More Britons want greater control of immigration than EU free trade - poll

[7by7]

15 minutes ago, Basil B said:

With respect I think it has everything to do with the EU, with freedom of movement, complying with EU rules and Cameron's failed pledge to reduce immigration...

 

Whilst, despite the government saying otherwise, it was introduced mainly as a measure to help reduce immigration; it was a decision by the UK government and nothing to do with the EU.

 

Although the argument that the government knew there was little they could do to reduce immigration from the EEA so they concentrated instead on making immigration from outside the EEA more difficult does, I suppose, have some merit.

 

But, as it is outside the remit of the EU and does not effect EEA immigrants and will not be changed post Brexit, then I still believe it is not relevant to this topic.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I don't think this issue (with which I have great sympathy) is down to the EU. Much more due to folks from the sub-continent bringing in their mothers and their sisters and their cousins and their aunts.

 

 

Adult dependent relatives are not subject to the financial requirement; only partners and their children are.

[Basil B]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

But, as it is outside the remit of the EU and does not effect EEA immigrants and will not be changed post Brexit, then I still believe it is not relevant to this topic.

 

I think it has as you are well aware of the draconian attitude to returning expats with none EAA spouses compared with the open boarder for economic migrants from the EAA.

[7by7]

15 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

I think it has as you are well aware of the draconian attitude to returning expats with none EAA spouses compared with the open boarder for economic migrants from the EAA.

 

Yes, I am, as you know, well aware of the differences between the UK's immigration rules and the EU freedom of movement regulations.

 

But this topic is about the latter, not the former; and the former will not be effected in anyway, shape or form by Brexit.

 

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by 7by7

[superal]

21 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

I think it has as you are well aware of the draconian attitude to returning expats with none EAA spouses compared with the open boarder for economic migrants from the EAA.

For sure Brexit will not affect non EAA immigrants but it is hard not to mention in the same breath when the immigration topic is raised . It must be frustrating when a born and bred UK nationalist is given a refusal to allow his spouse into his home country to which he has been contributing for many years .  The mitigation of "marriages of convenience" is one thing that is understandable . Many rules are waived for asylum seekers it seems and on the humanity side it is understandable knowing their plight .

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Whilst, despite the government saying otherwise, it was introduced mainly as a measure to help reduce immigration; it was a decision by the UK government and nothing to do with the EU.

 

Although the argument that the government knew there was little they could do to reduce immigration from the EEA so they concentrated instead on making immigration from outside the EEA more difficult does, I suppose, have some merit.

 

But, as it is outside the remit of the EU and does not effect EEA immigrants and will not be changed post Brexit, then I still believe it is not relevant to this topic.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

 

Adult dependent relatives are not subject to the financial requirement; only partners and their children are.

 

Gilbert & Sullivan? 

[CharlieK]

4 hours ago, Basil B said:

 

Families having to split up for over 6 months while the person with right to reside finds a job and works long enough to prove a income of over £18,600+ and our */!"£$%* Government seems to think this OK???

 

This is riding roughshod of over the basic human right of "Right to Family Life" and fails to take account of two factors...

Cost of living varies across the UK and the factor that this does not allow (say in the instance Husband UK citizen, Wife Thai citizen) the wife's earning ability, even if the wife was on minimum income and worked 3 hours a day 5 days a week that £5,860pa and that would knock a bloody big hole in the £18,600.

 

This is why I want to see control over our boarders where we can take priority over who we let in first and our government will not have to kowtow to European Bureaucrats. 

 

 

 

Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK? Your human rights don't come into it, no one forced you to get married, did they? If you can't provide for your family why should others have to. 

 

There is no guarantee your wife could find a job in the Uk so her earning potential could never be taken into account.

 

As to the amount you need to qualify, I would suggest that is the minimum amount you would need anywhere in the UK, London for example would be virtually impossible to live on that amount.  

 

Even in Thailand now it isn't so easy to get a marriage visa if you can't show that you can take/support your wife to your home country if the need arrises.

 

I appreciate it is not easy having to go back to the UK in that situation. But IMO it is wrong to expect the government to roll out the red carpet just because you are a UK citizen. 

 

That situation is not going to change just because we are outside the EU. Name one country where the government allows a citizen to bring a foreign wife to that country and the government picks up the tab? Even here in Thailand you need 400,000 baht minimum.

 

  

[3NUMBAS]

Of course try getting to see a GP or hospital appointment !nigh on impossible due to the influx..new towns planned have run into trouble with lack of water supplies available to house all the inbound migrants as housing stock has dried up..kempton park racecourse is to be developed into a new town so no more horse racing there ..UK will have the biggest population in Europe by 2050 so large tracts of the country will have to be concreted over ..pensions will collapse in the future as too many people to pay ..many of whom will be unemployable and speak no english

Edited January 15, 2017 by 3NUMBAS

[Basil B]

4 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK? Your human rights don't come into it, no one forced you to get married, did they? If you can't provide for your family why should others have to. 

 

There is no guarantee your wife could find a job in the Uk so her earning potential could never be taken into account.

 

As to the amount you need to qualify, I would suggest that is the minimum amount you would need anywhere in the UK, London for example would be virtually impossible to live on that amount.  

 

Even in Thailand now it isn't so easy to get a marriage visa if you can't show that you can take/support your wife to your home country if the need arrises.

 

I appreciate it is not easy having to go back to the UK in that situation. But IMO it is wrong to expect the government to roll out the red carpet just because you are a UK citizen. 

 

That situation is not going to change just because we are outside the EU. Name one country where the government allows a citizen to bring a foreign wife to that country and the government picks up the tab? Even here in Thailand you need 400,000 baht minimum.

 

  

 

Who said anything about the tax payer paying anything?

 

Most would not be entailed to anything, but may have some savings and/or family can help while the look for jobs...

[CharlieK]

11 hours ago, Basil B said:

 

Who said anything about the tax payer paying anything?

 

Most would not be entailed to anything, but may have some savings and/or family can help while the look for jobs...

 

That would be the result if you were able to bring a foreign wife to the UK without having the necessary finances to do so!

 

[7by7]

21 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK? ................

 

5 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

That would be the result if you were able to bring a foreign wife to the UK without having the necessary finances to do so!

 

 

For as long as I have taken an interest one has never been able to bring a foreign partner into the UK without having the necessary finances to support and accommodate them without recourse to public funds; including social housing. That was certainly the case when my wife and step daughter applied 17 years ago.

 

Even EEA nationals have to show that they will not be an unreasonable burden upon the state.

 

Although I suppose were you to go back far enough you would find a time when it was possible; but you'd probably have to go back to a time when there were no public funds available for anyone, British or not!

 

The difference between the financial requirement introduced in July 2012 and the one it replaced, the one I had to meet 17 years ago, is simple.

 

Prior to July 2012 it was based upon the sponsor's net disposable income after paying for housing and any other fixed outgoings such as loan repayments. There was no actual set minimum amount in the rules; but various immigration tribunal judgements had determined that it would be inappropriate for an immigrant family, including families made up of British citizens and immigrants, to rely on a net disposable income, after tax, mortgage or rent and any other fixed outgoings such as loan repayments had been deducted from their gross income, of less than the Income Support rate for a British family of the same size; currently £114.85 per week (£5972.20 p.a.).

 

The new requirement is based purely on gross income and ignores all outgoings completely. If the sponsor's gross, pre tax income is £18,600 p.a. or above the requirement is met; if it's £18,599.99 p.a. or less, it isn't.

 

So Mr. A with a gross, pre tax income of £19,000 p.a. and mortgage and other loan repayments totalling £10,000 p.a. would meet the requirement.

 

Whilst Mr. B with an income of £18,000,  mortgage repayments of £6,000 p.a. and no other loans doesn't; even though his net disposable income is above that of Mr. A!

 

Also, incomes and housing costs vary widely across the UK; as you say yourself

21 hours ago, CharlieK said:

(In) London for example (it) would be virtually impossible to live on that amount

yet the current financial requirement takes zero account of this!

 

Can you explain why all this is logical; let alone fair?

[Richard W]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Even EEA nationals have to show that they will not be an unreasonable burden upon the state.

Not to enter, they don't.

[Donutz]

On 11-1-2017 at 6:04 AM, Grouse said:

 

To use that loophole the Thai woman married to the German would have to live in Germany or elsewhere in the EU first. 

 

This insane focus on immigration is having all sorts of undesirable side effects including difficulties for non EU spouses and students generally

Under freedom of movement (Directive 2004/38 being the current legislation concerning EU/EEA nationals and their non-EU/EEA family members) a:

- UK national and Thai spouse can migrate to any EU/EEA/Swiss member state except the UK under relaxed rules. Meaning not a lot of red tape, no civic integration or language exam, cannot become an unreasonable burden on the state however or a danger for the general public. 

- A German national can do likewise to any EU/EEA/Swiss member state except Germany. If they moved to Germany first they would fall under German national immigration law as immigration law of one countries own citizens and non-EU/EEA/Swiss people fall under national legislation rather than EU legislation.

 

Mind you that all member states signed this leglisation such as Directive 2004/38 or in whatever form it was legislation before that. So nobody forced the UK, Germany or who else not to have EU nationals (or their family)  forced down their throats upon them. Very much less having to allow such people to act like parasites by leeching of the wellfare system. 7by7 made this quite clear in his post and you'd expect that those who form an opinion on EU and non EU immigration to the UK (or other member states) atleast inform themselves about these rather basic facts. 

 

Now I'm too young to know from experience but from what I heard from older chaps and immigration lawyers, many European nations used to have very liberal immigration rules when it came to their own nationals bringing over their spouse. Generally this meant that a man could get his foreign wife to move to his nation with pretty much only a ticket to enter the country and getting citizenship for the foreign spouse swifly without much hassle either. So the EU freedom of movement for some uniform rights across all member states actually would have been more strict than what national citizens would face when wishing to get a foreign partner to immigrate. Countries are ofcourse free to apply stricter, relaxed or the same rules as Directive 2004/38 sets out for EU/EEA/Swiss nationals residing in their member state but for various reasons nations such as the UK, Germany, Netherlands and such chose to enforce stricter and stricter immigration rules, exams, fees etc. etc.  

 

Ofcourse such strict were by popular demand of people who had issues with immigration or atleast certain types of immigration or certain type of immigrants/countries of origin (won't be a surprise that the main issue seems to be 'them muslim people' as support for Front National, Wilders etc. clearly show). 

 

Migration of EU/EEA/Swiss nationals (and linked to that their foreign direct family if any) is a good chunck of migration patterns. Leaving other types such as 'own nationals with foreign family' , 'student -temp- immigrants' , 'skilled workers' , asylum seekers and such as the only area where a country can dictate the immigration rules more by how they see fit by popular demand of whatever the election result was.

 

 But since the turn of the century those fields have pretty much became as tight as what is possible. Yet people remain concerned. Partially because of the real issue being with immigrants or children of immigrants  who have been in the country for decades and may even have obtained citizenship. Partially because people have little clue about the migration statistics and rather going by what 'they see in the streets' or the latest headline in a newspaper involving an immigrant (or the offspring of an immigrant). And ofcourse poor knowledge on what the EU regulations on migration within the EU/EEA actually is. 

 

Ofcourse such migration within the EU had and will have wage reduction effects on the lower class jobs in the short or mid term. In the longer term ofcourse wealth also gets distributed to the newer members and that means less strain on the older/richer members as formly poor nations nations develop. Look at Spain and Italy for instance and compare them now against the 60's and 70's.  And ofcourse you may have silly national laws, if a coutry has silly wellfare laws that are easily abused then it's no surprise that immigrants will do just the same like original citizens might. They are all people and some know no shame. But blame poorly regulated/designed wellfare laws for that. And if a city council such as the example with the taxi drivers one member here shared indeed decides to excuse/pardon/ignore enforcing rules to immigrants then who's to blame for that? Those silly people in the city council or whatever branch of legislators is involved. Hardly something to blame upon the EU, Brussels or foreigners.  

 

But sadly the 'it's them foreigners and them getting away with all that and the politicians in Brussels don't give a damn' is ofcourse an all too easy target to blame. If I'd blame anyone I'd look at Westminster and branches of goverment below that first. And yes they may have very well put the interests of large(r) companies and the higher class above that of the common folk in simple jobs and simple incomes.  There sure can be made some improvements when it comes to immigration rules (uncluding more fair and relaxed rules to immigration of UK nationals and their non-EU family aslong as they do not become an unreasonable burden upon the state/society)  but if complete control of all kinds of immigration is worth it? That means being completely outside of the EU/EEA, outside the common market of goods, services, labour and people. The UK would need to gain access to the common market like say the US or Canada has. And I do wonder if those in Westminster now would indeed give far far more interest in the common folk rather than upper class and big companies. So be careful what you ask for!

[Donutz]

3 hours ago, Richard W said:

Not to enter, they don't.

Ofcourse not. Since:

- that would restrict freedom of movement. The EU national would need more than a passport/ID but instead also bring financial records to show that they are not broke but can pay expenses for a short or longer while. The queues at the border would be so much fun, it would basically mean a 'visa on arrival upon checking documentation of various kinds'.  The hassle that will mean for non Brit and Brits alike when moving crossing the Channel by boat, plane or train. Must be costly too.

- If an EU national tries to become a burden to their host state this will become apparant when they say try to apply for some sort of wellfare or try to burden the state in some other way. You can deny the application, or cancel the decision and deport the national (within the rules that 7by7 posted ofcourse but those sound pretty reasonable and fair to be to prevent unwanted behaviour such as 'free handouts and leeching of the wellfare state'). 

[superal]

2 hours ago, Donutz said:

Ofcourse not. Since:

- that would restrict freedom of movement. The EU national would need more than a passport/ID but instead also bring financial records to show that they are not broke but can pay expenses for a short or longer while. The queues at the border would be so much fun, it would basically mean a 'visa on arrival upon checking documentation of various kinds'.  The hassle that will mean for non Brit and Brits alike when moving crossing the Channel by boat, plane or train. Must be costly too.

- If an EU national tries to become a burden to their host state this will become apparant when they say try to apply for some sort of wellfare or try to burden the state in some other way. You can deny the application, or cancel the decision and deport the national (within the rules that 7by7 posted ofcourse but those sound pretty reasonable and fair to be to prevent unwanted behaviour such as 'free handouts and leeching of the wellfare state'). 

I suppose that if there is a hard Brexit with the immigration / freedom of movement  issue taking priority the whole rule book will be rewritten . As it is now the system is unsustainable with tremendous burdens on all government services and housing .

Regarding a UK national with a non EEA spouse applying for UK settlement  ---  Why should the government impose such sanctions and income rules on a UK citizen who may well have made a monetary contribution by way of taxes and N.I. all their life and actually has qualified for benefit entitlements .Also why 19k when UK pensioners can supposedly exist happily on half of that . Each case should be judged on its own merit rather than the Brit being made an easy target . Not to mention the reciprocal agreements with other countries concerning pension rights .  Seems to me that the expat needs a voice in parliament .

[sawadee1947]

On 1/10/2017 at 0:45 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Germany was in ruins 70 years ago and bankrupt. The allies, mostly led by America, thought rebuilding and making sure everyone was in work was a better strategy to persuade Germany to move away from its military nationalistic dictatorial culture rather than punishments as happened after WW1. Besides which, it was a convenient front line buffer against the communist Warsaw Pact controlled by the USSR.

 

With massive aid, without the need for massive defense spending, Germany flourished. Sure some German companies have behaved illegally, Siemens with their bribery, VW with their mass fraud etc but so have other big businesses. Germany has also done well because it was able to create the idea of "German quality" - often true, but not always; and it's big home market in which people supported German businesses and bought made in Germany in preference to low cost foreign competition. Germany has also done very nicely with the introduction of the Euro.

 

Now Germany wants to dominate Europe. Not by armed force as in the past, but by financial, economic and political measures. The slow sneaky move to federalism is championed by Germany. Never ever have the people of Europe been asked to vote on this. Simply led their by pro-federal socialist politicians who say one thing but do anything to pursue their agenda.

 

Britain has a strong  and long tradition of democracy. Germany, a country younger than the US, doesn't. And it shows.

Britain should have voted to remain in the EU but insisted, along with some others, that the people of Europe be asked directly about the future they want. Not the future decided by some politicians and bureaucrats who arrogantly think they know best. Once the people of the EU as a whole have decided the future they want, then all member states must abide by that or leave. Only that way can the future really deliver what people want.

Good that you are so old and not going for voting. I hope you were joking only. Such BS is just for the bin.

[7by7]

10 hours ago, superal said:

I suppose that if there is a hard Brexit with the immigration / freedom of movement  issue taking priority the whole rule book will be rewritten .

 

The rule book is already there; the immigration rules.

 

If the UK withdraws from the freedom of movement directive when we leave the EU then entry to the UK by EU, EEA and Swiss nationals, whether visiting, co0moing to study, work or live,  would be governed by these existing rules.

 

Just as entry to an EU state, EEA state or Switzerland by British citizens would be governed by that state's existing immigration rules.

 

10 hours ago, superal said:

As it is now the system is unsustainable with tremendous burdens on all government services and housing .

 

The state pension scheme relies on contribution by working people to pay the pensions of those retired. A crisis is looming, and has been for years, as the retired population is growing because people live longer and the working population is shrinking due to falling birth rates.

 

In some respects past governments have relied upon the taxes and NICs paid by foreign workers, most of whom are EEA nationals, to cover this gap.

 

10 hours ago, superal said:

Regarding a UK national with a non EEA spouse applying for UK settlement  ---  Why should the government impose such sanctions and income rules on a UK citizen who may well have made a monetary contribution by way of taxes and N.I. all their life and actually has qualified for benefit entitlements .Also why 19k when UK pensioners can supposedly exist happily on half of that . Each case should be judged on its own merit rather than the Brit being made an easy target . Not to mention the reciprocal agreements with other countries concerning pension rights .  Seems to me that the expat needs a voice in parliament .

 

I do not have a problem with a British national who marries a foreigner having to show that they can adequately support their foreign spouse in the UK without recourse to public funds until the foreign partner has ILR; never had.

 

My problem is with the new financial requirement which came into effect in July 2012. There are many things wrong with it, such as the point made by Basil B which took this topic into this area and the arbitrary minimum income figure which takes no account of actual living costs where the couple will be living and other fixed expenses they may have.

 

Prior to July 2012, each case was judged on it's own merits; I did not then see why that needed to be changed, and still don't now.

 

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration essentially reached the same conclusion following their inquiry which reported in June 2013, which the government chose to ignore.

 

It is worth noting that these changes the immigration rules, like most, if not all, changes to the rules, were not approved by Parliament, they were introduced by means of a Statutory Instrument.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 15/01/2017 at 8:58 PM, CharlieK said:

 

Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK? Your human rights don't come into it, no one forced you to get married, did they? If you can't provide for your family why should others have to. 

 

There is no guarantee your wife could find a job in the Uk so her earning potential could never be taken into account.

 

As to the amount you need to qualify, I would suggest that is the minimum amount you would need anywhere in the UK, London for example would be virtually impossible to live on that amount.  

 

Even in Thailand now it isn't so easy to get a marriage visa if you can't show that you can take/support your wife to your home country if the need arrises.

 

I appreciate it is not easy having to go back to the UK in that situation. But IMO it is wrong to expect the government to roll out the red carpet just because you are a UK citizen. 

 

That situation is not going to change just because we are outside the EU. Name one country where the government allows a citizen to bring a foreign wife to that country and the government picks up the tab? Even here in Thailand you need 400,000 baht minimum.

 

  

So, what you're saying is, it's okay for a British man to get shacked up with a British woman, give her one or two kids, and have the state provide for his family.
But, if he goes abroad, and he marries a Thai bird, and gives her one or two kids, then, oh no, it's not okay for him to bring his family home, and have some support from the state ?

 

[CharlieK]

12 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, what you're saying is, it's okay for a British man to get shacked up with a British woman, give her one or two kids, and have the state provide for his family.
But, if he goes abroad, and he marries a Thai bird, and gives her one or two kids, then, oh no, it's not okay for him to bring his family home, and have some support from the state ?

 

 

No That is not what I am saying, But it happens doesn't it!

[7by7]

6 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

No That is not what I am saying, But it happens doesn't it!

 

If the children are British citizens, which they probably will be if the father is British, then if living with them in the UK he is entitled to claim any and all benefits to which he may be entitled due to having children; just like every other British citizen with British citizen children living in the UK.

 

But his wife cannot claim anything and he cannot claim any extra due to his wife living with him which a British citizen with a British wife could claim.

 

I responded to your misconceptions about UK immigration and public funds above, and also briefly explained to you how the current financial requirement works and compared it to the previous one. I then asked you a question.

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 11:39 AM, 7by7 said:

Can you explain why all this is logical; let alone fair?

Any chance of an answer?

[CharlieK]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

If the children are British citizens, which they probably will be if the father is British, then if living with them in the UK he is entitled to claim any and all benefits to which he may be entitled due to having children; just like every other British citizen with British citizen children living in the UK.

 

But his wife cannot claim anything and he cannot claim any extra due to his wife living with him which a British citizen with a British wife could claim.

 

I responded to your misconceptions about UK immigration and public funds above, and also briefly explained to you how the current financial requirement works and compared it to the previous one. I then asked you a question.

Any chance of an answer?

 

This isn't about getting children into the UK this is about getting a foreign wife into the UK.

As for "logic or being fair" I did not make the rules, maybe ask UK immigration! 

Edited January 18, 2017 by CharlieK

[7by7]

41 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

This isn't about getting children into the UK this is about getting a foreign wife into the UK.

As for "logic or being fair" I did not make the rules, maybe ask UK immigration! 

 

I have; usual excuses from them.

 

You asked

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 1:58 PM, CharlieK said:

 

Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK?

 

Now that you have been told what the rules actually are, do you accept that the British taxpayer does not "pay the bill" for expats, or anyone else, who wish to live in the UK with their foreign partner?

 

Not that anyone here has ever said that they should!

 

In fact, the fees charged for the initial visa, FLR and ILR plus the IHS surcharge means the British government actually makes a nice profit from us!

 

 

[CharlieK]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I have; usual excuses from them.

 

You asked

 

Now that you have been told what the rules actually are, do you accept that the British taxpayer does not "pay the bill" for expats, or anyone else, who wish to live in the UK with their foreign partner?

 

Not that anyone here has ever said that they should!

 

In fact, the fees charged for the initial visa, FLR and ILR plus the IHS surcharge means the British government actually makes a nice profit from us!

 

 

 

I never said the British tax payer pays the bill for expats or anyone else to bring a foreign wife to the UK. But the inference for that could have been part of the OP's rant!

Edited January 18, 2017 by CharlieK

[7by7]

18 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

I never said the British tax payer pays the bill for expats or anyone else to bring a foreign wife to the UK. But the inference for that could have been part of the OP's rant!

 

Really?

 

I can find nothing in the OP from which anyone could possibly draw such a conclusion.

 

Neither can I find anything in any other post from which such a conclusion could possibly be drawn.

 

Perhaps you will enlighten me by quoting the remarks I have missed from which you drew your inference?

[CharlieK]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Really?

 

I can find nothing in the OP from which anyone could possibly draw such a conclusion.

 

Neither can I find anything in any other post from which such a conclusion could possibly be drawn.

 

Perhaps you will enlighten me by quoting the remarks I have missed from which you drew your inference?

not sure what your problem is? 

 

 

[7by7]

My 'problem' is with people who say

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 1:58 PM, CharlieK said:

Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK?...........

But IMO it is wrong to expect the government to roll out the red carpet just because you are a UK citizen...........

Name one country where the government allows a citizen to bring a foreign wife to that country and the government picks up the tab?

when no one has suggested anything remotely close to that.

 

I have no problem with anyone who is as completely ignorant of the UK's immigration rules as you; I was once that ignorant of them myself.

 

But I do have a 'problem' with people who make asinine remarks based upon their ignorance and when corrected instead of accepting that they were wrong attempt to justify themselves with ludicrous comments they cannot back up such as

19 hours ago, CharlieK said:

I never said the British tax payer pays the bill for expats or anyone else to bring a foreign wife to the UK. But the inference for that could have been part of the OP's rant!

 

[optad]

God help Britain if its future is service based industries post Brexit. More social problems ahead than behind.

[CharlieK]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

My 'problem' is with people who say

when no one has suggested anything remotely close to that.

 

I have no problem with anyone who is as completely ignorant of the UK's immigration rules as you; I was once that ignorant of them myself.

 

But I do have a 'problem' with people who make asinine remarks based upon their ignorance and when corrected instead of accepting that they were wrong attempt to justify themselves with ludicrous comments they cannot back up such as

 

 

When a sentence has the word "Why" at the beginning and a "?" at the end it is considered a question not a statement of fact. 

 

In what way does my comment suggest it is part of UK immigration rules?  I am well aware of what the rules are.  

 

It seems you are doing what you are accusing me of, being asinine and ignorant?

 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by CharlieK

[CharlieK]

The OP says he wants to take back control of borders and immigration, possibly because he feels it is easier for a migrant worker to bring his family to the UK and work. Where as the OP has to prove he can support a foreign wife on minimum earnings of 18,600.

 

After 3 months migrant workers are entitled to some benefits, which the OP would not be entitled to, the OP says it would take six months for him to prove he can support his wife!  so my Question "Why should the British tax payer have to pay the bill for any expat to bring his foreign wife to the UK if he cannot support her in the UK?" is relevant. 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by CharlieK