Labour to scrap minimum income requirement for foreign spouses

[darren1971]

Brits with a foreign spouse

'Labour will replace the rule that Brits must earn £18,600 before a foreign spouse is allowed to join them in the UK. Instead, there will be “a prohibition on recourse to public funds” – although what that means is not exactly clear. ' - New Statesman

Edited May 31, 2017 by darren1971

[simoh1490]

It means no benefits.

[darren1971]

6 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

It means no benefits.

it also means no minimum income requirement.. a much fairer policy in my mind, akin to how many Scandinavians deal with the issue

[simoh1490]

4 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

it also means no minimum income requirement.. a much fairer policy in my mind, akin to how many Scandinavians deal with the issue

I was responding to the OP who didn't know what, "no recourse to public funds means"!

 

Oh, I see you are the OP, what is this, a circular debate!!!

Edited May 31, 2017 by simoh1490

[darren1971]

1 minute ago, petermik said:

Labour? they would sell their souls for a few votes

still think this proposal is a much fairer policy than the current which keeps families apart

[darren1971]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

I was responding to the OP who didn't know what, "no recourse to public funds means"!

 

Oh, I see you are the OP, what is this, a circular debate!!!

hold on, I will edit the post and make it clearer

[bobrussell]

Few on here would argue that there is a fairer system. The aim was to reduce the numbers of family members entering the UK to face a change in circumstances that might lead to that family having insufficient funds without tax payer help.

Corbyn is offering a lot of 'free' money to buy votes. Tuition fees being scrapped, child care from 2 years of age.

Lovely man (unless you are a tax payer!).

[simoh1490]

It's a moot point, Labour have no chance of winning the election.

[darren1971]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

It's a moot point, Labour have no chance of winning the election.

well we thought the same about brexit and trump, politics is changing

[simoh1490]

11 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

well we thought the same about brexit and trump, politics is changing

I don't have an axe to grind on the political front but I do remember past Labour governement, they have a tendency to want to bankrupt the country and one day they'll probably succeed, especially under Corbyn. We've already read how his manifesto is underfunded to the tune of 36 billion and then there's Brexit on top, does anyone think the man has the wherewithall to cut even a remotely decent deal! And then there's market confidence and the Pound, given the state of Labours front bench and serious lack of financial acumen, expect the Pound to reach parity with USD and then remain there - Brit pensioners in Thailand, not a chance to stay here if surviving solely on Sterling fixed income. For my part I've heavily invested in Thailand and have been for years, if Labour wins I may well cash in my Baht holdings, go back and buy a small city and live on Labours benefits for my remaining days.

[darren1971]

10 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I don't have an axe to grind on the political front but I do remember past Labour governement, they have a tendency to want to bankrupt the country and one day they'll probably succeed, especially under Corbyn. We've already read how his manifesto is underfunded to the tune of 36 billion and then there's Brexit on top, does anyone think the man has the wherewithall to cut even a remotely decent deal! And then there's market confidence and the Pound, given the state of Labours front bench and serious lack of financial acumen, expect the Pound to reach parity with USD and then remain there - Brit pensioners in Thailand, not a chance to stay here if surviving solely on Sterling fixed income. For my part I've heavily invested in Thailand and have been for years, if Labour wins I may well cash in my Baht holdings, go back and buy a small city and live on Labours benefits for my remaining days.

some legitimate concerns for sure... But I think the UK and the £ will have a somewhat rocky future for the next decade regardless of who is in power, the upside being I might find it easier to get my teerak over here to wait in the bread line queue with me

[trigpoint]

37 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I don't have an axe to grind on the political front but I do remember past Labour governement, they have a tendency to want to bankrupt the country and one day they'll probably succeed, especially under Corbyn. We've already read how his manifesto is underfunded to the tune of 36 billion and then there's Brexit on top, does anyone think the man has the wherewithall to cut even a remotely decent deal! And then there's market confidence and the Pound, given the state of Labours front bench and serious lack of financial acumen, expect the Pound to reach parity with USD and then remain there - Brit pensioners in Thailand, not a chance to stay here if surviving solely on Sterling fixed income. For my part I've heavily invested in Thailand and have been for years, if Labour wins I may well cash in my Baht holdings, go back and buy a small city and live on Labours benefits for my remaining days.

Sadly true, and I will be following you.

[Pdaz]

Corbyn would sell his mother to gain power. Labour will promise anything to anyone.. No matter how implausible.

Unfortunately the great unwashed and unmotivated who historically vote for them only end up worse off.

Every successive labour Govt has left the UK in ruins. 

[HauptmannUK]

This news is irrelevant because Corbyn has no chance of winning (I have to declare a bias in that I'm a member of the Conservative Party). Theresa will win and the minimum income requirement will be increased (its in the manifesto).

As to the GBP - well, I can't see that getting much better for 5-10 years...maybe more.

[darren1971]

3 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

This news is irrelevant because Corbyn has no chance of winning (I have to declare a bias in that I'm a member of the Conservative Party). Theresa will win and the minimum income requirement will be increased (its in the manifesto).

As to the GBP - well, I can't see that getting much better for 5-10 years...maybe more.

surely something being in the Conservative manifesto makes it highly UNLIKELY to be done.... lol

[HauptmannUK]

4 hours ago, darren1971 said:

surely something being in the Conservative manifesto makes it highly UNLIKELY to be done.... lol

It costs nothing and it will reduce immigration - so it will likely happen.  The new government will be under intense pressure to reduce the numbers. When I went to the manifesto launch presentation event at my local constituency association a couple of weeks back we were told that family settlement accounts for almost 30% of non-EU immigration. I have not researched this myself, but if correct then raising the threshold to say, £25k, could have a significant impact on number of visas issued. 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

It costs nothing and it will reduce immigration - so it will likely happen.  The new government will be under intense pressure to reduce the numbers. When I went to the manifesto launch presentation event at my local constituency association a couple of weeks back we were told that family settlement accounts for almost 30% of non-EU immigration. I have not researched this myself, but if correct then raising the threshold to say, £25k, could have a significant impact on number of visas issued. 

I think you local constituency association is massaging the figures somewhat!

 

There are three types of family member immigrant:

1. Family members of British citizens or residents.
2. Family members of those with limited leave to remain, e.g. students or workers.
3. Family members of EEA migrants.

Excluding the third group, family members made up approximately 18% of all immigration in 2015 (the latest year I can find figures for (source)); but that included the family members of students and workers with limited leave; i.e. temporary migrants.

 

It is only those in the first group who have to meet the financial requirement.

 

The current income requirement is already too high for approximately 40% of the working population; increasing it will only leave even more families separated; families who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves in the UK without any state aid.

 

Yes, raising the figure will have a significant impact on British citizens and their foreign partners, separating even more families;  but will have little impact on the overall figures.

 

If the financial requirement is a successful way of reducing net migration, why has it not had any real effect on the figures since it's introduction in July 2012?

 

 

[darren1971]

6 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

It costs nothing and it will reduce immigration - so it will likely happen.  The new government will be under intense pressure to reduce the numbers. When I went to the manifesto launch presentation event at my local constituency association a couple of weeks back we were told that family settlement accounts for almost 30% of non-EU immigration. I have not researched this myself, but if correct then raising the threshold to say, £25k, could have a significant impact on number of visas issued. 

 reducing immigration will have costs

[HauptmannUK]

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I think you local constituency association is massaging the figures somewhat!

 

That's possible.

[HauptmannUK]

8 hours ago, darren1971 said:

 reducing immigration will have costs

For who?

A couple of years ago I sold my large house in a rural area (mostly populated by white native English speakers) and moved to an apartment not far from a city centre.  I seem to be one of the few native English speakers living in the area (apart from a few homeless begging in the street).  Its a sad state of affairs. Most of these immigrants are in low/no-skill occupations, and of course they are cheap to employ. Many of the houses have been converted into so-called 'houses of multiple occupation' - which seems to involve dividing-up a semi- with sheets of plasterboard so that you can squeeze in 9 Eastern Europeans at  £60 a week each...

The issue is the strong 'pull factor' of our flexible low-added-value labour market.  In the UK it is cheap and easy to throw labour at a task rather than invest in technology - very different to France and Germany where employment costs are much higher. I know this because I have been working in this field for many years, in many different countries.  Low UK productivity means that a German adds about 35% more value per hour than a British worker. It also sucks cheap labour into the UK. For example the UK farming industry has one of the lowest levels of mechanisation and investment in technology in the Western world.

I am actually against Brexit - I would have preferred the UK to stay in the EU and reshape it from the inside (which I think is/was possible) but I understand why many people voted to leave. To allow large numbers of low-skilled workers to

immigrate to the UK in order to do minimum wage jobs is bonkers. There are areas of the economy where they are indeed needed (e.g. care homes) but many other jobs could be eliminated by the application of technology. Per worker, France invests about 40% more in technology than the UK, Germany even more, even little  Belgium is ahead. Check out GDP per head (which is what defines our standard of living) and you'll see that the UK is now about 27th in the world. Well below most of our competitors.

[paz]

Every time I read about UKs income requirements for foreign spouses, I can't understand how some people fails to understand that is any requirement is a plain violation of humans rights of the UK subject, and any debate about  it should come after repealing the concept totally.

And then I read about how common are reversible pensions to the surviving spouse, without any limit on the marriage length, age difference, total benefit paid, an nobody object about that.

[darren1971]

13 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

For who?

A couple of years ago I sold my large house in a rural area (mostly populated by white native English speakers) and moved to an apartment not far from a city centre.  I seem to be one of the few native English speakers living in the area (apart from a few homeless begging in the street).  Its a sad state of affairs. Most of these immigrants are in low/no-skill occupations, and of course they are cheap to employ. Many of the houses have been converted into so-called 'houses of multiple occupation' - which seems to involve dividing-up a semi- with sheets of plasterboard so that you can squeeze in 9 Eastern Europeans at  £60 a week each...

The issue is the strong 'pull factor' of our flexible low-added-value labour market.  In the UK it is cheap and easy to throw labour at a task rather than invest in technology - very different to France and Germany where employment costs are much higher. I know this because I have been working in this field for many years, in many different countries.  Low UK productivity means that a German adds about 35% more value per hour than a British worker. It also sucks cheap labour into the UK. For example the UK farming industry has one of the lowest levels of mechanisation and investment in technology in the Western world.

I am actually against Brexit - I would have preferred the UK to stay in the EU and reshape it from the inside (which I think is/was possible) but I understand why many people voted to leave. To allow large numbers of low-skilled workers to

immigrate to the UK in order to do minimum wage jobs is bonkers. There are areas of the economy where they are indeed needed (e.g. care homes) but many other jobs could be eliminated by the application of technology. Per worker, France invests about 40% more in technology than the UK, Germany even more, even little  Belgium is ahead. Check out GDP per head (which is what defines our standard of living) and you'll see that the UK is now about 27th in the world. Well below most of our competitors.

From what I gather it seems like you are blaming lack of investment in technology on immigration? you also seem to be slightly racist which is a very British trait.

[darren1971]

• Most studies suggest that the fiscal impact of migration in the UK is relatively small (costing or contributing less than 1% of the country's overall Gross Domestic Product).
• The fiscal impact depends on the characteristics of migrants. Migrants who are young, skilled and working in highly-paid jobs are likely to make a more positive net fiscal contribution than those working in low-wage jobs or with low employment rates.
• Migrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) and recent migrants are more likely to have a positive net fiscal impact / less likely to have a negative net fiscal impact.
• The net fiscal impact of immigration is slightly more positive in the UK than in other wealthy countries, according to international evidence
•  

[7by7]

HauptmannUK, what has your rant above got to do with this topic; which is about the financial requirement for family members of British citizens applying for settlement under Appendix FM of the immigration rules?

 

Nothing.

 

Odd that someone who is so against EU migration chooses a German word as his forum handle!

[7by7]

13 hours ago, paz said:

Every time I read about UKs income requirements for foreign spouses, I can't understand how some people fails to understand that is any requirement is a plain violation of humans rights of the UK subject, and any debate about  it should come after repealing the concept totally.

 Unfortunately, Article 8 of the ECHR is not an absolute right, it is a qualified one. 

Quote

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.

 Although no final judgement has been obtained from the European Court of Human Rights, the government have so far successfully argued in the UK courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, that the current financial requirement does not breach Article 8 due to the parts I have highlighted above.

 

Which does make sense. For as long as I have taken an interest, and for many years prior to that, there has been a financial requirement for family members wishing to settle in the UK with their British family.

 

Prior to July 2012 this was known as adequate maintenance. Basically applicant and sponsor had to show that the applicant would be supported in the UK without access to public funds. There was no specific amount in the rules, but in 2006, the UKAIT in UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the Income Support level for a British family of that size.

 

So the unofficial requirement was that amount, currently £118.45 per week (£6195.40 p.a.) for a married couple both over 18, plus housing costs and any other fixed, regular outgoings such as debt repayments. A much fairer and logical approach, I believe, than the current requirement of a fixed minimum income which takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

 

Of course, I strongly believe that immigrants, whether family members of British citizens or others, should be able to support themselves or be supported by their family and so prohibited from claiming non contribution based public funds until they have ILR or the equivalent. But that was the case prior to July 2012 and still is.

Edited June 2, 2017 by 7by7
Correct typo

[bobrussell]

Having a minimum income level is easy and cheap to administer. This seems to be more important than fairness.

The figure chosen reflects a level where a household could be expected to support partners independently without them becoming a burden on the state.

Although a non-EU spouse may not be eligible for means tested benefits as such, a couple may be able to claim certain benefits that are assessed as a couple.

'Money Tree Corbyn' is promising the world to those most likely to vote for him. I fear many of these people are the type that do not think things through enough to realise that to spend a government has to tax, save elsewhere or borrow.

All sorts of potential additional taxes are hidden in the Labour manifesto.

'Land tax' that revalues houses with big gardens (potentially tripling council tax bills) and/or taxing farm land are in there and potentially devastating businesses and households already under financial pressure!

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

Having a minimum income level is easy and cheap to administer. This seems to be more important than fairness.

Or logic.

 

3 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

 

The figure chosen reflects a level where a household could be expected to support partners

In which case, why is the income support amount just £6195.40 p.a. plus housing costs? If a British couple are expected to survive on that, why does the government insist a couple where one is an immigrant need so much more?

 

This financial requirement is not only unfair, it is absurd because it takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

 

For example:-

 

Mr A has an income of £18,599 p.a. he owns his own house and his mortgage is paid of. He does not meet the requirement.

 

Mr. B lives in the same town as Mr. A. He has an income of £18,600 p.a. He has mortgage repayments of £7,200p.a. and is also paying off a bank loan at £1200 p.a. He does meet the requirement.

 

Who is better able to support their partner? Obvioulsy Mr. A; but he fails the requirement!

[7by7]

Sorry, should have included this in my previous.

 

19 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

Although a non-EU spouse may not be eligible for means tested benefits as such, a couple may be able to claim certain benefits that are assessed as a couple.

Under the current rules, they cannot.

 

The British partner is able to claim any and all benefits, income related or not, to which they are entitled; but cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant partner living with them which they would be able to claim were their partner British.

 

Some things, such as tax credits, must be claimed jointly by a couple, so the immigrant partner has to be included in any such claim. But these exceptions are very few.

 

See Public Funds.

 

.

[In the jungle]

No recourse to public funds was the test for literally decades under both Labour and Conservative Governments.

 

I see little to criticise in reverting to that reasonable test.

[paz]

Maybe the problem is that UK and some Brits here see the right to marry a foreigner as a "public funds" issue. But other 27 countries Europe see things differently, what a surprise. By the way, foreigners (family or not) are not entitled to any "funds" in my country. And not even citizens, actually.