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

[RabC]

<snip>

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown opened the floodgates to this country to anybody in the hope that those same people would vote for Labour......

Between Blair coming to power in 1997 and Brown losing the 2010 election, the Labour government:-

• changed the visa and LTR fees regime from one which was designed to cover processing costs to one designed to make large profits for the Treasury;
• established the principle of annual increases to those fees at a rate well above inflation;
• increased the residential qualification for ILR from 12 months to 24;
• introduced the LitUK test, first for naturalisation and then for ILR;
• proposed the English speaking and listening tests, although these weren't introduced until after the 2010 election by the new, coalition government.
• introduced a points based system for work and student visas and made it harder to switch from one of these to settlement.

How is that 'opening the floodgates?'

BTW, while I am strongly opposed to the first two points, I believe that any fees charged for any government service should be set to recover costs not make vast profits, I agree with the rest; and with the later increase in the residential qualifying period for ILR to five years.

The Labour government did agree to the new EEA Freedom of Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, but that only consolidated existing rights into one single directive; so that 'floodgate' was already open!

It also flows both ways; whilst approximately 2 million EEA nationals have used the directive to live in the UK, around 1.8 million British citizens have used it to live in another EEA country.

Not that EEA immigrants would have any effect on the outcome of a UK General Election; because they can't vote in one (unless, for historical reasons which have nothing to do with the EU nor EEA, they are citizens of the Irish Republic).

How's this then? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-mass-immigration.html

[7by7]

Policy discussions do not always become government policy let alone law. This one didn't.

Allegations are not proof.

Tell me; exactly what changes did the Labour government make to the immigration rules between 1997 and 2010 in order to open the floodgates to thousands of potential Labour voters?

The only change I can recall which could in any way be said to have made immigration easier was the abolition of the primary purpose rule, introduced by the Conservatives in 1993. A rule which required foreign nationals married to British citizens seeking entry to the UK to prove that the marriage was not entered into in order to obtain British residency.

An unfair rule, rightly abolished; proving a negative is always extremely difficult, often impossible.

Abolition of this rule did not effect the requirement for sponsor and applicant to satisfy the decision maker that their relationship is genuine and subsisting. A requirement which continues to this day and is, I believe, perfectly fair and reasonable.

Part of the coalition government's policy discussions leading up to the changes which came into effect in July 2012 including reintroducing the primary purpose rule; but that didn't happen.

As said; policy discussions don't always make it all the way into law; most don't.

Yes, net immigration into the UK has been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. From Long Term International Migration Flows to and from the UK

During the 1990s, there was mostly a positive trend in net migration as these flows surged from minus 13,000 (i.e. net emigration) in 1992 to positive 163,000 in 1999

Labour were in power for only the last two of those years; and the policy discussions refereed to above were not held until 2000!

In the 2000s there was a significant increase in net migration that coincided with the 2004 EU enlargement and the opening of UK labour markets to workers from the so-called Accession 8 (A8) countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia), plus Malta and Cyprus. Migrants from the A8 countries have accounted for a significant portion of recent net migration.

Of course, as we all know, net migration has continued to increase steadily since Labour lost power in 2010; the latest figures showing it to be well over 330,000.

Which, if one accepts the arguments in the posts above, must mean that the Conservatives have a secret open door policy as well!!!

[whiterussian]

https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/

Article 8 and MIR: Appendix FM in Supreme Court

Posted on February 28, 2016

The Children’s Commissioner and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants are intervening in these

proceedings. One of the problems created by this genre of punishing immigration rules is that at least 15,000

British children are growing up as Skype kids because the MIR threshold precludes both of parents of such

children to live together in the UK

----

The Children’s Commissioner has outlined recommendations for the Government to address the issue of separated families.

• Increased flexibility when calculating a family's income to reflect family support available and local wage levels
• inclusion of a requirement to consider the best interests of every child affected
• amendment to forms and guidance to ensure decision-makers properly consider children’s best interests in the decision making process
• changes to the cost of applications and the application process
• grant of visit visas to parents of children living in the UK

Edited March 3, 2016 by whiterussian

[uptheos]

Old Git is absolutely correct and believe me it doesn't take a lot to convince them especially if you are elderly.

If you are vulnerable in any way,Age UK, Shelter, CAB and any doctor you register with will give you advice.

One council I know of tried it on with an old guy who wanted housing. They put him on the housing list as he

was sleeping on his sons sofa. They said that they weren't convinced that he had given up living in Thailand

and even said he owned a house until he pointed out the land laws for foreigners. The housing dept banded

him at D, but he appealed asking who would rent to a 75 year old on a pension, who definitely would be claiming

HB. No estate agent will touch you neither will an owner, so you're left in a catch22. Most won't entertain HB no

matter how nice you would keep a place, they don't want to declare income to the revenue bods. After a visit from

Age UK Advoacy and a very strongly worded letter to the council, his housing needs were increased to Band A

because of 'multiple housing needs' and he now has a very nice one bedroom flat.

It's all there and available for you if you are a returning BC, especially if you are elderly and are ill. You just need to have the balls to stand up to these people, regardless what is 'written' and stop taking in daily doses of scare mongering

from people who probably couldn't go back anyway without being arrested!!

And don't forget, you an have 10,000 pounds in savings and still claim HB, Council Tax benefit, winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, free bus pass. If you are in need and want to go back, take Nike's advice 'JUST DO IT'.

Its nothing but an <deleted> nuisance getting old,comes the day I have to go back,infirm, older than old,or ill, Ill wrap myself in a blanket outside.....thinking here ...Christchurch seems a nice place...council offices one dark night and hope I survive the night,let them do the rest

If you're old and vulnerable they have to find you somewhere to stay.

Just give Shelter a ring and call the local newspaper if you have a problem and they won't help/

[theoldgit]

More off topic posts removed, along with some measured responses and flames.

[theoldgit]

Can I remind members that this thread is about the current case being heard in the Supreme Court in respect of the view that the current income requirements for Settlement Visas are unreasonable.

I have removed a number of off topic posts from members who seemingly are intent of derailing this thread.

If you wish to discuss UK Pensions or the NHS surcharge then, as has been pointed out, those subjects already have their own, long running, threads elsewhere.