generous with the benefits system' but I doubt that is the reason why British citizens want to live in the UK with their foreign family.

Simply because, as repeatedly said, no matter how 'stupidly generous' the government may be with the benefits system; the foreign family member(s) have no recourse to public funds, including social housing, and the British family member cannot claim anything extra due to their foreign family now living with them. This includes moving to a larger council or housing association property due to their now having a larger family..

Which brings us back to the question:

If a British citizen is perfectly able to support his foreign family in the UK without recourse to public funds, why do you believe they should be prevented from so doing simply because their gross income is below a set figure which takes no account of their disposable income and actual living costs?

It may be an old chestnut; but it's perfectly valid. Cjw121 refuses to answer; will you?

[bobrussell]

Some of the expectations are a bit on the optimistic side!

The complainants seem to argue that any spouse should be able to live in the UK because they are the spouse. I hate to use the race card but would these same people be happy to support large numbers travelling from Africa and the Indian subcontinent because they are married to a British citizen?

They are complaining about the level of fees that is putting others off from applying in the first place. If the applicant cannot afford the fees can they afford to live in the UK?

There have to be rules but affordability and tax payer support are important. The tax payer has human rights too!

An applicant should be made to demonstrate that he or she will not be a drain on tax payer and other resources. This needs to be fair and cannot be fair without both income and outgoings being taken into account. How can this be shown without some form of means testing for those in the gray area?

The applicant has a right to get good value for money from the high fees charged. This should mean prompt, efficient and accurate processing. Some assistance where required plus a means of correcting mistakes without entering a long winded appeals process.

Bickering changes little but we require a fair and well organised immigration system whilst applicants and their families need to accept that they need to pay their way, including covering some of the Home Office costs relating to visas and border protection.

We seem to have pretty much the worst of both worlds at the moment!