UK Supreme Court to rule on foreign spouse income.

[NanLaew]

The Supreme Court is to rule on whether an income barrier stopping thousands of British citizens from bringing a foreign spouse to the UK is lawful.

[theoldgit]

I can't see in the BBC report when the judgement is going to be handed down, but I understand it's today.

 

Families Supreme Court verdict income rules spouse visas

[Bardeh]

Here's the link to the Supreme Court website for the case: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0011.html

 

Says judgement is due to be handed down today. Fingers crossed for a relaxing of the requirements.

 

Edit: The rules aren't being relaxed: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/22/supreme-court-backs-minimum-income-rule-for-non-european-spouses

Edited February 22, 2017 by Bardeh

[Basil B]

Verdict announced  .... Lawful 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Basil B

[Bardeh]

Just now, Basil B said:

Verdict announced  ...."Unlawful"

 

 

That's not what I'm reading. See my link above, and also here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/22/supreme-court-ruling-due-challenge-foreign-spouse-income-limit2/

[brewsterbudgen]

Disappointing, especially as it is unanimous. Whether the criticisms levelled by the Court will result in changes is probably unlikely now that TM is PM.

[Bardeh]

28 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Disappointing, especially as it is unanimous. Whether the criticisms levelled by the Court will result in changes is probably unlikely now that TM is PM.

Exactly. Skimming through the document shows that the court has plenty of criticisms of the existing legislation, but leaves it up to the government to make changes. With Brexit and everything else surrounding immigration right now, I don't think appetite is going to be high for anything to change at all. Very disappointing.

[theoldgit]

Please keep any responses to the subject matter.

 

One off topic post removed.

[whatawonderfulday]

But a recently retired UK pensioner, say 65 years old, who then marries a Thai lady,  would not be able to live "happily ever after" back in the UK as she would not be granted a settlement VISA apparently as his State pension together with any private pension (if any) would not meet the 18,600 income requirement. 

 

But it appears no problem if the lady comes from Latvia !!!!

 

 

Seems wrong some how

[Trevor1809]

Very frustrating when you consider that the Government will probably role over and allow 3.5 million EU migrants to stay with no restrictions. I do feel like a second class citizen here given the hoops and expense that we have to jump through. Just setting up the English test for my wife's ILR, £15 per minute. Even a solicitor doesn't charge that.

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Foreign spouse income limit: Supreme Court rules financial barrier lawful, barring entry to thousands of couples

But rules and instructions behind the threshold are not lawful when it comes to the welfare of children, the judges say

The Supreme Court has said the Government's £18,600 income threshold that bars UK workers' foreign spouses is lawful, but judges admitted it will continue to cause "significant hardship" for thousands of couples. 

 

The policy, brought in when Theresa May was Home Secretary, has been blamed for keeping families apart because British citizens living in the UK do not earn enough money to bring their non-European Economic Area partners to the country. It holds even if their partner's earnings would tip them over the limit.

 

The court's decision means thousands of relationships may still have to be conducted at long distance. But the judges also determined the rules and instructions behind the income threshold are not lawful when it comes to the welfare of children. 

 

Full story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreign-spouse-income-limit-latest-supreme-court-rules-lawful-bar-uk-entry-couples-british-children-a7592826.html

[7by7]

31 minutes ago, whatawonderfulday said:

But a recently retired UK pensioner, say 65 years old, who then marries a Thai lady,  would not be able to live "happily ever after" back in the UK as she would not be granted a settlement VISA apparently as his State pension together with any private pension (if any) would not meet the 18,600 income requirement. 

 

But it appears no problem if the lady comes from Latvia !!!!

 

 

Seems wrong some how

Or any other EEA state!

 

I would not be surprised if on some forum somewhere a Latvian who does not meet the Latvian government's  requirements to live in Latvia with his non EEA national spouse is complaining that there would be no problem were his spouse British!

[bobrussell]

I had little doubt this requirement would be found lawful but there is some relief that it may not be where the interests of the children is compromised by family separation.

A shame that a fairer 'affordability' option remains unavailable.

There is no justification for a family with British children to be split up because the mother or father cannot meet a certain income figure. It is similarly unjustified for the British taxpayer to fund a returning family automatically.

It is not rocket science for a system of exemption to exist. Applicant must show that the move is affordable without input of public funds or that children's welfare would be unacceptably compromised by the rules.

[Trevor1809]

1 hour ago, Bardeh said:

Exactly. Skimming through the document shows that the court has plenty of criticisms of the existing legislation, but leaves it up to the government to make changes. With Brexit and everything else surrounding immigration right now, I don't think appetite is going to be high for anything to change at all. Very disappointing.

Given the hatred that the Government has for anybody circumventing the rules by using EU law then it does seem that they wont budge an inch so agree. They are going to be far too interested in keeping existing EU migrants happy rather than sort out the injustice that British citizens suffer.

[bobrussell]

The income figure in itself is not unjust. It was selected as the figure above which a family would not be able to claim income related benefits. The tax payer should not pay for someone's 'life choice'.

What is unjust is the inability of anyone to demonstrate they can afford to move to the UK without claiming state aid. There is no mechanism to show this.

An example would be an older couple with no rent, no mortgage and limited living expenses as opposed to a family with £20K in financial commitments each year.

What is pretty inescapable is the fact that there is major unease regarding all immigration in the UK. One of the key reasons (apparently) for the Brexit vote result. Immigration is a very dirty word for a lot of people in the UK and there is going to be little political will to do anything that may increase it.

 

[theoldgit]

Two troll posts removed, please don't attempt to derail the topic.

[Trevor1809]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Or any other EEA state!

 

I would not be surprised if on some forum somewhere a Latvian who does not meet the Latvian government's  requirements to live in Latvia with his non EEA national spouse is complaining that there would be no problem were his spouse British!

Is it a fact that Latvia has a more stringent earnings requirement than the UK or is that speculation? At least as an EU citizen the Latvian has the right to use Surinda Singh, an option that was of course being denied to UK nationals thanks to David Cameron.

[Trevor1809]

58 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

The income figure in itself is not unjust. It was selected as the figure above which a family would not be able to claim income related benefits. The tax payer should not pay for someone's 'life choice'.

What is unjust is the inability of anyone to demonstrate they can afford to move to the UK without claiming state aid. There is no mechanism to show this.

An example would be an older couple with no rent, no mortgage and limited living expenses as opposed to a family with £20K in financial commitments each year.

What is pretty inescapable is the fact that there is major unease regarding all immigration in the UK. One of the key reasons (apparently) for the Brexit vote result. Immigration is a very dirty word for a lot of people in the UK and there is going to be little political will to do anything that may increase it.

 

Not withstanding the fact that the immigrant is denied access to public funds until the ILR is granted so surely this is all academic anyway.

 

[7by7]

54 minutes ago, Trevor1809 said:

Is it a fact that Latvia has a more stringent earnings requirement than the UK or is that speculation? At least as an EU citizen the Latvian has the right to use Surinda Singh, an option that was of course being denied to UK nationals thanks to David Cameron.

I have no idea what the Latvian immigration rules are; except that, as with the UK's and those of all other EEA states, they are nothing to do with the EU; each member state sets it's own. I was making a point; one which obviously went straight over your head.

 

Surinder Singh comes under the EU freedom of movement directive, and, until Brexit is finalised, UK citizens can still use it to move from another EEA state back to the UK with their non EEA national qualifying family members.

 

Neither Cameron nor anyone else has denied them that right; provided they meet the requirements. Requirements set by the EU and modified by case law in the ECJ; not the UK government.

 

Unless you believe that one of the reasons Cameron called for the EU referendum was so British citizens could no longer use Surinder Singh! Unlikely, considering he supported remain and expected the referendum to do the same!

 

But, of course, this topic is about the UK's financial requirement for family migration, which is part of the UK's immigration rules and so nothing to do with the EU freedom of movement directive nor the UK's membership of the EU.

 

 

[bobrussell]

1 hour ago, Trevor1809 said:

Not withstanding the fact that the immigrant is denied access to public funds until the ILR is granted so surely this is all academic anyway.

 

The main reason as stated within the actual court decision is that it is extremely difficult to prevent someone living in the UK access to welfare, NHS and social housing. How do you refuse help with accommodation to a family suddenly homeless? Do you prevent the family living in social housing? How do you deal with a medical emergency in someone not entitled to NHS care that arrive at the hospital?

Having rules preventing access to public funds does not make them practical to enforce.

No enforcement is required if the person is not in the UK.

 

It was quite a smart way to minimise the bureaucracy but not necessarily that humane!

 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Trevor1809 said:

Very frustrating when you consider that the Government will probably role over and allow 3.5 million EU migrants to stay with no restrictions.

From everything May has said; only if the remaining 26 allow the same for the approx. 2 million British citizens living in other EEA states.

 

3 hours ago, Trevor1809 said:

I do feel like a second class citizen here given the hoops and expense that we have to jump through. Just setting up the English test for my wife's ILR, £15 per minute. Even a solicitor doesn't charge that

How on earth has it cost you £15 per minute to set up her test?

 

The LitUK test is booked online and the helpline, if needed, is an 0800 number!

 

At £150, the cost of a B1 speaking and listening test is expensive; but these, too, can be booked online. If booking by phone and going to be charged £15 per minute to so do; choose another test centre!

[Trevor1809]

"I have no idea what the Latvian immigration rules are; except that, as with the UK's and those of all other EEA states, they are nothing to do with the EU;"

 

So no point in raising it then.

 

"Unless you believe that one of the reasons Cameron called for the EU referendum was so British citizens could no longer use Surinder Singh! Unlikely, considering he supported remain and expected the referendum to do the same!"

 

So why did he slip the removal into the conditions for remaining in the EU. I find it rather hypocritical of the other EU nations who are now whinging on about freedom of movement to have agreed to this denial to UK nationals to have their rights as an EU citizen removed.

 

"Unless you believe that one of the reasons Cameron called for the EU referendum was so British citizens could no longer use Surinder Singh! Unlikely, considering he supported remain and expected the referendum to do the same! "

 

Obviously not but he used the negotiations to slip that one in as he thought nobody would notice. Given how close the vote was may be a stupid thing to do as otherwise I would have voted remain.

 

"But, of course, this topic is about the UK's financial requirement for family migration, which is part of the UK's immigration rules and so nothing to do with the EU freedom of movement directive nor the UK's membership of the EU. "

 

You raised to subject of the Latvian whinging on about a Latvian person bring his/her British spouse to Latvia. I am merely pointing out that a Latvian as an EU citizen can circumvent any Latvian immigration rule, something that was going to be denied to a UK national. It does have relevance to the subject in as much SS bypasses the earning requirement (and English test)

 

Whatawonderful day said was "But a recently retired UK pensioner, say 65 years old, who then marries a Thai lady,  would not be able to live "happily ever after" back in the UK as she would not be granted a settlement VISA apparently as his State pension together with any private pension (if any) would not meet the 18,600 income requirement. 

 

But it appears no problem if the lady comes from Latvia !!!!"

 

Of course post Brexit there would be no need for the spouse of a Latvian to meet earnings requirements, pass and English test, pay the NHS surcharge or pay any visa fees.

[Trevor1809]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

From everything May has said; only if the remaining 26 allow the same for the approx. 2 million British citizens living in other EEA states.

 

How on earth has it cost you £15 per minute to set up her test?

 

The LitUK test is booked online and the helpline, if needed, is an 0800 number!

 

At £150, the cost of a B1 speaking and listening test is expensive; but these, too, can be booked online. If booking by phone and going to be charged £15 per minute to so do; choose another test centre!

The 10 minute test costs £150. 150/10=15

[Trevor1809]

6 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

The main reason as stated within the actual court decision is that it is extremely difficult to prevent someone living in the UK access to welfare, NHS and social housing. How do you refuse help with accommodation to a family suddenly homeless? Do you prevent the family living in social housing? How do you deal with a medical emergency in someone not entitled to NHS care that arrive at the hospital?

Having rules preventing access to public funds does not make them practical to enforce.

No enforcement is required if the person is not in the UK.

 

It was quite a smart way to minimise the bureaucracy but not necessarily that humane!

 

Well of course to get the visa the NHS surcharge would have to be paid so access to the NHS would be perfectly legal. And given that the estimated figure (that I heard at least) of £500 m on NHS tourists, that incidentally many commentators said wasn't worth collecting, then I don't see what the issue is.

My take is if the passport is stamped no recourse to public funds then the earnings requirement comes down to discrimination pure and simple.

[7by7]

Trevor1809; it was not I who brought up Latvia! I was responding to another member; which you must know as you quoted him!

 

The agreement Cameron reached with the other EU members did not abolish or remove Surinder Singh; it did, however, tighten up the requirements in order to prevent fraud and make it available only to couples who had genuinely been living in another member state, rather than those who moved there temporarily purely to utilise the judgement to by pass the immigration rules of the EU nationals home state.

 

Most other EU governments were as concerned about abuses of this route as the UK was; you seem to be unaware that Surinder Singh, like all ECJ judgements, applies to all member states, not just the UK!

 

However, for this to become effective then, like everything else agreed in the negotiations, it would have to be ratified by the EU heads of state; unanimously. Even if it were, it would still be subject to challenge in the ECJ.

 

19 minutes ago, Trevor1809 said:

The 10 minute test costs £150. 150/10=15

I did say that the cost of the test is expensive; but it does include more than the 10 minutes the candidate spends actually taking it.

 

But you originally said

 

3 hours ago, Trevor1809 said:

Just setting up the English test for my wife's ILR, £15 per minute. Even a solicitor doesn't charge that.

If you want to be taken seriously, try to be consistent.

 

Now that you've had your usual rant about the freedom of movement directive, can we get back to the actual topic?

[7by7]

31 minutes ago, Trevor1809 said:

Of course post Brexit there would be no need for the spouse of a Latvian to meet earnings requirements, pass and English test, pay the NHS surcharge or pay any visa fees.

Absolute rubbish.

 

Unless the UK strikes a deal which includes the UK being bound by the freedom of movement directive, unlikely as it would be political suicide for May and her government, then post Brexit Latvians, and all other EEA nationals, who wish to enter the UK, with or without family members, will be subject to the immigration rules.

 

 

[7by7]

Back to the topic.

 

I have to say that I expected this ruling.

 

Whilst I firmly believe, and have said so many times, that the current financial requirement is both illogical and unfair, I have accepted that it is lawful.

 

Unless it can in some way be shown to be against Article 8 of the ECHR.

Quote

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

 

From the reports, it appears the Supreme Court considered this, and rejected it; probably based upon the caveat "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of............ the economic well-being of the country......"

 

I have not seen it reported anywhere; but does anyone know if the appellants have been given leave to appeal to the ECtHR?

 

(For the benefit of some; the ECHR and it's court are nothing to do with the EU. All EU and EEA members are signatories to the convention and members of it's court, but not all signatories to the convention and so members of it's court are also EU or EEA members.)

[Trevor1809]

25 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Trevor1809; it was not I who brought up Latvia! I was responding to another member; which you must know as you quoted him!

 

I didn't say that you brought up Latvia what I said was "You raised to subject of the Latvian whinging on about a Latvian person bring his/her British spouse to Latvia."

The previous post mentioned Latvian wife. You raised the issue of Latvian complaining about a British wife.

[Trevor1809]

"The agreement Cameron reached with the other EU members did not abolish or remove Surinder Singh; it did, however, tighten up the requirements in order to prevent fraud and make it available only to couples who had genuinely been living in another member state, rather than those who moved there temporarily purely to utilise the judgement to by pass the immigration rules of the EU nationals home state. "

 

Call it fraud if you like but it is perfectly legal. Just like Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook etc etc etc act perfectly legally when they divert income to tax havens.

Amazing that DC can go to such lengths to stop what I guess might amount to a few tens of immigrants, I will be surprised if it is even hundreds but he did naff all about billions being moved off shore.

It is legal not fraud.

Getting £1million when you are actually a terrorist is fraud.

I think the nub is that total immigration is circa 700,000 per annum and yet the Conservatives bother them selves with a few thousand out of spite.

[bobrussell]

Nothing to do with spite. Never was!

It is all to do with votes and immigration numbers.

EEA free movement cannot be controlled (as yet) therefore the only way to get numbers down (and thereby appease the general public) is to reduce the numbers where it can be done.

The government probably don't care enough about the individuals to be spiteful. They are looking at the voters reactions.

They will also be looking at the potential costs to the taxpayer of families returning to the UK and earning below the threshold for income related benefits.

Pure politics played in turn by Labour, The Coalition and now The Conservative Party.