UK's new visa rules 'causing anguish' for families

[The Year Of The Fox]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22833136

 

If it's affecting people to this extent it clearly shows how bad the problem was beforehand. £18000 isn't a massive amount of money either, so again it shows just how much of a burden some migrants were on our economy.

[Jon the Hat]

New migration rules for people from outside the European Union are "tearing British families apart", a group of MPs and peers have claimed in a report.

It said thousands of Britons have been unable to bring a non-EU spouse to the UK since July 2012, when minimum earnings requirements were introduced.

Children have also been separated from a parent, the committee said.

The Home Office said the rules are designed to ease the burden of migration on the taxpayer.

Rules that came into force a year ago require any British citizen who wants to sponsor their non-European spouse's visa to be able to show they earn at least £18,600 a year, rising to £22,400 to sponsor a child, and a further £2,400 for each further child.

The inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, which is calling for an independent review of the minimum income requirement, looked at more than 175 cases from families affected by the new rules.

Forty-five claimed their inability to meet the income threshold had led to the separation of children, including British children, from a non-EU parent.

In one case, a woman from outside Europe was separated from her British husband and two sons, including a five-month-old baby she had been breastfeeding.

'Children shouldn't suffer'

The committee also heard from a number of UK sponsors in full-time employment at or above the national minimum wage who reported that they were unable to meet the income requirement.

Wider evidence suggested that 47% of the UK working population last year would fail to meet the income level to sponsor a non-European Economic Area partner, the committee said.

By the government's own estimate, almost 18,000 British people will be prevented from being reunited with their spouse or partner in the UK every year as a result of the new rules, it added.

Baroness Hamwee, chairwoman of the inquiry and Liberal Democrat home affairs lead in the House of Lords, said the committee was "struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives".

"These rules are causing anguish for families and, counter to their original objectives, may actually be costing the public purse," she said.

Liberal Democrat APPG member Sarah Teather MP said that "whatever the objective of the policy, children shouldn't suffer as a result".

A Home Office spokesperson said the rules had been designed to make sure those coming to the UK to join their spouse or partner would not become a burden on the taxpayer and will be well enough supported to integrate effectively.

"High-value migrants would not be refused because their British spouse or partner was not employed," he said.

"They can meet the income threshold by having cash savings of £62,500 or through their own private income, for example from investments. We have also introduced greater flexibility for those holding investments to liquidate them into cash in order to meet the rules."

[Jon the Hat]

I am all for tight immigration rules, and you of course have to ensure marriages are genuine, but to me, as someone who has a non EU wife living in the UK on a spouse visa, this is quite a scary policy.

It seems a fundamental right to me that if I as a UK citizen travel the world and fall in love that I should be able to bring my wife home.  Limiting that feels like having minimum wage income means your British citizenship is limited.  Christ I sound like a lefty here, and clearly you should be able to look after your family, but this seems a bit steep.

[flowwolf]

I think these measures have been brought in because of high levels of abuse. Unfortunately it is probably going to hurt the genuine cases as well.

[The Year Of The Fox]

I am all for tight immigration rules, and you of course have to ensure marriages are genuine, but to me, as someone who has a non EU wife living in the UK on a spouse visa, this is quite a scary policy.

It seems a fundamental right to me that if I as a UK citizen travel the world and fall in love that I should be able to bring my wife home.  Limiting that feels like having minimum wage income means your British citizenship is limited.  Christ I sound like a lefty here, and clearly you should be able to look after your family, but this seems a bit steep.

I dunno, I'd put it out that if a Brit has the money to to travel the world he's likely to have a job that earns more than 18.6k

[MooseBreath]

If it has been designed to stop abuse by low paid immigrants who get into the country, gain citizenship and then bring over a wife and raft of children for whom many benefits can be claimed, then surely attacking the root of the problem, ie preventing low skilled, low paid immigrants from entering in the first place is the better solution.

[MooseBreath]

I dunno, I'd put it out that if a Brit has the money to to travel the world he's likely to have a job that earns more than 18.6k

Most people do their travelling when they're young and not that well paid. A know a few people who met their wives abroad who wouldn't have been able to bring them home under these rules.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Most people do their travelling when they're young and not that well paid. A know a few people who met their wives abroad who wouldn't have been able to bring them home under these rules.

I suppose if they're travelling the world then they officially don't have a job in the UK anyway. There must be some grey area perhaps that allows them in based on the job prospects of the Brit.

[Monk]

I met my American wife when she was doing a masters in London. Luckily we got married before these new rules came in. For her it's 3 years from marriage to citizenship but for new applicants that doubles.

The income requirement is grossly unfair and is blatently discriminatory. I can see why they've done it, but its very poor execution of policy.

The whole UKBA system is a mess and it won't improve any time soon. I just hope the US system is a little better when we move there in a few years.

[The Year Of The Fox]

I met my American wife when she was doing a masters in London. Luckily we got married before these new rules came in. For her it's 3 years from marriage to citizenship but for new applicants that doubles.

The income requirement is grossly unfair and is blatently discriminatory. I can see why they've done it, but its very poor execution of policy.

The whole UKBA system is a mess and it won't improve any time soon. I just hope the US system is a little better when we move there in a few years.

By the income requirement I take it you mean the figure of approx 18k as being unfair?

18k as a salary really isn't that much at all is it?

(before anyone gets high and mighty I'm currently on less than 18k)

[Jon the Hat]

By the income requirement I take it you mean the figure of approx 18k as being unfair?

18k as a salary really isn't that much at all is it?

(before anyone gets high and mighty I'm currently on less than 18k)

 

Its more the point that the better off can do this without any problem, but the worse off in effect have limited citizenship rights.  Dodgy.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Its more the point that the better off can do this without any problem, but the worse off in effect have limited citizenship rights.  Dodgy.

See what you're saying but those on less money are the ones most likely to be a strain on our society or even benefits system. Particularly if you bring over a Thai bird (blatantly only with you for a passport!) who can't speak English.

I sympathise with yanks and Aussies who would slot straight into our society regardless of job capabilities the most

[sphericalfox]

See what you're saying but those on less money are the ones most likely to be a strain on our society or even benefits system. Particularly if you bring over a Thai bird (blatantly only with you for a passport!) who can't speak English.

I sympathise with yanks and Aussies who would slot straight into our society regardless of job capabilities the most

 

Never used the NHS huh?

[purpleronnie]

No surprise we introduce stupid rules to try and bring down net immigration, as per usual the low earners are affected.

 

We seem to have an obsession with immigration and I'm sure if most voters weren't paranoid about it families wouldnt be ripped apart.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Never used the NHS huh?

I've had the good fortune not to.

But whoever they are or where they're from they have a good grounding in our language. Anyway, this moving off in a different direction. I just can't fault the government for wanting to only allow migrants with a better chance of staying in our country without putting strain on the already knackered benefits and social housing systems.

Virtually everyone now recognises something has to be done to curb our immigration numbers, yet whatever they do there are people opposed to it.

[MooseBreath]

See what you're saying but those on less money are the ones most likely to be a strain on our society or even benefits system. Particularly if you bring over a Thai bird (blatantly only with you for a passport!) who can't speak English.

Funny you say that, the two richest blokes I know (business owners, millionaires) are both married to Thais (who can speak English).

Most of this problem is obviously to do with already poor immigrants who gain citizenship and then bring their family over. The solution is to stopped the low skilled from immigrating in the first place.

[Monk]

By the income requirement I take it you mean the figure of approx 18k as being unfair?

18k as a salary really isn't that much at all is it?

(before anyone gets high and mighty I'm currently on less than 18k)

Whether its a lot of money or not is irrelevant. What about students or retired people for example. It is simply not fair.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Funny you say that, the two richest blokes I know (business owners, millionaires) are both married to Thais (who can speak English).

Most of this problem is obviously to do with already poor immigrants who gain citizenship and then bring their family over.

Again, the Thai comment was tongue in cheek. Being a fan of Leicester I could hardly criticise Thais coming over here to work. I meant anyone from any walk of life who can't speak the language.

[purpleronnie]

I guess the answer is get married to anyone within the EU.

[The Year Of The Fox]

No surprise we introduce stupid rules to try and bring down net immigration, as per usual the low earners are affected.

 

We seem to have an obsession with immigration and I'm sure if most voters weren't paranoid about it families wouldnt be ripped apart.

Surely its the right way round though? The low earners are most likely to offer less to our society- unless you see this as a good thing?

 

Its not about immigration as such, its just that our country is full.  Way too full. Prisons are overcrowded, there aren't enough houses, our benefits system is on its arse. I'm not saying its migrants who cause this, it's Brits as well, but lets deal with this in house before we let more people come in and add to it.

I guess the answer is get married to anyone within the EU.

Or have a decent enough salary to allow someone to come over.

[purpleronnie]

Surely its the right way round though? The low earners are most likely to offer less to our society- unless you see this as a good thing?

 

Its not about immigration as such, its just that our country is full.  Way too full. Prisons are overcrowded, there aren't enough houses, our benefits system is on its arse. I'm not saying its migrants who cause this, it's Brits as well, but lets deal with this in house before we let more people come in and add to it.

Or have a decent enough salary to allow someone to come over.

Theres nothing wrong with limiting immigration but surely ripping families apart isn't one of them.

[RobHawk]

Bloody Foreigners!

 

[The Year Of The Fox]

The previous salary threshold was just over £5000 per year after tax. That is a pittance of a wage. No wonder the country is overcrowded and there are so many people on the benefits system.

 

Admittedly going from £5000 to £18600 does seem like a huge jump. However, I still maintain that £18600 is still a very low salary especially when you assume the Brit on that wage will then have to fund their partners lifestyle til he/she finds a job.

[Carl the Llama]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22833136

 

If it's affecting people to this extent it clearly shows how bad the problem was beforehand. £18000 isn't a massive amount of money either, so again it shows just how much of a burden some migrants were on our economy.

Why?  Why does earning <18k make you a burden to the economy?  You've admitted to earning less than that, but clearly don't see yourself as a burden, why is it a different scenario for migrants?

 

 

I suppose if they're travelling the world then they officially don't have a job in the UK anyway. There must be some grey area perhaps that allows them in based on the job prospects of the Brit.

That's a wild assumption with no basis whatsoever.  But sure, if it makes you feel better about defending brutal legislation.

 

 

By the income requirement I take it you mean the figure of approx 18k as being unfair?

18k as a salary really isn't that much at all is it?

(before anyone gets high and mighty I'm currently on less than 18k)

Then it's a good job you haven't happened to meet a foreign woman who you want to spend the rest of your life with (or at least not one who feels the same about you).

 

 

See what you're saying but those on less money are the ones most likely to be a strain on our society or even benefits system. Particularly if you bring over a Thai bird (blatantly only with you for a passport!) who can't speak English.

I sympathise with yanks and Aussies who would slot straight into our society regardless of job capabilities the most

Again with the wild assumptions and generalisations.  How many people do you actually know of who do the Thai bride thing?

 

 

 

Surely its the right way round though? The low earners are most likely to offer less to our society- unless you see this as a good thing?

 

Its not about immigration as such, its just that our country is full.  Way too full. Prisons are overcrowded, there aren't enough houses, our benefits system is on its arse. I'm not saying its migrants who cause this, it's Brits as well, but lets deal with this in house before we let more people come in and add to it.

Or have a decent enough salary to allow someone to come over.

Again, good thing you haven't fallen in love with a foreign woman or I suspect we'd be reading the opposite version of this thread right now.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Why?  Why does earning <18k make you a burden to the economy?  You've admitted to earning less than that, but clearly don't see yourself as a burden, why is it a different scenario for migrants?

 

 

That's a wild assumption with no basis whatsoever.  But sure, if it makes you feel better about defending brutal legislation.

 

 

Then it's a good job you haven't happened to meet a foreign woman who you want to spend the rest of your life with (or at least not one who feels the same about you).

 

 

Again with the wild assumptions and generalisations.  How many people do you actually know of who do the Thai bride thing?

 

 

 

Again, good thing you haven't fallen in love with a foreign woman or I suspect we'd be reading the opposite version of this thread right now.

Because I have a job, pay my taxes and input into society. I have a mortgage and don't rely on other people to pay my bills. The missis likewise. Earning less than £18k I could NOT afford to do all that without the missis' wage.

 

It may be brutal but as I've said, people have moaned and most agree that something needs to be done, and this is it.

 

Would you agree that £5k was too low a threshold?