# £25,700 Maintenance Requirement from June 2012 according to Leaked Cabinet Letter



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Sunday Telegraph reports that a leaked letter from Home Secretary, Theresa May, to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says the coalition government intends to introduce new rules on family migration from June this year. The letter says the minimum maintenance requirement for a spouse or partner will be £25,700 a year before tax, and up to £62.600 for those with three children. Probationary period will be extended from 2 to 5 years, English requirement will be strengthened, and a higher burden of proof for genuine relationship will be demanded. It says nothing about ban on external sponsorship or if any savings are to be considered along with UK sponsor's income.

So it looks as though the government is pressing ahead with tightening the family migration route. Implementation from June is later than originally expected, which was April, but much earlier than October or 2013 some were expecting. The main proposals are broadly in line with the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published last November. We still wait to see if outside sponsorship or savings will be allowed.

Sunday Telegraph says that renewed tension between coalition partners over these proposals is expected, as the Liberal Democrats favour lower maintenance requirements and amnesty for all illegal immigrants currently in UK.

We just have to wait for official announcement, which can't be very far away, maybe in April or May.

Ministers plan major immigration crackdown - Telegraph


----------



## Gregarious (Mar 12, 2012)

It will be a drastic change in settlement visa; people will suffer alot.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

The article doesn't say if this will apply to those of us waiting now on the probationary 27 month settlement visa. (Gulp!)

For example, I'm set to apply for the ILR in May 2013; if the proposed changes go through will they make it clear if this applies to people like me?

Crikes, I was just starting to relax!


----------



## Gregarious (Mar 12, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The article doesn't say if this will apply to those of us waiting now on the probationary 27 month settlement visa. (Gulp!)
> 
> For example, I'm set to apply for the ILR in May 2013; if the proposed changes go through will they make it clear if this applies to people like me?
> 
> Crikes, I was just starting to relax!



Undoubtedly, it does not apply on you as above mentioned circumstances. *But you can expect anything from rapid changing Immigration Laws of UK.*

Best of Luck


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The article doesn't say if this will apply to those of us waiting now on the probationary 27 month settlement visa. (Gulp!)
> 
> For example, I'm set to apply for the ILR in May 2013; if the proposed changes go through will they make it clear if this applies to people like me?
> 
> Crikes, I was just starting to relax!


No, it's not clear. On the one hand, it may apply only to those who are beginning the process afresh--seeking to bring someone to the UK from outside of the EEC starting from June. 

However, the government could make some rules retrospective, like extending the probationary period from 2-5 years which will catch about 80,000 mid-stream. This will also bring in more money for the government for those applying for an extension of their FLR for another two years, bringing it in line with certain Tier 2 employment visas. In more drastic circumstances, it might weed out those who are already in the UK on an FLR but who may not be able to meet the new rules for whatever reason (subsequent unemployment of the sponsor, low savings, the government not counting savings or household income, whichever). 

So we'll have to wait and see, and unfortunately many will be feel as though they're treading on eggshells in the meanwhile. :ranger:

What else is new?


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

Well, Joppa, once again you were right. 
When my Spousal Visa was issued as a CP and not the KOL I should have asked to have it appealed but due to a time constraint I didn't have the time to wait for the appeal process and thought it best to just move forward and it wouldn't make much of a difference. 
I stand corrected. So now I am going to see if I can appeal it from this end. (UK)
Also, when applying for jobs here and they ask if there are any restrictions on my Visa, I have to mention the 27 months before I can apply for the ILR. 

Now have to figure out how to go about doing that... blah.

I am with you, AAiS... I have yet to exhale.


----------



## Gregarious (Mar 12, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> No, it's not clear. On the one hand, it may apply only to those who are beginning the process afresh--seeking to bring someone to the UK from outside of the EEC starting from June.
> 
> However, the government could make some rules retrospective, like extending the probationary period from 2-5 years which will catch about 80,000 mid-stream. This will also bring in more money for the government for those applying for an extension of their FLR for another two years, bringing it in line with certain Tier 2 employment visas. In more drastic circumstances, it might weed out those who are already in the UK on an FLR but who may not be able to meet the new rules for whatever reason (subsequent unemployment of the sponsor, low savings, the government not counting savings or household income, whichever).
> 
> ...



Nicely quoted 'Treading on eggshells" loolz

But the consequences after implementing these rules, they are really horrible. 
What about those ppl whose income less than 26000 pounds? Who are not professional but working hard for their near and dear ones. It is drastic change in the history of changing laws in UK. From 2009, there are lots of changes have been taken place. Hope it will be good enough for all genuine families. 

*These are tactics to stop the inflow of immigrants into UK country.*


----------



## ALKB (Jan 20, 2012)

Gregarious said:


> Undoubtedly, it does not apply on you as above mentioned circumstances. *But you can expect anything from rapid changing Immigration Laws of UK.*
> 
> Best of Luck


As this is a newspaper article, none of what it states is final or legally binding. I also doubt that it covers all the details of the new rules. Until the official announcement, anything is still speculation.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> No, it's not clear. On the one hand, it may apply only to those who are beginning the process afresh--seeking to bring someone to the UK from outside of the EEC starting from June.
> 
> However, the government could make some rules retrospective, like extending the probationary period from 2-5 years which will catch about 80,000 mid-stream. This will also bring in more money for the government for those applying for an extension of their FLR for another two years, bringing it in line with certain Tier 2 employment visas. In more drastic circumstances, it might weed out those who are already in the UK on an FLR but who may not be able to meet the new rules for whatever reason (subsequent unemployment of the sponsor, low savings, the government not counting savings or household income, whichever).
> 
> ...


There is a precedence for retrospective implementation. When some years ago, the settlement period for those on ancestry visa was lengthened from 4 to 5 years, those who were already on the ancestry route was caught up, meaning that they had to extend their visa for another year before they could apply for ILR. Whether the government will do the same with those on 2-year probationary period remains to be seen. 

Also requirements for FLR and ILR may also be tightened along with those for new arrivals, meaning those who can't show £25,800 without dependants will be unable to extend their visa or apply for settlement.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Oh yes, holding the breath again, what a swell feeling (not)...had a feeling this would be the case, that we'd have to apply for an extension to the probationary period. HooBoy. 

Here's another question-what about those on public sector pensions-erm, like myself and my husband-between the two of us we barely squeak in under the new limits. 

I'd like to think we're in a good position, I think-no mortgage, etc, but I wonder, will the income restrictions apply to people like us? Please trust me that public sector pensions are not as high gold-plated as some would like to think. 

And of course it's understood this is newspaper article and not the actual proposal; on top of that the article notes there will be discussion and that there is some opposition to the income bar. Oh this will be a 'can't miss' discussion for all of us!

ETA: I feel at least 99.9% of us here on this forum who are on the marriage visas are in genuine relationships-if for some reason an extension and subsequent ILR is denied, does the UKBA have any idea how many spouses would turn their backs on the UK? My husband loves the UK and Scotland-has previously never shown any interest in visits to the US, lol, much less emigrating. Well, this morning my husband had me researching emigrating to the US-if my visa is denied we'll be going back to the States. What else can a real spouse do?


----------



## deebz (Mar 11, 2012)

omg >_< I really hope that if they do this they take savings into account otherwise I will be screwed.

Thankfully applying for the fiance visa in May so should be before any new laws come in but will be applying for the marriage visa in Oct so if they do come in June imma have to figure something out. 

At a push with doing overtime and saving hard I could make the 25+k requirment but if they dont take savings into account then eeeeeeeeek


----------



## lalchicy (Mar 25, 2012)

my husband currently makes about 29,000/year atm and as I'm from the US, English is not necessarily an issue... I dunno if I should be too worried :-S but then that stresses me out too xD


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

lalchicy said:


> my husband currently makes about 29,000/year atm and as I'm from the US, English is not necessarily an issue... I dunno if I should be too worried :-S but then that stresses me out too xD


None of us need this added stress, the thinking is that those of us mid-process may have to apply for extensions, and some of us may not qualify anymore with the new criteria (you're probably ok with that salary).

Re-reading the article (lol, out loud, it's the only way I can be sure I don't miss anything), it seems to be aimed at the sham marriage groups, and the groups who 'marry in' and then bring over every living relative they have fit enough to board transport. But the genuine marriages, real love and committment on a budget are going to be caught up in this, and I'm not feeling too happy about that. It does sort of seem as though the thinking is love and a home together is only for the wealthier, and it's because of the sham marriage group!

Genuine marriages are going to have to work even harder to prove themselves, too, and I feel for anyone who has children. £60+K a year is an incredible amount of money to have to have. 

I have a feeling this thread is going to be bumped many times over the next few weeks. I know there are those who think speculation is pointless, but there is a lot of stress and anxiety floating around right now, and I can't think of a better way of coping than by holding each other's virtual hands on a dedicated thread.


----------



## mint12 (Mar 25, 2012)

This is absolutely terrifying to me. I hope someone can help, not sure if this is the correct place, but it feels relevant.

I am a 20 year old US citizen married to a 23 year old UK citizen. We were married in the US and I have no trouble travelling to the UK due to proof that I have a duty to stay here. I will not be applying for a spousal visa until exactly two years from now because I am finishing a degree. My spouse is currently making £16,000 and lives comfortably, with thousands of pounds saved each year. It is possible that in two years he could be making more, but surely not much over 20k. Living in the US isn't possible because my spouse-to-be is more settled in the UK, he has a stable apartment to live in and a stable job whereas I cannot offer that. Upon graduating I will not have much savings or a job to show for it. I can prove that if i cannot find a job, that his father can employ me immediately. If it matters, my spouse's parents are wealthy and own a company, with hefty savings. I have no worries about proving our relationship, just very worried about showing funds due to this. Perhaps the cutoff isn't so cut and dry?
Though we are unsure of the outcome this will bring, from your experience, do you think I will be refused almost automatically? :dizzy::dizzy:


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

mint12 said:


> This is absolutely terrifying to me. I hope someone can help, not sure if this is the correct place, but it feels relevant.
> 
> I am a 20 year old US citizen married to a 23 year old UK citizen. We were married in the US and I have no trouble travelling to the UK due to proof that I have a duty to stay here. I will not be applying for a spousal visa until exactly two years from now because I am finishing a degree. My spouse is currently making £16,000 and lives comfortably, with thousands of pounds saved each year. It is possible that in two years he could be making more, but surely not much over 20k. Living in the US isn't possible because my spouse-to-be is more settled in the UK, he has a stable apartment to live in and a stable job whereas I cannot offer that. Upon graduating I will not have much savings or a job to show for it. If it matters, my spouse's parents are wealthy and own a company, with hefty savings. I have no worries about proving our relationship, just very worried about showing funds due to this. Perhaps the cutoff isn't so cut and dry? Isn't it currently £13,700?
> Though we are unsure of the outcome this will bring, from your experience, do you think I will be refused almost automatically? :dizzy::dizzy:


We don't know anything for certain until official announcement is made with full rules and conditions. But the government has said it wants a simple system which anyone can understand, with one requirement covering all cases, instead of making numerous exceptions and a range of figures. So if £25,700 is going to be the minimum income for UK sponsor, then you will need it or you don't get your visa, simple as.


----------



## mint12 (Mar 25, 2012)

Joppa said:


> We don't know anything for certain until official announcement is made with full rules and conditions. But the government has said it wants a simple system which anyone can understand, with one requirement covering all cases, instead of making numerous exceptions and a range of figures. So if £25,700 is going to be the minimum income for UK sponsor, then you will need it or you don't get your visa, simple as.


What confuses me though is how there are always UK headlines about violating human rights according to the EU standards. Surely if my husband never goes over £25,700 that is a human rights violation, no? He currently has over £400 left a month extra to save, but that won't matter with the new standard if it is passed. I'm sure we'll find out more soon, but maybe not we want to hear


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

mint12 said:


> What confuses me though is how there are always UK headlines about violating human rights according to the EU standards. Surely if my husband never goes over £25,700 that is a human rights violation, no? He currently has over £400 left a month extra to save, but that won't matter with the new standard if it is passed. I'm sure we'll find out more soon, but maybe not we want to hear


The government has also said it intends to stop people taking the government to court to get the decisions overturned , i.e. to limit the ability of UK courts to interfere with immigration decisions. While you can always have recourse to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, there is a snag in that you must have exhausted court remedies within UK first before your case may be admissible.
There is independent immigration appeals tribunal that failed applicants can use.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> Well, Joppa, once again you were right.
> When my Spousal Visa was issued as a CP and not the KOL I should have asked to have it appealed but due to a time constraint I didn't have the time to wait for the appeal process and thought it best to just move forward and it wouldn't make much of a difference.
> I stand corrected. So now I am going to see if I can appeal it from this end. (UK)
> Also, when applying for jobs here and they ask if there are any restrictions on my Visa, I have to mention the 27 months before I can apply for the ILR.
> ...


I'm in a similar position in that I was working in the States and had been (and still am) married to a British citizen for 7 years. I came over in a rush on a Tier 2 work permit and hadn't realised I could have applied for a spouse visa w/a KOL stamp to apply for ILR on passing the LITUK test (which I have done). I switched to spouse visa from within the UK 2 months into my coming here. Next time I'll read the fine print! Nothing official has been released but a leak and so much aggro is being stoked by supposition. For those caught in the middle, tail-end or beginning, I think it's necessary not to let the anxiety generated by this situation take control of it. There's also the frustration many might feel over being caught up and grouped with fraudsters who commit sham marriages and the like, as well as generally being made to feel judged and in the worst cases, unwanted. It's pretty tough luck and maybe bad timing eh? At this stage, it might not hurt to write to your MP's with your concerns, or see if your UK spouses will do so. They won't be able to solve everyone's problem, but they have a responsibility to hear you and respond with some kind of advice, particularly if it is affecting so many all at once. :juggle:


----------



## gkt (May 10, 2010)

Joppa said:


> We don't know anything for certain until official announcement is made with full rules and conditions. But the government has said it wants a simple system which anyone can understand, with one requirement covering all cases, instead of making numerous exceptions and a range of figures. So if £25,700 is going to be the minimum income for UK sponsor, then you will need it or you don't get your visa, simple as.


Terrifying indeed....ist this requirement 'if effected' going to affect a couple applying April/May 2012 you think?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gkt said:


> Terrifying indeed....ist this requirement 'if effected' going to affect a couple applying April/May 2012 you think?


Applicants before June will be considered by present rules, but I get the distinct impression that in anticipation of changes, the UKBA is strictly applying the current rules without using too much discretion on borderline cases.


----------



## gkt (May 10, 2010)

Joppa said:


> Applicants before June will be considered by present rules, but I get the distinct impression that in anticipation of changes, the UKBA is strictly applying the current rules without using too much discretion on borderline cases.


Hi Joppa, thanks for info, but not sure what you mean exactly by 'but I get the distinct impression that in anticipation of changes, the UKBA is strictly applying the current rules without using too much discretion on borderline cases' possible to highlight me abit on this?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gkt said:


> Hi Joppa, thanks for info, but not sure what you mean exactly by 'but I get the distinct impression that in anticipation of changes, the UKBA is strictly applying the current rules without using too much discretion on borderline cases' possible to highlight me abit on this?


It's just my impression that when in the past they were likely to use discretion in allowing borderline cases, they seem much stricter in applying the rules and reject those that don't meet requirements in every detail. So for example, if the minimum amount is £13,700, you must have that amount pro rata every month in your account for 6 months without fluctuations.


----------



## gkt (May 10, 2010)

Joppa said:


> It's just my impression that when in the past they were likely to use discretion in allowing borderline cases, they seem much stricter in applying the rules and reject those that don't meet requirements in every detail. So for example, if the minimum amount is £13,700, you must have that amount pro rata every month in your account for 6 months without fluctuations.


Oh ok, I get your point now, and you are right, so meaning the 13,700 is net per year and if it is monthly sponsor muse earn 1,141? And what if there is a child involved, how much then on the current rules?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gkt said:


> Oh ok, I get your point now, and you are right, so meaning the 13,700 is net per year and if it is monthly sponsor muse earn 1,141? And what if there is a child involved, how much then on the current rules?


You need £165.56 a week in cash after housing costs, which translates to around £285.56 net or around £18,400 a year before tax.


----------



## BlueBelle (Jan 31, 2012)

Joppa said:


> Probationary period will be extended from 2 to 5 years


Perhaps a daft question, but...does this mean that when a spouse visa is issued it will be valid for 5 years instead of 27 months?


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

ramblingwebgirl said:


> Perhaps a daft question, but...does this mean that when a spouse visa is issued it will be valid for 5 years instead of 27 months?


I think that's a good question, and it might make more administrative sense to do it that way for new applicants in the FLR (spousal) category after the new rules come into effect. As well, I imagine the cost of the application would escalate, and new applicants would probably have to have an early interview as part of the plans make sure the marriage is genuine (and probably another interview after the 5 years went by for ILR!)


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> I think that's a good question, and it might make more administrative sense to do it that way for new applicants in the FLR (spousal) category after the new rules come into effect. As well, I imagine the cost of the application would escalate, and new applicants would probably have to have an early interview as part of the plans make sure the marriage is genuine (and probably another interview after the 5 years went by for ILR!)


Hopefully they will set a date and make an announcement-an official one. If this were hanging over my head right now I don't think I would have applied until an announcement had been made with all of the details clear. 

Bad enough as it is being mid-process (probie, sigh), and not knowing if they are going to retroactive the timelines, fees, and criteria.

My husband woke up this morning and started looking for a job so that if the worst happens we would qualify just on his income. Right now it takes both of our pensions to meet the proposed income requirement. Mine is not high enough to qualify for retired person of independent means-we think, I need to reread that part again. 

LOL, I knew he'd rather do anything besides move to the States! He's in a profession that hires people our age at reasonable salaries, so while he isn't looking for another public sector job, his qualifications make him eligible for some rather nice salaried private jobs. 

He just didn't think he was going to have to do that at this stage of his life (he's 54). He really thought he was going to spend the rest of his life fishing, and fly tying over winter. :lol:


----------



## Happygrl37 (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm really nervous now. They are processing my application as we speak and i've heard nothing since Wednesday last week. They also have not updated the current processing times since March 19. I wonder if it's going to take longer to get approved because of this. My husband doesn't make the new proposed salary, but we do have it with savings.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Happygrl37 said:


> I'm really nervous now. They are processing my application as we speak and i've heard nothing since Wednesday last week. They also have not updated the current processing times since March 19. I wonder if it's going to take longer to get approved because of this. My husband doesn't make the new proposed salary, but we do have it with savings.


Unless you paid for premium same day service, you're probably right on schedule for hearing back from UKBA at any time now. The rules that are in place now will apply to your current application, not those in the proposals.


----------



## Happygrl37 (Mar 20, 2012)

You're right. I'm just so anxious and I really hope to hear something today.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

I did some brush up reading on the visa site regarding the ILR and how to apply, etc. The first thing it says is that rules in effect at the time of the application will govern the determination of the visa application.

I understood this to mean that the rules for the ILR are what they are right now, and those rules may change when the applicant is eligible to apply. 

So those of us on the probationary visa granted now under the rules in play when we applied for that probationary visa will be subject to the new ILR rules (if any) when we go to apply for the ILR.

The probationary visa is NOT the ILR; the ILR is determined under different rules-which may change between the time the probationary visa is granted and the time when the probie visa is eligible to apply for the ILR. 

Did I understand that correctly?


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I did some brush up reading on the visa site regarding the ILR and how to apply, etc. The first thing it says is that rules in effect at the time of the application will govern the determination of the visa application.
> 
> I understood this to mean that the rules for the ILR are what they are right now, and those rules may change when the applicant is eligible to apply.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think you have understood that correctly. There was a case that Joppa cited about ancestry visas, and the rules not only coming into force and effecting those in process, but also effecting these very applicants retrospectively. The crux is that it depends on what the new rules say, and the combinations are myriad. They may say that everyone is effected regardless of whether they have one month or 27 months to go before applying for ILR (or 5 years) or that only new applicants from outside the EEC will be effected but those in process can carry on as they have been--all coming into force in June. Or, they may let those carry on who have 6 months to go before applying for ILR but then effect everyone else who has to wait longer--all coming into force in June. Or the new rules may even come into force in June and say (as with the Tier 2 and student visas) that applications beginning in October 2016 will come under the change. Finally, this might become a political and legal mess and get held up in the courts, and June (as the Americans say) will go by the boards. 

The problem is that we don't yet know what the new rules will be, what combination of them will be proposed, which rules and in what combination of them will be accepted, and when they will come into force. 

I've mentioned it before, but if you are concerned you have a right to contact your MP about it, in a letter at least, and possibly in a phone conversation or at the regular surgery he/she would run in your area. At the very least it might put your mind at ease to know that someone in Parliament is willing to understand your particular case. Don't despair!:boxing:


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> Yes, I think you have understood that correctly. There was a case that Joppa cited about ancestry visas, and the rules not only coming into force and effecting those in process, but also effecting these very applicants retrospectively. The crux is that it depends on what the new rules say, and the combinations are myriad. They may say that everyone is effected regardless of whether they have one month or 27 months to go before applying for ILR (or 5 years) or that only new applicants from outside the EEC will be effected but those in process can carry on as they have been--all coming into force in June. Or, they may let those carry on who have 6 months to go before applying for ILR but then effect everyone else who has to wait longer--all coming into force in June. Or the new rules may even come into force in June and say (as with the Tier 2 and student visas) that applications beginning in October 2016 will come under the change. Finally, this might become a political and legal mess and get held up in the courts, and June (as the Americans say) will go by the boards.
> 
> The problem is that we don't yet know what the new rules will be, what combination of them will be proposed, which rules and in what combination of them will be accepted, and when they will come into force.
> 
> I've mentioned it before, but if you are concerned you have a right to contact your MP about it, in a letter at least, and possibly in a phone conversation or at the regular surgery he/she would run in your area. At the very least it might put your mind at ease to know that someone in Parliament is willing to understand your particular case. Don't despair!:boxing:


My husband began a quiet job search this morning so that we'll meet the proposed annual income more comfortably-we squeak in only on our combined pensions right now, but it's our understanding my pension, coming from the US, won't count.

He also had a 'quiet chat' with his MP. (I love that, in the US talking to my representative was nothing as civilised as picking up the phone!). Feeling better

None of us know anything, of course, until something official is announced. But I'm glad we're all talking about this, it's a brainstorming session almost on coping with potential scenarios.


----------



## Happygrl37 (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm glad we are talking about it, too. I've decided i'm not going to worry about any of it until it's announced and at least i'll be prepared for what MAY happen later on when its time for me to apply for ILR.


----------



## sjellyman (Sep 28, 2011)

I sure hope we hear VERY soon! everytime I get an email notification, I just to check it!! stomach in knots here!


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> My husband began a quiet job search this morning so that we'll meet the proposed annual income more comfortably-we squeak in only on our combined pensions right now, but it's our understanding my pension, coming from the US, won't count.
> 
> He also had a 'quiet chat' with his MP. (I love that, in the US talking to my representative was nothing as civilised as picking up the phone!). Feeling better
> 
> None of us know anything, of course, until something official is announced. But I'm glad we're all talking about this, it's a brainstorming session almost on coping with potential scenarios.


I would think that if you're bringing money from the States into the UK into an account, then it counts. Especially if you're paying taxes on it. If it is staying in the US, then it shouldn't count. You should include a copy of your IRS filing in your application. Even if the income stays in the States, your tax form is an official document. More power to you if you present that with income that you don't need to bring into the UK to keep yourselves going comfortably!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> I would think that if you're bringing money from the States into the UK into an account, then it counts. Especially if you're paying taxes on it. If it is staying in the US, then it shouldn't count. You should include a copy of your IRS filing in your application. Even if the income stays in the States, your tax form is an official document. More power to you if you present that with income that you don't need to bring into the UK to keep yourselves going comfortably!


There are so many moving parts to all of this! I'm keeping track of everything, and spending more time on the UKBA site hoping to spot any announcements, lol.


----------



## moleking2k1 (Feb 13, 2012)

They're certainly disturbing times for many of us,

On the brainstorming front i'm just trying to work out if the 25,700 without any children would include both you and your spouse? For example in our case my wife and I will return to the U.K in May this year after just receiving our visa. If we both have jobs earning say 16-18k a year which doubled would be over the 25,700 will that be enough for the new changes? Or will they just count the one income? This could potentially effect so many of us applying/on our settlement visas.

So will they take the combined income in this case or just the main sponsor even after the settlement visa has been issued and both husband and wife are working in the U.K for example.

Nerving times for us all......


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

moleking2k1 said:


> They're certainly disturbing times for many of us,
> 
> On the brainstorming front i'm just trying to work out if the 25,700 without any children would include both you and your spouse? For example in our case my wife and I will return to the U.K in May this year after just receiving our visa. If we both have jobs earning say 16-18k a year which doubled would be over the 25,700 will that be enough for the new changes? Or will they just count the one income? This could potentially effect so many of us applying/on our settlement visas.
> 
> ...


Very important to remember-nothing is official yet on this. We're (my husband and I) looking at this from the 'worst-case' and trying to be prepared for it just in case. But it looks as though the aim of the proposed changes is to make it 'one size fits all', and that the bar is going to be set very, very high with little to no discretion 

My husband's and my combined pensions juuuuuuuust squeak in on the proposed limit-but we own our home outright and have savings. 

My husband read, read, and reread again the article, and read over my shoulder at all these threads. He thinks the income bar may be based on the income only of the sponsor, and so has started looking for work. Just in case, as his pension alone doesn't hit the proposed target.

Again, so far it's only a proposed number, and the LibDems say they are going to fight this proposal-strenuously. We'll see.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Stressful time for all of us in the same situation. 

One thing that was not clear to me was if, for example, the rules are proposed to change in June 2012 but if the announcement is made about what changes are to be implemented, say for example in April 2012 does this imply that anyone *applying in May 2012* will be treated with current rules OR rules that are to be implemented from June 2012....I know I sound confusing but I get concerned if they publish the changes in prior months but also start applying those rules at the same time.

My wife has KOL endorsement on the visa hence giving her flexibility of applying for ILR as soon as she passes LITUK test when we are in the UK. 

We lost nearly $2000 because we already bought our tickets and for personal reasons we decided to stay till Aug and hence cancelled our travel plans because we found out that Settlement rules are not changing for family visa in April and most likely in Oct 2012...but now we find out that they may change in June...for crying out loud...don't these Govt people realize how to be professional  We are now considering buying another ticket but we much rather stay here till August 2012 but tired of the lengthy delays and unsurety of what these rules are.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

manny.j said:


> Stressful time for all of us in the same situation.
> 
> One thing that was not clear to me was if, for example, the rules are proposed to change in June 2012 but if the announcement is made about what changes are to be implemented, say for example in April 2012 does this imply that anyone *applying in May 2012* will be treated with current rules OR rules that are to be implemented from June 2012....I know I sound confusing but I get concerned if they publish the changes in prior months but also start applying those rules at the same time.
> 
> ...


Do you have your visa? If you do, you may want to get the move done asap because a delay will cause you problems regarding the probationary period.

If you don't have your visa, but meet the criteria both now and the proposed, you might want to go ahead and apply-get 'er done, and get the move in now. 

From what I understand, the rules that govern visas are the ones in effect at the time of the application. But I also understand there is precedence for modification-there is some thought that those of us on the probie visa may not be able to apply for the ILR until we've been here five years instead of the two years we came in on, and that we will have to apply for extensions-it probably won't be done automatically. 

and they'll prolly charge us to apply for the extension, too. Dangit.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

manny.j said:


> Stressful time for all of us in the same situation.
> 
> One thing that was not clear to me was if, for example, the rules are proposed to change in June 2012 but if the announcement is made about what changes are to be implemented, say for example in April 2012 does this imply that anyone applying in May 2012 will be treated with current rules OR rules that are to be implemented from June 2012....I know I sound confusing but I get concerned if they publish the changes in prior months but also start applying those rules at the same time.
> 
> ...


You should be ok in May. What we don't know is the effect the changes will have on those who are applying for settlement from June on. This includes those who already have spouse visa and those coming to the end of probationary period. We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

*AnAmericanInScotland*: My wife already has a visa and, under current rules, does not have to worry about probationary period as she has KOL endorsement on her passport which allows her to apply for ILR as soon as she passes LITUK test.

*Joppa*: I kind of felt that we should be fine for May but we really are/ were hoping to return back in August because of some family obligations here...but now the unsurety of when or what rules will be changed and who it will affect is making us wonder if its even 'safe' to stay here and wait for the announcement. I guess we probably may wait till mid-April and then go ahead with buying the tickets if we don't hear anything from the Govt.

Thank you both for replying to my comment.


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

@BailyBanksBiddle
"There's also the frustration many might feel over being caught up and grouped with fraudsters who commit sham marriages and the like, as well as generally being made to feel judged and in the worst cases, unwanted. It's pretty tough luck and maybe bad timing eh? "

Summed it up perfectly.


----------



## Happygrl37 (Mar 20, 2012)

I just got my visa in hand today, so if the new rules go through and the probationary period goes from 27 months to 5 yrs, will that include mine even though on my visa the expiration date is 27 months from now? Or I wonder if that will only be for people who get their visas approved after June.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Happygrl37 said:


> I just got my visa in hand today, so if the new rules go through and the probationary period goes from 27 months to 5 yrs, will that include mine even though on my visa the expiration date is 27 months from now? Or I wonder if that will only be for people who get their visas approved after June.


That is a good question and one I guess no one knows the answer for until the rules are officially released by the UK Govt. Its possible that UK Govt may allow no changes to visas that are already been issued and the rules are only applicable to new applicants. But, as Joppa has mentioned on many occasions, they can do anything so we just have to wait and see


----------



## Happygrl37 (Mar 20, 2012)

Yeah. I keep saying i'm not gonna worry, but I still do lol I'm just happy to have my visa so I will try again not to worry about the rest


----------



## casjoe (Mar 9, 2012)

Will the new income requirements become part of the ILR application? Like, say I can get my application in and approved before the new requirements come into effect in June. I'd be able to stay for 27 months (or would it be 5 years?), but when I apply for ILR, are we going to need to show an income that meets the new requirements or else I'll be sent back?

And because my two children are UK citizens and are not part of my visa application though they will be traveling with me to the UK, will we need 25K or 49K?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

casjoe said:


> Will the new income requirements become part of the ILR application? Like, say I can get my application in and approved before the new requirements come into effect in June. I'd be able to stay for 27 months (or would it be 5 years?), but when I apply for ILR, are we going to need to show an income that meets the new requirements or else I'll be sent back?
> 
> And because my two children are UK citizens and are not part of my visa application though they will be traveling with me to the UK, will we need 25K or 49K?


We are in the realm of speculation, but it's quite possible for you to be 'caught' by the new rules at some stage in the future, when you come to change your leave, for example. Sometimes the UKBA makes a transitional arrangement for those who qualified under the old rules, but with regard to family migration, they tend not to. While they only split a family as a last resort, they can refuse ILR and only allow you an extension.

As for your children, regardless of nationality, you will need a household income equal to a family with two children, i.e. £49k if the new rules apply to you. This is how I understand it, because this is what happens under present rules, though the amount is significantly lower.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Joppa said:


> We are in the realm of speculation, but it's quite possible for you to be 'caught' by the new rules at some stage in the future, when you come to change your leave, for example. Sometimes the UKBA makes a transitional arrangement for those who qualified under the old rules, but with regard to family migration, they tend not to. While they only split a family as a last resort, they can refuse ILR and only allow you an extension.
> 
> As for your children, regardless of nationality, you will need a household income equal to a family with two children, i.e. £49k if the new rules apply to you. This is how I understand it, because this is what happens under present rules, though the amount is significantly lower.


Joppa can you speculate if they do allow savings to be taken into account where either the UK spouse is unemployed OR joining the foreign spouse from abroad to the UK, what sort of savings range would sound acceptable? I can only assume no other long-term visa category involves savings as an option for visa consideration.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

manny.j said:


> Joppa can you speculate if they do allow savings to be taken into account where either the UK spouse is unemployed OR joining the foreign spouse from abroad to the UK, what sort of savings range would sound acceptable? I can only assume no other long-term visa category involves savings as an option for visa consideration.


I don't know. It does seem strange to disregard savings completely and only count UK sponsor's income, as sometimes the sponsor is travelling with the applicant to UK. Surely a millionaire with a very healthy seven-figure bank balance isn't going to be denied a visa in the absence of a sponsor's UK job? They currently take into account job and earning potential in UK, but this may be dropped in the revised rules.

What they have done so far is to divide the savings by 26 to get a weekly slice and add it to incomes, as fundings are expected to be in place for 6 months - a period considered long enough to get financially established in UK.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> I don't know. It does seem strange to disregard savings completely and only count UK sponsor's income, as sometimes the sponsor is travelling with the applicant to UK. Surely a millionaire with a very healthy seven-figure bank balance isn't going to be denied a visa in the absence of a sponsor's UK job? They currently take into account job and earning potential in UK, but this may be dropped in the revised rules.
> 
> What they have done so far is to divide the savings by 26 to get a weekly slice and add it to incomes, as fundings are expected to be in place for 6 months - a period considered long enough to get financially established in UK.


There's a line from some movie that keeps popping to mind: "You're money is no good here!" 

Speculation ad absurdam. I suppose a millionaire applicant could "pay" his/her non working UK spouse a salary of sorts to keep house or something! 

A question came up at a meeting this morning: a colleague of mine is getting married in England in late June and his fiance is here on the respective visa. She is hoping to switch into a spousal visa but she too has heard of these potential changes and has become concerned. Her fiance is a Church of England minister, so he's not earning hand over fist. So they're trying to see the best course, and they're literally caught in the middle, since their marriage may be within a day or two of these much discussed new rules! :confused2::clap2::confused2:


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> There's a line from some movie that keeps popping to mind: "You're money is no good here!"
> 
> Speculation ad absurdam. I suppose a millionaire applicant could "pay" his/her non working UK spouse a salary of sorts to keep house or something!
> 
> A question came up at a meeting this morning: a colleague of mine is getting married in England in late June and his fiance is here on the respective visa. She is hoping to switch into a spousal visa but she too has heard of these potential changes and has become concerned. Her fiance is a Church of England minister, so he's not earning hand over fist. So they're trying to see the best course, and they're literally caught in the middle, since their marriage may be within a day or two of these much discussed new rules! :confused2::clap2::confused2:


The Church of England clergy normally get housing free of rent and council tax, which taken together with their stipend (average around £23k a year gross) will put them well clear of the new requirement if they have no other dependants.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa, aside from keeping up with the newsfeeds, watching this forum and the UKBA site for updates, do you have any suggestions as to what else we can be doing as we wait? Lol, besides/after the panic attacks, of course


----------



## Happygrl37 (Mar 20, 2012)

I wonder when it will be announced. My husband and I planned to start a family asap and that would affect how much we will have to make when I apply for ILR in a few years. I'm feeling worse and worse about this. (as I try not to worry lol)


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Joppa, aside from keeping up with the newsfeeds, watching this forum and the UKBA site for updates, do you have any suggestions as to what else we can be doing as we wait? Lol, besides/after the panic attacks, of course


That's more than most people are doing. Hope they don't keep us in suspense for too long! But any imminent announcement is out as the parliament is now in Easter recess (vacation) until 16th April. So I'm anticipating announcement sometime that week or the following, up to 27th April, if they are going to give us an advance notice of around a month.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> That's more than most people are doing. Hope they don't keep us in suspense for too long! But any imminent announcement is out as the parliament is now in Easter recess (vacation) until 16th April. So I'm anticipating announcement sometime that week or the following, up to 27th April, if they are going to give us an advance notice of around a month.


Lol, you mean there aren't more people having panic attacks

Seriously, thank-you for that bit of info because I had no idea they would be out until the middle of April. 

Another question, will they contact affected visa holders, or are visa holders responsible to keep up on any changes via newsfeeds and website checking?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Lol, you mean there aren't more people having panic attacks
> 
> Seriously, thank-you for that bit of info because I had no idea they would be out until the middle of April.
> 
> Another question, will they contact affected visa holders, or are visa holders responsible to keep up on any changes via newsfeeds and website checking?


No, you are expected to keep abreast of changes as they happen through the UKBA site. They can't possibly contact everyone as the details they have may be out of date, since not all immigrants have to notify a change of address.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> No, you are expected to keep abreast of changes as they happen through the UKBA site. They can't possibly contact everyone as the details they have may be out of date, since not all immigrants have to notify a change of address.


Thought that might be the case-so the UKBA stays on the speed dial, so to speak. Gotta love bookmarks which work even under panicked clicks, lol!

Another question, speaking of notifying of changes of address:

My husband has been offered a job that should he accept it, would mean a move to Wales. Do I need to change my address on record with the UKBA or the Home Office if he does take the job and we move from Scotland to another area of the UK?

He's seriously considering the offer because it would put us well over the proposed income requirements.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Thought that might be the case-so the UKBA stays on the speed dial, so to speak. Gotta love bookmarks which work even under panicked clicks, lol!
> 
> Another question, speaking of notifying of changes of address:
> 
> ...


No, you don't have to notify the Home Office or anyone else to do with immigration. The only people who are obliged are those who have to register with the police (used to be every non-EU national but now only certain nationalities - Americans are exempt).


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> No, you don't have to notify the Home Office or anyone else to do with immigration. The only people who are obliged are those who have to register with the police (used to be every non-EU national but now only certain nationalities - Americans are exempt).


Thank-you!


----------



## dc7 (Jan 26, 2012)

*Pre-June*

Hi all

I've posted a couple of times on here and have been grateful for answers.
In light of this leaked letter, I need to be clear on the current setup so that if the rules do change, we can get onto it asap.

Under the current regulations, £226 a week is needed to be earned between the couple, correct?

1) Is this after tax or pre tax
2) Say I am earning £180 a week, will that matter if I have £10,000 savings?
3) If I am earning this money through working 4/5 different jobs, is that going to be ok? I have become self employed, working in two bars and am teaching privately and for a adult college.
4) Both my parents have offered flats for rental. Is a tenancy agreement all that's necessary to be shown (i.e. one that shows under current earnings, we could afford?)
5) I have been working these jobs since March. If I could only proof of earnings for March, April, May...is it unlikely (if the rules did change in June, that they would accept only three months of pay stubbs?

As some background, my fiancee is a primary school teacher in America, with an IVY league university degree (graduated at a high level last year). She is applying for all sorts of jobs and has been for a while.

Thanks for any feedback

Dan


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

dc7 said:


> Hi all
> 
> I've posted a couple of times on here and have been grateful for answers.
> In light of this leaked letter, I need to be clear on the current setup so that if the rules do change, we can get onto it asap.
> ...


£105.95 cash after paying housing (mortgage or rent plus council tax).



> 1) Is this after tax or pre tax
> 2) Say I am earning £180 a week, will that matter if I have £10,000 savings?
> 3) If I am earning this money through working 4/5 different jobs, is that going to be ok? I have become self employed, working in two bars and am teaching privately and for a adult college.


It translates to around £13,800 a year before tax. So with your savings you have enough to meet the minimum requirement, depending on your housing cost. Doing 4/5 jobs isn't as good as one steady one, as your income may vary - you have to send in up to 6 months' bank statement and they will look out for fluctuations. 



> 4) Both my parents have offered flats for rental. Is a tenancy agreement all that's necessary to be shown (i.e. one that shows under current earnings, we could afford?)


If they expect you to pay rent, yes. If you are allowed to live rent-free, then a letter offering this signed by them.



> 5) I have been working these jobs since March. If I could only proof of earnings for March, April, May...is it unlikely (if the rules did change in June, that they would accept only three months of pay stubbs?


May be ok, but the longer, the better.



> As some background, my fiancee is a primary school teacher in America, with an IVY league university degree (graduated at a high level last year). She is applying for all sorts of jobs and has been for a while.


US teaching qualification (certification) isn't recognised in UK, so she can only work as unqualified teacher. Primary jobs are tough to find as there is a lot of competition from unemployed teachers with UK qualification and experience.


----------



## dc7 (Jan 26, 2012)

Thanks Joppa. This is helpful.



£105.95 cash after paying housing (mortgage or rent plus council tax).
*Ok, but this isn't an essential, weekly amount to be earned as a minimum IF you have savings?*


It translates to around £13,800 a year before tax. So with your savings you have enough to meet the minimum requirement, depending on your housing cost. 
*Right, so more savings will definitely help things? *

Doing 4/5 jobs isn't as good as one steady one, as your income may vary - you have to send in up to 6 months' bank statement and they will look out for fluctuations. *Sorry I don't understand- you have to send 6 months of bank statements or you can send say 3 months, with 6 months the maximum you can?*


US teaching qualification (certification) isn't recognised in UK, so she can only work as unqualified teacher. Primary jobs are tough to find as there is a lot of competition from unemployed teachers with UK qualification and experience.
*She doesn't have a teaching qualification, she has a degree in English. Because it's a private school, they took her based on referral/merit. How much do they take into consideration job potential?*


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

dc7 said:


> £105.95 cash after paying housing (mortgage or rent plus council tax).
> Ok, but this isn't an essential, weekly amount to be earned as a minimum IF you have savings?


Savings are divided by 26 and added to your weekly income.



> It translates to around £13,800 a year before tax. So with your savings you have enough to meet the minimum requirement, depending on your housing cost.
> Right, so more savings will definitely help things?


Yes.



> Doing 4/5 jobs isn't as good as one steady one, as your income may vary - you have to send in up to 6 months' bank statement and they will look out for fluctuations. Sorry I don't understand- you have to send 6 months of bank statements or you can send say 3 months, with 6 months the maximum you can?


What I meant was ideally you should send 6 month-worth of statement, showing regular income. If you only have 3 months, that may be acceptable but your case isn't as strong, and relying on multiple sources isn't as good as having one steady job. It all depends on how UKBA interpret your financial state. Having good amount of savings certainly helps.



> US teaching qualification (certification) isn't recognised in UK, so she can only work as unqualified teacher. Primary jobs are tough to find as there is a lot of competition from unemployed teachers with UK qualification and experience.
> She doesn't have a teaching qualification, she has a degree in English. Because it's a private school, they took her based on referral/merit. How much do they take into consideration job potential?


OK. Job potential is considered, based on qualification and experience.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2012)

I know that this thread has taken several directions since it started but I've been reviewing the original article in The Telegraph, and it's really bothering me. In particular, this quote from Theresa May:

"The package which I propose to implement from June 2012 will reduce the burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse." 

I'm not sure if all spousal visas specify "no recourse to public funds", but mine certainly does. So how would this proposal "reduce the burdens on the taxpayer", seeing as those on these visas cannot claim public benefits anyway?

Why don't they just develop better ways to scrutinise as to whether a relationship is genuine or not? I would not mind going through an interview process or any other method they deem necessary to see if my relationship with my husband is genuine.

I know that it is pointless to speculate on the motivations behind all of this as it doesn't do any good, but this just seems like they are trying to limit what immigration they can -- i.e., they can't limit EU immigration, so they are taking it out on non-EU immigrants. It is bizarre to me that a couple from an EU country - neither of them British - could come to the UK AND receive public funds (as is my understanding from documentaries that I've seen about UK immigration policy), yet my husband (a lifelong British resident/citizen) and I may not be able to stay in the country that we've chosen as our home because we do not (currently) meet proposed income requirements?

I've been very excited about starting my life with my husband, together, but these proposals are really scary and could potentially mean that we can't be together in the long-term. It also makes me less eager to make the UK my home. It puts a lot of uncertainty into my life that I thought we'd gotten past by getting through the initial visa process and the many years that we had to spend apart previously. I think it's just a really emotional time for me moving to a new country, so I'm blowing it out of proportion, but I feel really discouraged by all this uncertainty and speculation. I just want to be happy and focus on our life together and this really puts a damper on that.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

mark_and_laura said:


> I know that this thread has taken several directions since it started but I've been reviewing the original article in The Telegraph, and it's really bothering me. In particular, this quote from Theresa May:
> 
> "The package which I propose to implement from June 2012 will reduce the burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse."
> 
> ...


As the article makes clear, the majority of those who take the family migration route into UK are from the Indian subcontinent. The new proposals aren't targetting people from US or other Western countries who have living standards comparable to UK, but any measure that seeks to tackle third-world immigration inevitably affects all other non-EU countries. They cannot single out third-world countries as they may be accused of racism. They do try to limit immigration from the third world, for example, by making personal interview compulsory for all applicants, but clearly a stronger measure is needed.

As for reducing burden on public purse, it's not so much about public funds as general pressure on public services such as education, health, social housing and care, which in principle is available to all UK residents regardless of immigration status, and this you can only do by cutting the numbers entering the country. The Home Office expects to reduce yearly immigration by 15,000, which isn't particularly large in view of net migration running at 250,000, but it's a start. It means a reduction of around a third in family migrations. 

As long as UK stays in EU, they are powerless to stop EU migrants and they have the same rights as any UK citizens, though a transitional limit has been in place for some newer EU members like Romania and Bulgaria. This is a dilemma faced by all established EU countries so they have all tightened criteria for non-EU immigration, though the UK proposals seem tougher than most (perhaps the problem is more acute here, as there seems to be a belief that UK is a soft touch among economic migrants camped out in Calais).

The new proposals, esp for those with dependants, will be a crippling burden for many would-be migrants. Maybe the UK is limiting their citizens' right to marry or enter into partnership with anyone they choose and bring them into UK. The government will say that one's right must be balanced by responsibility, and in view of the parlous state of economy, the country cannot continue with a relatively generous system they have operated thus far. So they are basically raising the bar from the subsistence level under social security to national average salary. 

So many couples will be faced with a stark choice of whether to make their home in UK or elsewhere, and the nationality of your potential life partner will become a big factor. It will really be tough for someone like you who is already in relationship or in marriage and is having to reassess your options.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2012)

I am concerned as to what happens if we get to 2 years from now (or 5) and my husband and I don't meet the requirements, most especially if we have a child which has been our plan. Also whether my income would even be considered, since he is the sponsor and I am the applicant - I am not sure how that works for ILR, as opposed to the probationary visa that I've had approved under the current rules.

I won't have a job in the US since I'll have been in the UK, so therefore it is unlikely that we would be able to pursue the options of my husband emigrating to the US right away -- I'd have to come back to the US, find a job and get re-established in the States, and then we begin the application process for him to come to the US. One of the many reasons that we originally decided that I should move to the UK (other than both feeling much more at home there, having stronger family ties, etc.) is that it sounds like the immigration process in the US takes longer, and at the heart of it, we just want to be together and thought this would be the best way to do it. I have been really excited about getting over to the UK, working, volunteering, and establishing a life in a place that I love, with someone I love with all my heart.

Not that anyone in the UK government or anyone other than me and my husband cares about our individual situation. It's just something we'll have to figure out. Sorry for venting.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

mark_and_laura said:


> I am concerned as to what happens if we get to 2 years from now (or 5) and my husband and I don't meet the requirements, most especially if we have a child which has been our plan. Also whether my income would even be considered, since he is the sponsor and I am the applicant - I am not sure how that works for ILR, as opposed to the probationary visa that I've had approved under the current rules.
> 
> I won't have a job in the US since I'll have been in the UK, so therefore it is unlikely that we would be able to pursue the options of my husband emigrating to the US right away -- I'd have to come back to the US, find a job and get re-established in the States, and then we begin the application process for him to come to the US. One of the many reasons that we originally decided that I should move to the UK (other than both feeling much more at home there, having stronger family ties, etc.) is that it sounds like the immigration process in the US takes longer, and at the heart of it, we just want to be together and thought this would be the best way to do it. I have been really excited about getting over to the UK, working, volunteering, and establishing a life in a place that I love, with someone I love with all my heart.
> 
> Not that anyone in the UK government or anyone other than me and my husband cares about our individual situation. It's just something we'll have to figure out. Sorry for venting.


I can empathize with your situation but I believe US immigration process may take longer, with in person interview etc, but if the new UK immigration rules are implemented, the US rules will look far more lenient than the UK ones. Although I understand for US green for a US foreign spouse usually does not take more than 6 months. I hope it all works out for you.


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

> Not that anyone in the UK government or anyone other than me and my husband cares about our individual situation. It's just something we'll have to figure out. Sorry for venting.


Don't lose heart!

I have been through the immigration process on both sides of the Pond. It isn't as bad as you think. My husband got his Permanent Residency back in the US without too much hassle. You just have to follow the rules and pay a small fortune. The same here in the UK.

I would like to think there will be some level of common sense involved in all of this. 
You can't live by waiting to see what the government is going to do.

Live life


----------



## Xarain (Feb 15, 2012)

mark_and_laura said:


> I am concerned as to what happens if we get to 2 years from now (or 5) and my husband and I don't meet the requirements, most especially if we have a child which has been our plan. Also whether my income would even be considered, since he is the sponsor and I am the applicant - I am not sure how that works for ILR, as opposed to the probationary visa that I've had approved under the current rules.
> 
> I won't have a job in the US since I'll have been in the UK, so therefore it is unlikely that we would be able to pursue the options of my husband emigrating to the US right away -- I'd have to come back to the US, find a job and get re-established in the States, and then we begin the application process for him to come to the US. One of the many reasons that we originally decided that I should move to the UK (other than both feeling much more at home there, having stronger family ties, etc.) is that it sounds like the immigration process in the US takes longer, and at the heart of it, we just want to be together and thought this would be the best way to do it. I have been really excited about getting over to the UK, working, volunteering, and establishing a life in a place that I love, with someone I love with all my heart.
> 
> Not that anyone in the UK government or anyone other than me and my husband cares about our individual situation. It's just something we'll have to figure out. Sorry for venting.


You don't need to apologise for venting, I'm pretty much in the same situation as you right now, as I'm sure many other couples are too sadly. This proposed change is heartbreaking for people like ourselves. 

My own story is as follows; Me (a UK citizen) and my wife (a US citizen) have been working towards the goal of settling down together in the UK for quite a while now, we've pretty much spent the past three months gathering up as much documentation as we can, doing as much research as possible, and basically getting as prepared as we possibly can. Up until recently, I was feeling really confident that we'd be living together permanently this year (finally), as we have a fairly strong application to present, but.. we fall short of the new maintenance requirement, as I only earn £21,000 per year.

The more frustrating part is, I'm still missing just a couple of vital documents, and I won't be able to obtain them for another month or so, meaning we won't be able to apply until around mid-May. This means that we likely won't be able to get our application processed in time, and that we'll be caught out by this new ridiculous maintenance requirement.

Right now, I don't know whether we should even attempt to apply for a UK spouse visa, or whether we should just face facts that our dream of settling in the UK together is just not going to happen. I'm half tempted to start work on applying for a US visa instead. At the end of the day.. we just want to finally be able to live together on a permanent basis. While we'd much prefer to settle in the UK, I'd happily take the option of moving to the US over never being able to live together permanently. I really don't know anything about the US visa process though. I've heard stories that it can be quite tough to migrate to the US aswell.

Anyway, fingers crossed for you guys. I know how difficult it is to be apart from someone you love so dearly. Hopefully everything will work out for you.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Xarain said:


> You don't need to apologise for venting, I'm pretty much in the same situation as you right now, as I'm sure many other couples are too sadly. This proposed change is heartbreaking for people like ourselves.
> 
> My own story is as follows; Me (a UK citizen) and my wife (a US citizen) have been working towards the goal of settling down together in the UK for quite a while now, we've pretty much spent the past three months gathering up as much documentation as we can, doing as much research as possible, and basically getting as prepared as we possibly can. Up until recently, I was feeling really confident that we'd be living together permanently this year (finally), as we have a fairly strong application to present, but.. we fall short of the new maintenance requirement, as I only earn £21,000 per year.
> 
> ...


My husband and I are mid-process, I'm here in the UK on the probationary 27 month visa. 

When the proposed changes were leaked I felt sick, my husband had me researching the visa requirements for him to go to the US, and I began to think if I'd known how draconian the proposed changes might be I likely wouldn't have applied for the visa.

I've come to think now, however, that I would have gone ahead with my application had I known about the possibility the changes might mean I would be sent back to the US. But it would have been a long and agonising decision making process. I would have considered all of the implications, not the least being:

1- would we be able to afford going through the UK visa process 

2-get me and some of my personal belongings to the UK

3-begin our life, settle in

4-only to be sent back to the US if the proposed changes became actual implementations

5-could we afford to go through the entire process again so that my UK citizen husband could join me in the US? 

Looking at it that way I decided we would have chosen to go ahead with the UK visa application because in the end, the UK is where we want to spend the rest of our life together. We'll manage somehow if we have to go to the US, but since the UK is where we really want to be, I'm glad we chose to try for the UK visa first.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Bump.

Nosing around on the UKBA site this afternoon I found this report, published in Nov 2011, with more information on the leaked proposed income requirements for spouse and partner visas; it's a very long pdf file-I'm printing it to a hard copy in the morning because just skimming it in the pdf is making my eyeballs bleed, lol!:

UK Border Agency | MAC publishes report on the family migration route

Would love it if some of you folks would have a look at it too.


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Bump.
> 
> Nosing around on the UKBA site this afternoon I found this report, published in Nov 2011, with more information on the leaked proposed income requirements for spouse and partner visas; it's a very long pdf file-I'm printing it to a hard copy in the morning because just skimming it in the pdf is making my eyeballs bleed, lol!:
> 
> ...



One of the first thing I noticed was they mention doing away with the Permanent stamped visa regardless of being married 4 years before moving to the UK. 
They will want everyone to wait the 5 years.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Bump.
> 
> Nosing around on the UKBA site this afternoon I found this report, published in Nov 2011, with more information on the leaked proposed income requirements for spouse and partner visas; it's a very long pdf file-I'm printing it to a hard copy in the morning because just skimming it in the pdf is making my eyeballs bleed, lol!:
> 
> ...


Yes, that's the report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) last November setting out the minimum maintenance requirement for UK visa sponsor, and the latest government leak is based on it. In it the government has opted for the top of income range proposed, but we don't know yet what will happen to other recommendations, such as disallowing savings and exertal sponsorship, and about regionalisation of income requirement to take account of varying cost of living across UK. The report does tell you how the figure of £25,700 is arrived at, and makes a useful comparison with current rules as well as what happens in other countries. As you can see, if £25,700 is adopted, the majority of applicants from the Indian subcontinent - where the greatest number comes from - will not qualify.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> Yes, that's the report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) last November setting out the minimum maintenance requirement for UK visa sponsor, and the latest government leak is based on it. In it the government has opted for the top of income range proposed, but we don't know yet what will happen to other recommendations, such as disallowing savings and exertal sponsorship, and about regionalisation of income requirement to take account of varying cost of living across UK. The report does tell you how the figure of £25,700 is arrived at, and makes a useful comparison with current rules as well as what happens in other countries. As you can see, if £25,700 is adopted, the majority of applicants from the Indian subcontinent - where the greatest number comes from - will not qualify.


Joppa, do you know if recommendations like the ones in this report are usually taken? I'm wondering if there is a precedence.

My husband is printing it out (90 pages) for me now and I am going to read it line by line, with a highlighter, and taking notes. It's a very interesting look into the process.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Joppa, do you know if recommendations like the ones in this report are usually taken? I'm wondering if there is a precedence.
> 
> My husband is printing it out (90 pages) for me now and I am going to read it line by line, with a highlighter, and taking notes. It's a very interesting look into the process.


Yes, an independent body like MAC helps to shape government policy and its recommendations carry a lot of weight, as they are based on solid research and investigations, carried out under the government brief.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Yes, an independent body like MAC helps to shape government policy and its recommendations carry a lot of weight, as they are based on solid research and investigations, carried out under the government brief.


The solid-research, as you stated, can be considered subjective considering they ignored many, what can be considered, crucial variables when proposing to solve the immigration problem. I noticed that every single person (exluding 1-2) has a PhD. in this independent body but, in my view, did a very poor job as a researcher who is supposed to provide a bias-free "independent" opinion on reducing immigration.

For example, they only focused on a scenario where the UK citizen's salary is to be considered (excluding all other means) but fail to consider the risks involved in this approach where the UK spouse can end up losing their job the very next day after their foreign spouse gets the UK visa. I also felt that the report leaned more towards money factor than proposing smarter means to determine legitimacy of a relationship between a UK citizen and their foreign spouse, that should be the *key *goal to catch people abusing the system for their personal gain. 

On paper they claim the purpose is to reduce scam marriages and reduce burden on tax-payers to prevent foreign spouse getting any kind of benefits but this is a false fact where the settlement visa stamp on the Foreign spouse's passport clearly states "No recourse to Public Funds".


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

manny.j said:


> The solid-research, as you stated, can be considered subjective considering they ignored many, what can be considered, crucial variables when proposing to solve the immigration problem. I noticed that every single person (exluding 1-2) has a PhD. in this independent body but, in my view, did a very poor job as a researcher who is supposed to provide a bias-free "independent" opinion on reducing immigration.
> 
> For example, they only focused on a scenario where the UK citizen's salary is to be considered (excluding all other means) but fail to consider the risks involved in this approach where the UK spouse can end up losing their job the very next day after their foreign spouse gets the UK visa. I also felt that the report leaned more towards money factor than proposing smarter means to determine legitimacy of a relationship between a UK citizen and their foreign spouse, that should be the *key *goal to catch people abusing the system for their personal gain.
> 
> On paper they claim the purpose is to reduce scam marriages and reduce burden on tax-payers to prevent foreign spouse getting any kind of benefits but this is a false fact where the settlement visa stamp on the Foreign spouse's passport clearly states "No recourse to Public Funds".


It's been a busy day (prepping for all day guests tomorrow  !) so I'm only on page 17 but I did notice those heavyweight credentials, and a couple of other things. For example, what on earth do they mean by:



> ...access to sufficient maintenance to enable them to participate in everyday life in a way that facilitates their integration.


??? What, does that mean if we don't have, for example, a car, superfast broadband, five credit cards, and cable TV that we can't integrate? 

I'm being a little testy, but really, what does this mean?


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> It's been a busy day (prepping for all day guests tomorrow  !) so I'm only on page 17 but I did notice those heavyweight credentials, and a couple of other things. For example, what on earth do they mean by:
> 
> ...access to sufficient maintenance to enable them to participate in everyday life in a way that facilitates their integration.
> 
> ...


That_ technogarble_, in simple English, means: To target people who although love to come to the UK and live there but refuse to put any efforts in integrating into the British society. And I don't mean drinking (I am joking here! ) but more specifically able to speak and understand English. The goal is to reduce the multiculturalism and encourage them to integrate into British lifestyle. But its confusing to mix sufficient maintenance (i.e have enough funds, I guess) with integration as one does not need money but intentions to integrate


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

manny.j said:


> That_ technogarble_, in simple English, means: To target people who although love to come to the UK and live there but refuse to put any efforts in integrating into the British society. And I don't mean drinking (I am joking here! ) but more specifically able to speak and understand English. The goal is to reduce the multiculturalism and encourage them to integrate into British lifestyle. But its confusing to mix sufficient maintenance (i.e have enough funds, I guess) with integration as one does not need money but intentions to integrate


I almost went to law school, chose statistics instead, lol. But those old tendencies to see potential for problems in language stick with me after all these years

So I have to wonder when they put something like that in-how broad a brush will end up being wielded? 

I do understand the main aim to to seriously dent the influx of immigrants who have no intention of learning to speak conversational English, and will expect shocking 'cultural dispensations' and access to the public funds gravy train. (Which would be some mean feat seeing as our 27 month probationary periods are specific that we have no access to public funds in the first place...)

However, what exactly do they mean by integration, and how are they going to quantify, what criteria will they apply to determine a certain income level to ensure better integration?

I agree that approaching this from a solely economic basis is erm, a head scratcher. Too many variables, and so far by page 23 nothing I see indicates that the committee considered the real variables. 

And I got a real laugh out of the part where they mention the whopping four written responses they got to their call for input. Four? Really? That's kinda scary!


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I almost went to law school, chose statistics instead, lol. But those old tendencies to see potential for problems in language stick with me after all these years
> 
> So I have to wonder when they put something like that in-how broad a brush will end up being wielded?
> 
> ...


The Life In the UK Test and also English lesson tests (ones that come from nations where English is not the main language) are two means to test the foreign spouse, both contribute to their requirement of Integration. This, in my opinion, is a legitimate issue but they, as we have seen from the independent body's recommendation, are more concern about money than integration. But they have used the theme of integration as the underlying reason to introduce these new challenging rules but so far have failed to come up with strong rules to encourage or enforce integration.

Income level, however, has nothing to do with integration, the intentions here is simply to discourage a UK spouse to marry and bring in a foreigner into the UK. They cannot say this openly as its none of their or anyone's business who an individual marries but they can passively influence this by these tough rules.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

manny.j said:


> ...Income level, however, has nothing to do with integration, the intentions here is simply to discourage a UK spouse to marry and bring in a foreigner into the UK. They cannot say this openly as its none of their or anyone's business who an individual marries but they can passively influence this by these tough rules.


I think you just hit the nail on the head. I skimmed a few pages ahead whilst waiting for the potatoes to boil, and saw that at £30,500, 75% of applicants would fail.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I think you just hit the nail on the head. I skimmed a few pages ahead whilst waiting for the potatoes to boil, and saw that at £30,500, 75% of applicants would fail.


As an American your application will probably be considered differently than someone from a place they'd like to stop people immigrating from. You're probably in a better position than many from the Commonwealth. The government can't say that however.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> As an American your application will probably be considered differently than someone from a place they'd like to stop people immigrating from. You're probably in a better position than many from the Commonwealth. The government can't say that however.


I agree, to a point-when looking at the tables in Chapter Three ranking the number of successful applications granted, the US comes in third-although the numbers of successful US applicants show a significant difference between First and Second places, it's still a Third place ranking. 

I've skimmed ahead and so far don't see a table indicating rankings of which home country had the highest numbers of successful applicants going on to become a '...burden on the State...'-something I'd think would have been an important consideration.

But that's just my stats background talking, I think. I know that my husband and I now meet the proposed income requirements (he's returned to the workforce, coming out of retirement solely to ensure that we do meet those proposed levels), and to be straightforward, I am fairly comfortable that I have integrated. We attend church, do volunteer work, and have solid friendships here.

I'm just a little nervous about some of the language in the report and the potential that language has to influence the determination of criteria. LOL, don't mind me, as I wrote above, I think that's my stats background+the former interest in contract law rearing it's pointed little head.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I agree, to a point-when looking at the tables in Chapter Three ranking the number of successful applications granted, the US comes in third-although the numbers of successful US applicants show a significant difference between First and Second places, it's still a Third place ranking.
> 
> I've skimmed ahead and so far don't see a table indicating rankings of which home country had the highest numbers of successful applicants going on to become a '...burden on the State...'-something I'd think would have been an important consideration.
> 
> ...


I think I've integrated here. I pay UK taxes. I like spending time with most of the people I've met, I enjoy the food, like my local pub, love rugby and am fascinated by cricket. I'm fluent in English, passed the LITUK test in 5 minutes flat (personal best?), have the same head of state as the UK, take numerous weddings, funerals, and christening services, regularly lead assemblies at two local schools, and speak at various civic events. I'm a Church of England vicar, and with stipend, savings, free housing, and other "benefits in kind," my income meets the minimum the government requires. But if the new changes come into effect, I might as well be unemployed: My wife has a Ph.D. but has been unable to find a permanent position here, much less one that pays £25,700. As well, we're getting quite bored of living under this cloud of the current government. So unfortunately I'm becoming more and more resigned to moving to Toronto, and then maybe visiting the UK again in another 75 years. So by this time next year most of my entries might be on the Canadian site (although with the size of Canada, the state of immigration there probably won't reach that of the UK's until the year 3000)! Happy Easter!lane:::flock::flock::flock:::flock::flock:


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> I think I've integrated here. I pay UK taxes. I like spending time with most of the people I've met, I enjoy the food, like my local pub, love rugby and am fascinated by cricket. I'm fluent in English, passed the LITUK test in 5 minutes flat (personal best?), have the same head of state as the UK, take numerous weddings, funerals, and christening services, regularly lead assemblies at two local schools, and speak at various civic events. I'm a Church of England vicar, and with stipend, savings, free housing, and other "benefits in kind," my income meets the minimum the government requires. But if the new changes come into effect, I might as well be unemployed: My wife has a Ph.D. but has been unable to find a permanent position here, much less one that pays £25,700. As well, we're getting quite bored of living under this cloud of the current government. So unfortunately I'm becoming more and more resigned to moving to Toronto, and then maybe visiting the UK again in another 75 years. So by this time next year most of my entries might be on the Canadian site (although with the size of Canada, the state of immigration there probably won't reach that of the UK's until the year 3000)! Happy Easter!lane:::flock::flock::flock:::flock::flock:


Happy Easter to you and yours!

My husband is a retired conservation officer and was shocked to be offered work recently at a salary that should put us in the clear. His field isn't the most well-paid. I'm amazed and saddened to read that a Ph.D is having difficulty finding a permanent, commensurate position, that's a lot scary frankly! Would she be able to find work back in Canada?

There were a couple of articles on The Telegraph regarding the changes the Home Secretary is hoping to implement, primarily the end of the abuse of certain human rights clauses. Not much in the article about those of us in settlement situations, though, just that the changes should be in place by summer:

Judges ordered to end 'right to family life' farce - Telegraph


----------



## apples333 (Jan 18, 2011)

Excellent thread with some very good information and input by many.

I for one in a way am for this rule to come in as I have seen many people from Pakistan and India come to this country and obtain status and then go on to claim benefits and use the people and this country for their own benefit. This is only my opinion and what I have seen and experienced and I am not saying that everyone who comes over here is like that....but can understand why this government wants to crack down hard on this matter.

Too bad they did not crack down more before the recession began...where so may lost their homes and families through repossession...and debts and so on...but that is another debate for another time I guess.

I have been reading information on what they intend tos et as a threashold and it is not certain yet...but many say the income level would be set at approx £25,000.000...then I read this:

The MAC suggests, instead, a minimum gross income figure to support a two-adult family of between £18,600 and £25,700. We estimate that nearly two thirds of sponsors would not have sufficient gross income to meet the higher of these thresholds.

so not sure..could be between 18 -25k? will have to wait and see


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

apples333 said:


> Excellent thread with some very good information and input by many.
> 
> I for one in a way am for this rule to come in as I have seen many people from Pakistan and India come to this country and obtain status and then go on to claim benefits and use the people and this country for their own benefit. This is only my opinion and what I have seen and experienced and I am not saying that everyone who comes over here is like that....but can understand why this government wants to crack down hard on this matter.
> 
> ...


I think the idea behind these policies may be good, but the rhetoric and sweeping delivery of them is quite reckless. I suspect the problem many people have is that it's more of an issue of keeping a political promise to reduce immigration to the 10's of 1000's by 2015 than addressing a concern that is actually pressing. Not keeping political promises is absolutely deadly for a party, as it always comes back to bite in the end. So the rhetoric and thrust has to be fierce, as we've seen. 

If you've followed this thread, you've noticed that most if not all who are writing are not looking to claim benefits. They are people on their own benefit who are paying UK taxes, having accepted the rule that they _cannot_ go on benefits for two years. Yet even then, their goal isn't to go on benefits, but to settle and make a life for themselves and their families. As well, people looking to claim benefits can come from anywhere--not only the Indian subcontinent. In your opinion, would you prefer people from Australia or Nigeria to come to the UK and claim benefits to those from the Indian subcontinent? There are many people settled in the UK from India and Pakistan who are quite rich, and can run financial circles around many born and bred British. So is it a question of culture or cash? Or both? 

Thirdly, as you know, the present recession that you referenced was not caused by immigrants, but by poorly managed futures and loans originating in American banks, going back to the late 1980's. In a world economy--especially in dealing with a player with as large an economy as the USA--Europe and the rest of the world will be affected. I own an apartment (or flat if you prefer) in Manhattan, and know a bit about how terribly competitive banks were to grant mortgages to prospective buyers for real estate that is absurdly overpriced. I also know the stats that the ones who defaulted least on their mortgages were foreigners, who in New York City, own the more expensive properties! 

Putting all the weight on the sponsor and not counting savings or the applicant's actual earning power is a contradiction really. What if the applicant held savings upwards of £10,000,000 but had a British partner who stayed home to mind the children? The maintenance requirement of the sponsor is in place to support the applicant until he/she can find steady work. Work then can lead to building savings. It is massively dim and myopic for the government to think otherwise--unless they want a country filled with people blowing their paychecks from one week to the next, living hand to mouth. 

The problem is that these "reforms" are too sweeping and not investigative enough from one applicant to the next. Spending the money on improving checking each applicant would prove to be a far better and long-reaching investment. To be fair, no one should be allowed to enter the UK or any country for that matter, with the intention of claiming benefits and not contributing positively to the society and culture in some way. As well, dishonest people involved in sham marriages should be caught out by their vicar or registrar, and be denied permission to go forward, and if necessary go to prison. These are some of the reasons these proposals have been put forth. But the government's plan coming into force as it is will result in honest people being caught up with the fraudsters. And this tragic and dangerous hazard could be avoided if the concern moves out of the sphere of the political into that of the social. Then it will move beyond mere party politics into effective governing.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

apples333 said:


> Excellent thread with some very good information and input by many.
> 
> I for one in a way am for this rule to come in as I have seen many people from Pakistan and India come to this country and obtain status and then go on to claim benefits and use the people and this country for their own benefit. This is only my opinion and what I have seen and experienced and I am not saying that everyone who comes over here is like that....but can understand why this government wants to crack down hard on this matter.
> 
> ...


Out the range of options as recommended by MAC, the government appears to have gone for the top, at £25,700, according to the leak.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> I think the idea behind these policies may be good, but the rhetoric and sweeping delivery of them is quite reckless. I suspect the problem many people have is that it's more of an issue of keeping a political promise to reduce immigration to the 10's of 1000's by 2015 than addressing a concern that is actually pressing. Not keeping political promises is absolutely deadly for a party, as it always comes back to bite in the end. So the rhetoric and thrust has to be fierce, as we've seen.
> 
> If you've followed this thread, you've noticed that most if not all who are writing are not looking to claim benefits. They are people on their own benefit who are paying UK taxes, having accepted the rule that they _cannot_ go on benefits for two years. Yet even then, their goal isn't to go on benefits, but to settle and make a life for themselves and their families. As well, people looking to claim benefits can come from anywhere--not only the Indian subcontinent. In your opinion, would you prefer people from Australia or Nigeria to come to the UK and claim benefits to those from the Indian subcontinent? There are many people settled in the UK from India and Pakistan who are quite rich, and can run financial circles around many born and bred British. So is it a question of culture or cash? Or both?
> 
> ...


Good and sensible point. The trouble is that successive governments have tried all the solutions you advocate, from closer scrutiny of applicantions, detection of sham marriages and relationships, to putting all sorts of barriers such as higher minimum age and need for certificate of approval for marriages in UK (other than CofE and Church in Wales marriages), but with minimum effect. They either made no appreciable difference in reducing net migration or they fell foul of domestic or Euroepan law and were thrown out by the courts. 

So this latest proposal to control family migration through higher maintenance requirement is almost the last throw of the dice for the government, alarmed at persistent rise in net migration and the political damage that ensues. There are already threats of court action if the proposals are ever implemented, as the higher limit is said to infringe migrant's and their British sponsor's human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

_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*._

The British government is expected to argue that there are no unfettered rights to family life and they have to be balanced against the economic and social needs of the country, and the proposals are a proportionate attempt to serve the latter without unlawfully restricting human rights.

So we await with interest the forthcoming publication of new rules, and a lively discussion that is sure to follow.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

LOL, Joppa, I'm all for a lively discussion beforehand

I found an entire section on The Telegraph dedicated to immigration (who knew? lol, I wear trifocals which is my excuse for having missed it until now)! I've bookmarked it so I can check it daily:

Immigration News - UK immigration news - Telegraph 

Looking through the published pieces, I found something I think interesting as it seems to imply the income requirements bar-raising is aimed at immigrants wanting to bring their families with them (my highlighting):



> As we report today, Theresa May, the *Home Secretary, plans to change the law to make it harder for new immigrants to bring in members of their families*. At present, immigrants need to be able to show that they will have a minimum income in Britain of £13,700 to be given permission to bring in a spouse, partner or dependant. Under the new proposals, that sum will increase to £25,700. Anyone hoping to bring in three or more children would have to demonstrate that they have a minimum income of £62,600. She also hopes to reintroduce some form of investigation that would allow the authorities to distinguish sham marriages from genuine ones – although that proposal may well fall foul of the judges, who ruled that previous attempts to investigate the basis of a marriage were “discriminatory” and so illegal.


Migration moving in the right direction - Telegraph


----------



## teacup41 (Apr 8, 2012)

Thought I would post this up..some useful info


----------



## Mervinia N (Aug 28, 2011)

This may be a silly question but I'll ask it anyway just to check  

I'm a UK citizen with two children (UK citizens since birth) and my fiancé is a US citizen with no children. Due to circumstances, we'll not be applying until after the new rules (probably end of the year). I understand that as my fiancé will be coming here on a fiancé visa with no children, then the income bar would probably be set at £25700 (which I might just clear with a fair wind and a bit of luck) and not the increased amount for two children.

However, and this is my question, when it comes to the FLR/ILR later on, do my children then get taken into consideration and the income required based on the proposed/leaked/possibly dreamt up amount for bringing in two children (48k?) or would it still be based on my being sponsor for just my fiancé who would then be my husband?

Hope that makes sense  I've got myself in a knot about this now and trying to untangle it so I have some idea as to whether my fiancé and I will actually get to spend the rest of our lives together or not. Going to the US is not an option, maybe to get married but not to live, so somehow we need to make it work with these new proposed rules here in the UK.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Mervinia N said:


> This may be a silly question but I'll ask it anyway just to check
> 
> I'm a UK citizen with two children (UK citizens since birth) and my fiancé is a US citizen with no children. Due to circumstances, we'll not be applying until after the new rules (probably end of the year). I understand that as my fiancé will be coming here on a fiancé visa with no children, then the income bar would probably be set at £25700 (which I might just clear with a fair wind and a bit of luck) and not the increased amount for two children.
> 
> ...


The short answer is we just don't know. I have assumed, as you have, that the increased amount for children (dependants) will only arise if they are non-EEA citizens and therefore require their own settlement visas. But this is just speculation, and unless the full rules are published, we can't tell for sure. It's same with FLR and ILR - nothing has been announced yet. The logic suggests that as long as those people - spouse/partner and their dependants - cannot access public funds, they must continue to meet the new maintenance requirements. But logic and reality don't always match.

So I'm afraid we will be in the dark until the government makes a formal announcement, and even then, there will be further unravelling and elucidation required to make sense of it all.


----------



## Mervinia N (Aug 28, 2011)

Joppa said:


> The short answer is we just don't know. I have assumed, as you have, that the increased amount for children (dependants) will only arise if they are non-EEA citizens and therefore require their own settlement visas. But this is just speculation, and unless the full rules are published, we can't tell for sure. It's same with FLR and ILR - nothing has been announced yet. The logic suggests that as long as those people - spouse/partner and their dependants - cannot access public funds, they must continue to meet the new maintenance requirements. But logic and reality don't always match.
> 
> So I'm afraid we will be in the dark until the government makes a formal announcement, and even then, there will be further unravelling and elucidation required to make sense of it all.


Thanks Joppa... I guess all we can do is sit back, wait until the new rules come out officially and then try to make some sense of it all. Not sure what we'll do if it all goes wrong but as my fiancé says "always be positive when you know nothing"


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> LOL, Joppa, I'm all for a lively discussion beforehand
> 
> I found an entire section on The Telegraph dedicated to immigration (who knew? lol, I wear trifocals which is my excuse for having missed it until now)! I've bookmarked it so I can check it daily:
> 
> ...


Well, on a lighter note... 
I would not be opposed to them pushing back the driving test for 5 years. 
I am afraid it is going to take me that long to remember to NOT drive on the right side of the road. Not to mention I keep trying to shift with my right hand which now equates to the door handle. 

I keep reading all the information I can find on all of the changes. 
Five years is a long time and all of the policies put into effect today might be changed by that time. 
New parties come into power and create new laws. 
So I am just going to keep abreast of all the information and not stress and take it as it comes. 

We have been married for 10 years this September. 
We just keep jumping any hurdles and will continue to do so.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> Well, on a lighter note...
> I would not be opposed to them pushing back the driving test for 5 years.
> I am afraid it is going to take me that long to remember to NOT drive on the right side of the road. Not to mention I keep trying to shift with my right hand which now equates to the door handle.
> 
> ...


When and if I ever decide I can keep all those driving balls juggled at the same time (left-side+traffic rules and nomenclature+roundabouts+the fact that I'm quickly approaching senior citizen status and oh yeah, wear trifocals=) I plan to take a course, a long and extra detailed one:lol:

Good point on the way things go-new political parties in majourity make the rules and things may change yet again during whatever is current. My husband and I are trying to do the same thing as you are doing, taking it as it comes whilst staying aware of current events. 

Heehee, we say it keeps us young


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> Well, on a lighter note...
> I would not be opposed to them pushing back the driving test for 5 years.
> I am afraid it is going to take me that long to remember to NOT drive on the right side of the road. Not to mention I keep trying to shift with my right hand which now equates to the door handle.
> 
> ...


The funny thing about getting a UK driving licence is that some countries allow a reciprocal exchange. Australia and Canada are two of these countries, but there's a whole list that you can check on the DVLA website. However, you can only exchange a Canadian licence for a UK licence that permits you to drive an automatic transmission. So it's possible to have a full UK automatic licence, fail your manual driving test, and drive home from the failed test! I wound up taking the theory test (£30 I think), taking 6 driving lessons (£25-28 depending on region in UK), taking the test twice (£62 a shot--failed it once, probably because 15 of the 26 years of driving were in Manhattan, USA!), and then qualifying for a manual gearbox licence. Yet when it was all done, the car we wound up driving is an automatic!

The hardest thing you'll find about the test is taking the practical bit, from clutch control (which is more than just switching gears) down to how you hold your hands on the wheel. Driving on the other side of the road is relative, and roundabouts have a clear logic in form and (for the most part) practice. When you go back to North America to drive you won't feel odd, but you'll find you can drive both ways! But as I said, a few lessons with a good instructor (I know an excellent one) will sort that out. Anyway, I digress, but true there may be advantages to having to wait, and 5 years will be more than enough time for you to practise.


----------



## Skrb (Oct 12, 2011)

Is there a financial requirement for the ILR with the current rules?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Skrb said:


> Is there a financial requirement for the ILR with the current rules?


Yes, similar to spouse visa or FLR.


----------



## mehemlynn (Nov 16, 2011)

pedalmonkey said:


> Well, on a lighter note...
> I would not be opposed to them pushing back the driving test for 5 years.
> I am afraid it is going to take me that long to remember to NOT drive on the right side of the road. Not to mention I keep trying to shift with my right hand which now equates to the door handle.


Surpisingly, it isn't that hard to get used to driving in the UK. I've had 3 lessons with my Father in Law (who happens to be a driving instructor). I hope I'll be able to take my test with him before he retires.

I always think of it as "the driver is in the middle of the road", so I don't know that I'd like to drive a British car on the continent though. My problem is that I've been scared of standard shift cars since I was a teenager, so getting over that fear is a bit of a challenge.

We are coming up to our 11th anniversary (in October) and are moving home (Wales) since we want to raise our little girl there. We just sent away for her passport and are getting the paperwork ready for my visa. 

All we can do is decide what we are going to do with the current rules and keep going.

Ironically, if the new income requirements come into affect, then I'll probably have to work in London instead of Cardiff, which means more time away from the family than I want  But that will be the only way we will make the higher levels.


----------



## sarah hinds (Apr 12, 2012)

*question on the new maintenance*

hi all, i have a question and would be gratefull if someone could help me.
The new 25.000 maintenance requirement, is that 25.000 between both my husband and i. our annual income put together will be 27.000. is this sufficient funds. 
thanks sarah hinds


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

sarah hinds said:


> hi all, i have a question and would be gratefull if someone could help me.
> The new 25.000 maintenance requirement, is that 25.000 between both my husband and i. our annual income put together will be 27.000. is this sufficient funds.
> thanks sarah hinds


New rules have not been officially announced yet. At the moment, even though there was an information leak, it's still just speculation.


----------



## mehemlynn (Nov 16, 2011)

sarah hinds said:


> hi all, i have a question and would be gratefull if someone could help me.
> The new 25.000 maintenance requirement, is that 25.000 between both my husband and i. our annual income put together will be 27.000. is this sufficient funds.
> thanks sarah hinds


Hi Sarah,

We don't know for sure yet. As far as applying goes, it looks like it might only depend on the sponsor. I am also hoping that they will take into account my savings/ possible income as well as my husband's. I have the higher earnings potential (more experience, more education) but he is the British citizen.

We will all have to wait and see.

M


----------



## mistbound4england (Dec 26, 2011)

The £25,000 is required frm the person who resides and works in the UK.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

sarah hinds said:


> hi all, i have a question and would be gratefull if someone could help me.
> The new 25.000 maintenance requirement, is that 25.000 between both my husband and i. our annual income put together will be 27.000. is this sufficient funds.
> thanks sarah hinds


The proposed income requirement figures are just that-proposed, nothing official has been announced yet. 

So we don't know the answer to that yet, sorry. Stay tuned to the forum, though because I'm sure as soon as the new rules are announced we'll be discussing them in detail here!

Meanwhile, go back through this thread to find some valuable links to articles, documents, reports, recommendations, and the proposals being decided by the lawmakers.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The proposed income requirement figures are just that-proposed, nothing official has been announced yet.
> 
> So we don't know the answer to that yet, sorry. Stay tuned to the forum, though because I'm sure as soon as the new rules are announced we'll be discussing them in detail here!
> 
> Meanwhile, go back through this thread to find some valuable links to articles, documents, reports, recommendations, and the proposals being decided by the lawmakers.


It's all so true.
But there is a caveat.
The government is putting forward new maintenance requirement in order to *reduce the number of family migrants *to UK. If they allow savings, combined wages and external sponsors to make up the minimum income requirement (like it is now), it's hardly likely to achieve a marked reduction in family migrations (they are expecting a cut of around one third). So my hunch is the government is going to stick to one rule - minimum income by UK sponsor, without exceptions save for most compassionate reasons.


----------



## mehemlynn (Nov 16, 2011)

Joppa said:


> It's all so true.
> But there is a caveat.
> The government is putting forward new maintenance requirement in order to *reduce the number of family migrants *to UK. If they allow savings, combined wages and external sponsors to make up the minimum income requirement (like it is now), it's hardly likely to achieve a marked reduction in family migrations (they are expecting a cut of around one third). So my hunch is the government is going to stick to one rule - minimum income by UK sponsor, without exceptions save for most compassionate reasons.


Unfortunately, if you read it correctly; then anyone who has lived away for more than a year or so (for whatever reason) won't be able to sponsor a family member. Currently your spouse can travel to the UK with you (which is what we are planning so our family isn't broken up), but if all of the income must be in the UK, that option won't be possible.

So anyone who has gone abroad, but plans on coming home will be unable to bring their families.

While we were happy to live as we were until our daughter was born, who is a UK Citizen, we don't want to be split up until we can get the income requirements taken care of (even worse our daughter would have to go to a nursery school which would mean we wouldn't be able to save any money).

In addition, my husband is an only child, so he may end up having to decide to leave his wife to take care of his parents.

For "real" families (not trying to game the system), the proposals are brutal.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Joppa said:


> It's all so true.
> But there is a caveat.
> The government is putting forward new maintenance requirement in order to *reduce the number of family migrants *to UK. If they allow savings, combined wages and external sponsors to make up the minimum income requirement (like it is now), it's hardly likely to achieve a marked reduction in family migrations (they are expecting a cut of around one third). So my hunch is the government is going to stick to one rule - minimum income by UK sponsor, without exceptions save for most compassionate reasons.


I hope your hunch of not including the savings does not turn into a fact as that would really setback plans for many families  The UK Govt. could actually propose the threshold of savings significantly higher than requirement for income to make it harder for foreign spouse to get the financial requirement. 

Beside, I am just wondering what if they do go ahead with only UK spouse income requirement and if this will be challenged in the court considering two crucial reasons: It not only _appears _to interfere in a British citizen's Human Rights but moreover, can be considered unreasonable (especially for excluding the savings) considering a scenario where a job could be lost the very next day after the foreign spouse gains his or her UK visa. 

And what if the Govt is challenged, would the proposed rules will still be implemented or put on hold until the court make its decision?

In our case, we are now aiming to immigrating to the UK in May and have my wife sit LITUK test and then apply for her ILR within 2 weeks of our return just so we do not fall into the new rules in June....all is happening in a rush.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

mehemlynn said:


> Unfortunately, if you read it correctly; then anyone who has lived away for more than a year or so (for whatever reason) won't be able to sponsor a family member. Currently your spouse can travel to the UK with you (which is what we are planning so our family isn't broken up), but if all of the income must be in the UK, that option won't be possible.
> 
> So anyone who has gone abroad, but plans on coming home will be unable to bring their families.
> 
> ...


One exception I think is likely is for those who are moving to UK at the same time, without the sponsor having an established UK income, *provided *they have ample resources to meet and indeed comfortably exceed maintenance requirement. Otherwise there would be a ridiculous situation of a multi-millionaire couple, whose non-EEA spouse visa is turned down just because the UK sponsor doesn't have a job yet in UK, but has millions of pouds on deposit abroad.

Or if the government wants to make as few exceptions as possible, such people may be steered towards some sort of investor or entrepreneur visa because of their assets.


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

Everyone keeps saying, It doesn't seem fair. The fact is it isn't about being "fair" it is about reducing the number of immigrants and only allowing a certain "class" of immigrants to migrate. There will be a few exceptions to the rule but I say let us just see it for what it is. 

They system has been abused to the point that the government feels justified in these "not yet officially announced" actions. They are the rule makers and they make the rules. They have to do something. It is easy for us to sit back and say it isn't fair because innocent people will pay the price for the abusers but isn't that how life is sometimes? Haven't you lost out on a recess in school before because one or two were being naughty so everyone got in trouble? (bad analogy?)
I have never agreed with the punish all for one but they aren't interested in my view.

I have no problem waiting the 5 years for the ILR. Makes no difference to me. AT first I panicked but now I see it just gives me one less thing on my plate to have to deal with right now. 

Just here to be with my husband and want to be a productive member of society until we return home to the States in 5-10 years. Don't want anything given to me by the government. Just want to work and to pay my share of the insane taxes and cycle on some of these awesome trails you have here in this lovely country.

Hoping for the best for you all.


----------



## steverichards (Jun 1, 2010)

Shocking! is this final or legally binding.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

steverichards said:


> Shocking! is this final or legally binding.


*NO.* Don't mean to shout, just emphasising the answer

This is not carved in stone. This thread is discussing some of the *proposed* changes to settlement via the family/spouse/partner route. 

Go back through the thread to find links to information regarding the issue, every link provides fascinating reading. 

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> Everyone keeps saying, It doesn't seem fair. The fact is it isn't about being "fair" it is about reducing the number of immigrants and only allowing a certain "class" of immigrants to migrate. There will be a few exceptions to the rule but I say let us just see it for what it is.
> 
> They system has been abused to the point that the government feels justified in these "not yet officially announced" actions. They are the rule makers and they make the rules. They have to do something. It is easy for us to sit back and say it isn't fair because innocent people will pay the price for the abusers but isn't that how life is sometimes? Haven't you lost out on a recess in school before because one or two were being naughty so everyone got in trouble? (bad analogy?)
> I have never agreed with the punish all for one but they aren't interested in my view.
> ...


"They are the rule makers and they make the rules, they have to do something(!)" are very slippery statements, and following this logic can allow for terrible things to be accepted as lawful in a society. Morever, philosophising that this is the way life is forecloses any possibility of good things overcoming bad--it's a very self-centred view, which is clear from the position you present yourself as being in. 

No one wants to be inconvenienced granted, but no one applying for settlement or citizenship in a foreign country should ever feel a sense of entitlement. But we're not all in the same position. From your entry, you convey that you can afford to play fast and loose with ILR here, as you and your husband may only be here for 5 or 10 years, before returning to the States. 

Returning to the States isn't such a bad option at all. It's a great prospect. In actual fact, more people would probably prefer emigrating there than to the UK. But there are some who are writing on this thread and yet even more whom we don't know who cannot say that the worst thing that will happen to them if they have to leave here is that they'll return to the USA. Many have left bad living conditions for themselves and their families, and emigration to the UK is not for return. These are the honest hard-working immigrants--not expats--who are legally married and pay their taxes, probably not making much yet doing their best. These are the ones who will fall through the cracks and who may never find their footing again, because for them, being here makes a difference. And these are the ones who probably most value the prospect of living permanently in the UK and who deserve to have a new chance to be able to remain. 

Do check out the trails through the Pennines!:canada:


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> "They are the rule makers and they make the rules, they have to do something(!)" are very slippery statements, and following this logic can allow for terrible things to be accepted as lawful in a society. Morever, philosophising that this is the way life is forecloses any possibility of good things overcoming bad--it's a very self-centred view, which is clear from the position you present yourself as being in.
> 
> No one wants to be inconvenienced granted, but no one applying for settlement or citizenship in a foreign country should ever feel a sense of entitlement. But we're not all in the same position. From your entry, you convey that you can afford to play fast and loose with ILR here, as you and your husband may only be here for 5 or 10 years, before returning to the States.
> 
> ...


Wow, food for thought! 

I agree with several of the things PedalMonkey wrote in her post-I've seen some outrageous abuses since arriving here in 2010; I too want to be a contributing and positive member of British society. (And I just scored a killer vintage ladies step-through Raleigh I can't wait for the courier to deliver because the bike paths in my area are calling my name!)

But I am here for the long haul. I have no intention or interest in returning to the US for anything more than visits to son and grandson, the only reason I would return to live there would be if something happened to my husband-OR if we are unable to secure an ILR for me when the time comes. The worry of being unable to meet income requirements as revealed to be under consideration caused my husband to return to work so that we would meet the worst case scenario rise. We are very grateful that he was able to find work so quickly, it doesn't happen that way very often at all these days!

Like you, BailyBanksBiddle, I think about the ones who are going to be shut out for what seems to me to be a very severe restriction. I don't see a lot in the proposals about changes to the refugee visa route, so I do think there is some compassion left in the system. But I also know of good, decent people who could support themselves here in the UK who will be shut out, and the language of some of the proposals indicates to me that doors are being left cracked to facilitate even more severe changes.

I think what may be most frustrating is that apparently a shocking lot of the burden to the State could be relieved immediately if the current laws were enforced. Why are so many who could be deported permitted to slide into the shadows whilst enjoying benefits? 

Why are so many student visa holders permitted to flagrantly abuse their visa with what looks very much like impunity? This mornings Telegraph saw a piece published announcing the Home Secretary will now be requiring all student visa applicants from Pakistan to attend a vigorous face-to-face interview as part of the application process:

Pakistani students face new visa test - Telegraph

Why haven't the abusers been deported already?

Back-forth-back-forth, I feel as though I'm on a see-saw sometimes!


----------



## mehemlynn (Nov 16, 2011)

pedalmonkey said:


> Everyone keeps saying, It doesn't seem fair. The fact is it isn't about being "fair" it is about reducing the number of immigrants and only allowing a certain "class" of immigrants to migrate. There will be a few exceptions to the rule but I say let us just see it for what it is.
> 
> They system has been abused to the point that the government feels justified in these "not yet officially announced" actions. They are the rule makers and they make the rules. They have to do something. It is easy for us to sit back and say it isn't fair because innocent people will pay the price for the abusers but isn't that how life is sometimes? Haven't you lost out on a recess in school before because one or two were being naughty so everyone got in trouble? (bad analogy?)
> I have never agreed with the punish all for one but they aren't interested in my view.
> ...


I think much of your comment is a reply to me. Ironically, you are planning on doing the opposite of what my husband and I had planned on and may not be able to do.

We ALWAYS planned on moving "back" home to Wales, we continue to own a home there, we are actually more part of the community in Wales than we are in Wisconsin (I'm from PA), if I had been one generation closer, I could have claimed ancestry when we first married. We plan on moving back and raising our child in a Welsh school (as in Welsh language medium) While it was just the two of us we were comfortable traveling from the US to the UK regularly. 

So we planned to "return home to the States (in our case Wales) in 5-10 years" So my situation would be much like if you stayed in the UK for 10 years, planning to go "home" to find out US immigration changed their laws in such a way you couldn't do it (raising the required income from the approx $20,000 to approx $52,000 without allowing your UK savings to be counted) - which is basically the US equivalent to the proposed rules change - fine if you are moving to NYC, not so good in Appalachia.

Do I think the UK has the right and responsibility to protect its borders? Absolutely. Do I like that it is possible that my family's plans are likely to be ruined? No. Do I want to have to face dealing with elderly in-laws from a different country? No. If we move to the UK are we ever moving back to the US? No. 

There are families in much worse positions than we are and I'm glad that no matter what we will not be in a threatening environment. 

I agree if immigration laws in most countries were enforced better then the laws don't really need to be tightened that much.

M


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2011)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I think what may be most frustrating is that apparently a shocking lot of the burden to the State could be relieved immediately if the current laws were enforced. Why are so many who could be deported permitted to slide into the shadows whilst enjoying benefits?


I think you hit the nail on the head here!

And as pedalmonkey said further up the thread:



> The system has been abused to the point that the government feels justified in these "not yet officially announced" actions. They are the rule makers and they make the rules.


...problem being, we've had a succession of governments trotting out piecemeal/'band-aid'/short-termist solutions to what should be viewed as a long-term policy issue, appealing to the scaremongering/alarmist tabloid media, rather than focussing on proper enforcement of what are already fairly stringent immigration laws. 

And now - a few short years after its inception - the government tells us the UKBA isn't fit for purpose and will be restructured/reorganised again?! 

teuchter


----------



## mistbound4england (Dec 26, 2011)

I agree. I think the UK has alot....and I mean ALOT of individuals abusing student visas. When you apply for a student visa obviously you should b attending school and working the allowable amount of hours which I believe is no more than 18-20 per week. Granted you do have many abiding by the rules and then you have those who are showing fake college certificates of schools that dont even exist and are working full time hours never to have stepped foot in a school. I think all student visas should be face to face and it would help weed out the fakes.

Another thing i dont understand is when the UKBA ends up finding illegal stayers and they cant find a passport belonging to that individual...the UKBA gives them some paperwork let's them go on their merry way and asks them to show up to a solicitor once a week to check in and they usually never do. They end up disappearing into the cracks and nvr being found again. Why not just hold onto them until they have received proper paperwork to send these illegal individuals back to their country? Just be honest and apply for a visa the legal way...ur putting lots of money into hiding and living in UK anyway.


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

mehemlynn said:


> I think much of your comment is a reply to me. Ironically, you are planning on doing the opposite of what my husband and I had planned on and may not be able to do.
> 
> We ALWAYS planned on moving "back" home to Wales, we continue to own a home there, we are actually more part of the community in Wales than we are in Wisconsin (I'm from PA), if I had been one generation closer, I could have claimed ancestry when we first married. We plan on moving back and raising our child in a Welsh school (as in Welsh language medium) While it was just the two of us we were comfortable traveling from the US to the UK regularly.
> 
> ...


Can't say I gave anyone's post a thought when I wrote mine. Didn't even recall yours but I will go back and read it. Mine was an overall assessment of the threads that have been posted across the board. Trust me there is nothing "grand' about my life. We would just barely make the cut off limits being proposed. Also, if you read my post you would see that I stated that the innocent get caught up in it all and I don't agree with that but that they don't care what I think. 

I believe the savings issue has been addressed before. Divided into 12 and added to your monthly income, no? 



Everything is speculation at this point. Until it is announced what can you do?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> ...Everything is speculation at this point. Until it is announced what can you do?


Speculate, lol, that's what we can do-prepare for the worst and hope for the best


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> "They are the rule makers and they make the rules, they have to do something(!)" are very slippery statements, and following this logic can allow for terrible things to be accepted as lawful in a society. Morever, philosophising that this is the way life is forecloses any possibility of good things overcoming bad--it's a very self-centred view, which is clear from the position you present yourself as being in.
> 
> No one wants to be inconvenienced granted, but no one applying for settlement or citizenship in a foreign country should ever feel a sense of entitlement. But we're not all in the same position. From your entry, you convey that you can afford to play fast and loose with ILR here, as you and your husband may only be here for 5 or 10 years, before returning to the States.
> 
> ...



"I have never agreed with the punish all for one but they aren't interested in my view."

Perhaps read my entire statement next time and if you honestly believe that this country can continue as they are with the immigration policies they currently have in effect then you are not being realistic. I am not educated enough nor wealthy enough to completely understand it all but I am able to see a social health system that is nearly collapsing an economy. This doesn't mean you refuse families(I am on this forum for the same reason as everyone else) or turn away those in need. It means you fix the system. Deport the abusers. Learn to identify the sham marriages and student scam visas. 
That doesn't make you a bad country it makes you a sustainable one.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> "I have never agreed with the punish all for one but they aren't interested in my view."
> 
> Perhaps read my entire statement next time and if you honestly believe that this country can continue as they are with the immigration policies they currently have in effect then you are not being realistic. I am not educated enough nor wealthy enough to completely understand it all but I am able to see a social health system that is nearly collapsing an economy. This doesn't mean you refuse families(I am on this forum for the same reason as everyone else) or turn away those in need. It means you fix the system. Deport the abusers. Learn to identify the sham marriages and student scam visas.
> That doesn't make you a bad country it makes you a sustainable one.


And if you've kept abreast of this thread and the earlier ones touching on the same topic you'll know that it is your and your husband's right to contact your MP's with these pressing concerns (who would be very interested in your views). There is a way forward.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> And if you've kept abreast of this thread and the earlier ones touching on the same topic you'll know that it is your and your husband's right to contact your MP's with these pressing concerns (who would be very interested in your views). There is a way forward.


That's quite true. I was very surprised at how easy it was for my husband to contact our MP, and how very interested in what my husband had to say the MP was. To be frank, that is not our experience in the US, not at all!


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> That's quite true. I was very surprised at how easy it was for my husband to contact our MP, and how very interested in what my husband had to say the MP was. To be frank, that is not our experience in the US, not at all!


You've probably done it, but if not, it would be helpful to carefully read the much talked about 88 page report from the migration advisory committee, paying particular attention to chapter 4. I think that much of the anxiety expressed by so many on this thread might be assuaged, as the committee has outlined _assumptions_ that it is making. The committee also makes allowance that variations in these assumptions can and might be allowed by the UKBA. 

Here is the hyperlink to the MAC's report if you don't have it:

UK Border Agency | MAC publishes report on the family migration route


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> You've probably done it, but if not, it would be helpful to carefully read the much talked about 88 page report from the migration advisory committee, paying particular attention to chapter 4. I think that much of the anxiety expressed by so many on this thread might be assuaged, as the committee has outlined _assumptions_ that it is making. The committee also makes allowance that variations in these assumptions can and might be allowed by the UKBA.
> 
> Here is the hyperlink to the MAC's report if you don't have it:
> 
> UK Border Agency | MAC publishes report on the family migration route


I downloaded it last week and have been going through it with a highlighter and a notepad. It's a (ahem) interesting read.


----------



## pedalmonkey (Jan 21, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I downloaded it last week and have been going through it with a highlighter and a notepad. It's a (ahem) interesting read.



Been there done that. That made for fun reading last week. I figured if you could take the time to print it all out I could at least read it 

Oh well, suppose dropping links over and over again is a good thing for those who don't read through the posts. 

I was surprised at how they broke everything down to even the age brackets and such and to see where I fell in the categories. Was equally surprised to how many Americans there were. With the world getting smaller and smaller these types of unions will only increase.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

pedalmonkey said:


> ...I was surprised at how they broke everything down to even the age brackets and such and to see where I fell in the categories. Was equally surprised to how many Americans there were. With the world getting smaller and smaller these types of unions will only increase.


I was surprised at the US stats too. LOL, I made my living in stats, and have something of a jaundiced view of stats based reports leading to recommendations for action. I know all too well how easy it is to erm, 'miss' the stats that might change the determination. I take all stats as real but also as potentially not the full picture

I knew there were a lot of Americans who have strong ties to the UK but until I joined this forum I didn't really have a clue how many US expats are actually in the UK. 

Seeing US stats in some of those columns and graphs was odd too because of the countries along side. 

But two recurring thoughts hit me throughout the reading (and I'm going back through it today to check my notes a second time): 1-that the only consideration was economic yet there are no stats reporting the real burden to the State (what countries had the highest number of émigrés going on UK benefits, etc), and 2-the wording, the language used seemed to me to be purposefully broad and somewhat vague.

BailyBanksBiddle mentions that in his post, I've mentioned it in posts as well. It is such a broad brush and seems open to an uncomfortable elasticity in application.

And as Teuchtar points out, UKBA has been called unfit for purpose and is undergoing yet more reorganisation-what does that mean for those of us caught in the middle?


----------



## vivkiik (Oct 6, 2010)

Thoughts??
Like many of you, I am waiting with bated breath for the announcement about the policy changes to the family/spousal settlement visas. The fact that there has been some indication that the government wanted these changes to be implemented in June but they have not as of yet made an announcement a good thing or a bad thing?

Sent from my iPhone using ExpatForum


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

vivkiik said:


> Thoughts??
> Like many of you, I am waiting with bated breath for the announcement about the policy changes to the family/spousal settlement visas. The fact that there has been some indication that the government wanted these changes to be implemented in June but they have not as of yet made an announcement a good thing or a bad thing?


Well, in today's Sunday Times, a spokesman for the UKBA says that the government is introducing changes to visa rules 'by the summer' to stop abuses. He was primarily referring to attempts by some failed visa applicants to be allowed to stay in UK by appealing to provision in Article 8 of Human Rights Act. This was part of the revision - together with changes to family migration route - announced by the government last year, so it seems likely that the government does intend to bring in changes around June time.


----------



## vivkiik (Oct 6, 2010)

Joppa said:


> Well, in today's Sunday Times, a spokesman for the UKBA says that the government is introducing changes to visa rules 'by the summer' to stop abuses. He was primarily referring to attempts by some failed visa applicants to be allowed to stay in UK by appealing to provision in Article 8 of Human Rights Act. This was part of the revision - together with changes to family migration route - announced by the government last year, so it seems likely that the government does intend to bring in changes around June time.


Joppa- Could you give me the headline for that article? I looked for it but could not find it. Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using ExpatForum


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

vivkiik said:


> Joppa- Could you give me the headline for that article? I looked for it but could not find it. Thanks.


There is no free online access to Sunday Times/Times articles, as they are behind a subscription barrier. I was reading from a hard copy bought this morning.

This is what the UKBA said:

_Too often weak article 8 claims have been used by criminals to dodge deportation and by this summer the government will have in place *new immigration rules* which will help end this abuse._

My emphasis. So it seems he was referring not just about Article 8 abuse but a comprehensive revision of immigration rules by this summer, so June implementation is very much on course.


----------



## futuremrsmorrisson (Apr 28, 2012)

My fiance and I are finishing out application this week and doing premium service. My stress level was abating but after reading this, OH MY!!!!!!   Guess we will just have to cross that bridge when we come to it!


----------



## dr1 (Feb 6, 2012)

Does anyone kno if this would affect those currently on the FLR? Like would we fall under the new 5 year rule. What about combining earnings? Will this proposed figure be for the UK sponsor only? Gosh this just sent my nerves through the roof. I make more than my partner just below the 25,000 figure. He makes nowhere near that.


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

dr1 said:


> Does anyone kno if this would affect those currently on the FLR? Like would we fall under the new 5 year rule. What about combining earnings? Will this proposed figure be for the UK sponsor only? Gosh this just sent my nerves through the roof. I make more than my partner just below the 25,000 figure. He makes nowhere near that.


There is absolutely no way of knowing until an official announcement is made. It would be pointless to speculate.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

nyclon said:


> There is absolutely no way of knowing until an official announcement is made. It would be pointless to speculate.


I'm not so sure how much steam the Tories will push into this, seeing how shambolically the UKBA and Damian Green are dealing w/Heathrow, how the Tories just lost 400 local seats in the most recent election, and today's election of a socialist in France--where immigration contrary to what Sarkozy had been selling--was not even a concern. 

If any are waiting on bated breath over an issue like this, do take care to think twice and thrice if you really want to live in a place like this that is making your lives so anxiety ridden. What proactive measures have you taken?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> I'm not so sure how much steam the Tories will push into this, seeing how shambolically the UKBA and Damian Green are dealing w/Heathrow, how the Tories just lost 400 local seats in the most recent election, and today's election of a socialist in France--where immigration contrary to what Sarkozy had been selling--was not even a concern.
> 
> If any are waiting on bated breath over an issue like this, do take care to think twice and thrice if you really want to live in a place like this that is making your lives so anxiety ridden. What proactive measures have you taken?


On the contrary, in the aftermath of disastrous election result and bad publicity over the Budget, the Tory right will demand more punitive measures against migrants, brushing aside Lib Dem opposition.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm one of the lucky ones in that my salary at least still covers us in the event of these changes and the worst we'll face is paying for yet another visa in the interim before our ILR is due in a seeming-million years' time!

What DOES upset me is that, whilst some genuine people at least have the chance to switch plans and emigrate instead to their migrant partner's country (I know it's not as easy as that for everyone settled here), not all people have even that choice (and mowhere else to go if not the UK), and what then? As an example, my understanding is that, whilst some states in the US clearly do allow various forms of civil unions and same-sex marriages, federally the US does not recognise UK civil partnership as a valid marriage for immigration, so me and my partner (and many other civil partners on FLR) would have no recourse to that option. We could be wrong, but that's our understanding.  Would love to be proved wrong on this one!


----------



## Kuya (Mar 28, 2012)

I am still trying not to speculate too much till Wednesday's speech!

If the £25,700.00 rule comes into play, or even if it gets tabled for a debate in the coming weeks. I will be looking at jobs in another EU country so I can get my wife here via the EEA route.

Though being forced out of a secure position of Employment would ensure that I never vote for the current parties in power ever again


----------



## openquestions (Apr 4, 2012)

QUESTION..
While the new proposed financial requirement is expected to be announced shortly to take effect later this year. Will the new requirement also be imposed for EEA family applications?


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> On the contrary, in the aftermath of disastrous election result and bad publicity over the Budget, the Tory right will demand more punitive measures against migrants, brushing aside Lib Dem opposition.


Not absolutely. The Lib Dems still have power to destabilise the Tories and initiate a call for no confidence. The government is more fragile than it seems.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> On the contrary, in the aftermath of disastrous election result and bad publicity over the Budget, the Tory right will demand more punitive measures against migrants, brushing aside Lib Dem opposition.


And as an addendum, only a psychotic government imposes punititive measures on faceless groups of people when no crime has been committed. :boxing:


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

2farapart said:


> I'm one of the lucky ones in that my salary at least still covers us in the event of these changes and the worst we'll face is paying for yet another visa in the interim before our ILR is due in a seeming-million years' time!
> 
> What DOES upset me is that, whilst some genuine people at least have the chance to switch plans and emigrate instead to their migrant partner's country (I know it's not as easy as that for everyone settled here), not all people have even that choice (and mowhere else to go if not the UK), and what then? As an example, my understanding is that, whilst some states in the US clearly do allow various forms of civil unions and same-sex marriages, federally the US does not recognise UK civil partnership as a valid marriage for immigration, so me and my partner (and many other civil partners on FLR) would have no recourse to that option. We could be wrong, but that's our understanding.  Would love to be proved wrong on this one!


Just hope you don't lose your job, you might not feel so lucky then! 

Under U.S. immigration laws, citizens and permanent residents can sponsor their spouses for lawful permanent resident status. However, because same-sex partners of U.S. citizens or permanent residents are not considered “spouses” for immigration benefits, gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents are barred from sponsoring their same-sex permanent partners. So they've got to work on that one. 

Canada is a good option in that we will accept same sex couples who not only have been married in Canada, but also abroad and even those who are considered "common law."

As an aside, I found this article interesting; a kind of back to front situation to many here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mps-BRITISH-immigrants.html?ito=feeds-newsxml 

:eyebrows:


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

I've been following news reports on the Queen's Speech set for Wednesday; so far only one non-pay-wall news feed has mentioned immigration and that piece didn't say anything about what if any information on immigration is to be presented. 

Personally I'm hoping 'they' are too busy putting out the IT/border queue/agents being pulled off gun&drug checks/etc fires to be in a position to put forward any new rules. But that's a hope, and likely in vain.

The MAC Report (scroll up, find the link, and read it. It's a long download, and a very long read) states that three or the four corporate partners whose input was sought for the report urged against any changes, with the solicitor group coming out and making the strongest statement against hiking up the maintenance fees. The one partner that did mildly encourage a rise indicated it felt a minimal rise might be warranted. Might. 

But the criteria for the report was such that the MAC Report ended with some rather draconian recommendations. 

My husband (as stated earlier on the thread) has gone back to work to make sure his income exceeds the recommended amount by a comfortable margin. We aren't spending any money-we'd planned a driving holiday of Scotland and down the East Coast around to Devon, and have put that on hold. 

And I spend a whoooooooooooole lot of time reading news feeds, here, and the UKBA pages for any hints. Sigh. In so doing I stumbled on the interesting news that Australia is likewise proposing some serious changes to their rules!


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> Just hope you don't lose your job, you might not feel so lucky then!


THAT is something all of us 'sponsors' cling to!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> Not absolutely. The Lib Dems still have power to destabilise the Tories and initiate a call for no confidence. The government is more fragile than it seems.


They won't dare bring down the government. With their dwindling support, they will be decimated in a snap general election!


----------



## Kuya (Mar 28, 2012)

Joppa said:


> They won't dare bring down the government. With their dwindling support, they will be decimated in a snap general election!


I am thinking along similar lines, so far this has been a Tory government with Lib Dem appeasers who care more about their ministers salary than their principals!

I might be wrong, I hope I am. Though we shall see


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

And again there is precedence; Liberals have failed to put forth any great fight to policies at odds with the Liberal manifesto forced through by the Tory faction. Given that they allowed their popular education stance to fall (much to public display and mass demonstration), I can see easily how immigration policy (which the greater populace seem very keen to make tighter) will certainly slip through without a big fight.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

All the news coming out of UKBA is that the government will introduce changes in immigration rules for implementation by the summer (so June start most likely). How much of the suggestions and hints made by various bodies, including the government last year, will see the light of day is hard to predict, but I suspect the changes will be meaty with a real possibility of discouraging fresh immigration through family route.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> They won't dare bring down the government. With their dwindling support, they will be decimated in a snap general election!


That there is a possibility of them bringing down the government means there can be some change, and it's not about daring but leverage. The result will be the same for them in either case--Tories out. 

Sorry Joppa, I beg to differ and we'll have to leave it at that.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

2farapart said:


> And again there is precedence; Liberals have failed to put forth any great fight to policies at odds with the Liberal manifesto forced through by the Tory faction. Given that they allowed their popular education stance to fall (much to public display and mass demonstration), I can see easily how immigration policy (which the greater populace seem very keen to make tighter) will certainly slip through without a big fight.


Cheer up, maybe it'll rain for the next two months, delay any and all changes, and Damian Green can blame it on the weather!:focus:

More trouble everyday: http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-05-07/uk/uk-immigration-staff-expected-to-strike-on-10-may.htm


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> That there is a possibility of them bringing down the government means there can be some change, and it's not about daring but leverage. The result will be the same for them in either case--Tories out.
> 
> Sorry Joppa, I beg to differ and we'll have to leave it at that.


The coalition agreement states that neither will force a vote of confidence and next election will be in April 2015.

Yes, any early or snap election will bring Labour in with a big majority, and Lib Dems won't be holding the balance of power and their political base will further sink into the molass of non-entity and irrelevance. It will simply be an act of political suicide. They are hoping against hope that by the time next election comes around, the coalition economic policy will begin to show some positive gains, leading to a reversal of fortune at the polls.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> The coalition agreement states that neither will force a vote of confidence and next election will be in April 2015.
> 
> Yes, any early or snap election will bring Labour in with a big majority, and Lib Dems won't be holding the balance of power and their political base will further sink into the molass of non-entity and irrelevance. It will simply be an act of political suicide. They are hoping against hope that by the time next election comes around, the coalition economic policy will begin to show some positive gains, leading to a reversal of fortune at the polls.


The DPM could resign and explain his reason for doing so. His party would follow, create a vacuum which could lead to the PM calling a snap election. If it backfires, which it might well do in the current economic and political climate (in the EEC and local communities in the UK as well), the DPM's departure will indirectly bring this mess about. And nothing would be done by design, coalition agreement intact. Yes, you're right that this would obliterate whatever is left of the LibDems' base, but it would be an effective way to overturn what now is quite dramatically.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I think we are drifting away from the main issue of changes to family migration route. Any further political posting will have to be deleted.


----------



## fergie (Oct 4, 2010)

apples333 said:


> Excellent thread with some very good information and input by many.
> 
> I for one in a way am for this rule to come in as I have seen many people from Pakistan and India come to this country and obtain status and then go on to claim benefits and use the people and this country for their own benefit. This is only my opinion and what I have seen and experienced and I am not saying that everyone who comes over here is like that....but can understand why this government wants to crack down hard on this matter.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely correct, and I am glad this government has the guts, and is the first to tackle this growing problem, and population! There are people just expecting to come to the Uk to join other extended members of family who have no ties to the Uk at all, many come from Africa as well as India and Pakistan. There are many people from outside of the EEU who arrange sham marriages not just to Uk citizens, but to European citizens in an attempt to come to the Uk and settle to claim benefits they have never contributed to, and a free health care service, which they wouldn't be able to do in the rest of the European countries,
it is simple in the rest of Europe--no contributions to tax = no social security benefits or healthcare at all, no matter how many kids they have. Even European immigrants living in another European country who have been living and doing some work there, if they haven't made enough contributions to that countries tax, and become unemployed will only get that countries benefits for a limited time sometimes months only, then nothing.
Hopefully these new rules will thoroughly means test these who try the sham marriage line, to make sure it isn't a marriage of convenience, many Africans buy their EEU bride, then divorce them once they have entry to Uk, and hopefully also put off illegal immigrants and those from third world countries setting up camp in Uk when they realise they will not qualify for free benefits and housing. They may finally realise the grass is only greener in Uk because there is so much rain.
I have no problem with any person of any nationality, who comes to Uk with a permanent job waiting, or has the means to support themselves entirely, or has lived here for many years as a law abiding citizen and can speak the language, also those who have married a Brit and have contributed to the system then retired. Some immigrants do not want to integrate or learn the language, or acknowledge the religion of this country and respect it, without imposing their more radical views. 
Uk is in recession, and so is many parts of Europe, Unemployment is high in Uk, and 3 times higher in Spain, Uk cannot afford to allow 'willy nilly' immigration anymore as many previous Labour governments have, as it has been too soft in the past, even to illegal immigrants who have been allowed to settle, and many still claim all the benefits they can--Abu Qatarda and his large family are just one example, there are lots not necessarily of the same nationality who do just the same, costing the tax payer millions.
many of you writing in this section of the forum are westerners with very similar values in life to Uk, and if you watch the news in Uk and Europe must realise why the government has had to introduce tougher measures to stop the country going bankrupt, by accepting every waif and stray from 3rd world countries.
I'm a Brit pensioner living in Spain, soon they are bringing in a new means tested rule for medicine prescription, at least 10% and possibly more will be paid towards the cost of medication. I'm happy with that, I chose to live here, we have extra private H/care insurance so we are never a drain on our host country, although technically because it is EEU which has a reciprocal agreement for Uk pensioners who have paid Tax all their life,we would be entitled to their healthcare if we wanted, but we don't expect it!.
We integrate and learn the language, but then it is easier because we are of a similar culture, and respect the country we live in and their customs.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

What I am having trouble understanding is how the non-EU/EEA national can marry into the UK and go on any sort of benefits at all. 

My probationary visa (27 months) is very clear-"NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS". I have heard that once the probationary visa graduates to the ILR that changes, but I have read a lot of comments here and on news feed comments sections that people come over on the probationary and go straight onto a public fund benefit. How can that happen?

I can well understand the relief the State would experience if the probationary period were to be extended to 5 years. I could well understand revising the terms of the ILR to restrict the potential for drawing on public funds. I could easily understand quotas on just how many people of any visa category are permitted in because this is an island and resources are finite. I have to say sometimes I do think there is a tipping point and once reached the boat is going to swamp.

What I can't understand, though, is the amount of maintenance funds and the way they are proposing to eliminate savings, and the incomer's assets from consideration. How in the heck does that work?! 

This has been said before in this thread, but it really is mind boggling to think the financial criteria is going to be based strictly on the sponsor's income without any consideration of savings. What. If. The. Sponsor. Loses. Their. Job??!!

The many variables are not being considered in this drive to drastically cut immigration, and that worries me. My husband has gone back to work after retiring two years ago to be sure his income alone meets the funds amount the proposals recommend. But what about those unable to do so because they're just starting out in life? 

How are they going to enforce this, too, if it passes, when they can't even muster up enough border agents without pulling them off of guns&drugs checks? When the IT system keeps crashing? When the hideously expensive IRIS had to be abandoned because they couldn't keep the equipment running? I could go on and on, unfortunately. 

Personally, having read the MAC Report, I think they are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Target the real offenders, not incomers who are here in honest intent. Absolutely, root out sham marriages, and get offenders out-why on earth are there so few deportations??!!


----------



## BandJ (Apr 20, 2012)

Is the UKBA happy to have that happen for many genuine cases - and in my case, put me in the position of turning my back on my kids too? 

Also, if we do to scrape the funds together for the visa in time to beat the June deadline and there is any kind of problem with it (ie, it gets rejected), we'll face a huge task to raise funds to go the other direction. 

Anyone have updates on this?









AnAmericanInScotland said:


> ETA: I feel at least 99.9% of us here on this forum who are on the marriage visas are in genuine relationships-if for some reason an extension and subsequent ILR is denied, does the UKBA have any idea how many spouses would turn their backs on the UK? My husband loves the UK and Scotland-has previously never shown any interest in visits to the US, lol, much less emigrating. Well, this morning my husband had me researching emigrating to the US-if my visa is denied we'll be going back to the States. What else can a real spouse do?


----------



## ALKB (Jan 20, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> ETA: I feel at least 99.9% of us here on this forum who are on the marriage visas are in genuine relationships-if for some reason an extension and subsequent ILR is denied, does the UKBA have any idea how many spouses would turn their backs on the UK? My husband loves the UK and Scotland-has previously never shown any interest in visits to the US, lol, much less emigrating. Well, this morning my husband had me researching emigrating to the US-if my visa is denied we'll be going back to the States. What else can a real spouse do?


That´s probably exactly what they are trying to test, here. The proposed changes are quite obviously geared towards the subcontinent and Africa, only they can´t spell it out like that, can they?

My husband is originally from Pakistan and was the first in his family not to have an arranged marriage. While he was not exactly thrown out of the family, they withdrew their moral support because of his marriage to me for years and years.

My brother-in-law recently got married to a British Pakistani girl whom he had never met before. Now, this is not a sham marriage, he would not have met a Pakistan-based bride, either. That his wife has a British passport is a bonus and pretty much the main reason for marrying her.

He will move to England without any transferable skills and having lived in the same household for a while, I doubt that it will be easy for him to adapt to life in England. 

They seem to like each other well enough after spending two or three weeks together after getting married. At least they don´t hate each other.

But as to 'What else can a real spouse do?'... Would she move to Pakistan to live with him if he can´t get a visa? I doubt it since she rejected a proposal that would have involved her moving to Pakistan before my in-laws approached her family.

So, from what I can see, this is all to discourage arranged marriages to people who will drown in culture shock upon arrival, which I can relate to, as I have seen family life behind closed doors and living with somebody you don´t know and can´t relate to in daily life is no walk in the park. Americans, Australians and other 'western' non-EU spouses are not really the target but will get caught up in the rules anyhow.


----------



## lovestravel (Apr 9, 2012)

I am new to all this and much of what is being discussed I have no idea what it means. BUT- I have poked around a bit & I was unable to find the details about what is changing. Is that correct? I found information that the tier 2 maintenance requirements are changing but not the details. My husband is applying for tier 2 intra-company transfer with his company sponsoring both our visas and I also think they are an a-rated sponsor. I am fairly certain we would qualify for the maintenance requirement even after the changes but since the amount has not been announced we can't be sure. Should we try to get our applications in before June 13 just to be safe?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

lovestravel said:


> I am new to all this and much of what is being discussed I have no idea what it means. BUT- I have poked around a bit & I was unable to find the details about what is changing. Is that correct? I found information that the tier 2 maintenance requirements are changing but not the details. My husband is applying for tier 2 intra-company transfer with his company sponsoring both our visas and I also think they are an a-rated sponsor. I am fairly certain we would qualify for the maintenance requirement even after the changes but since the amount has not been announced we can't be sure. Should we try to get our applications in before June 13 just to be safe?


The changes to the visa that your husband's company is sponsoring have already occurred. Your visas are probably 'in the bag' because the offer from his company came after those changes were announced and implemented, and the reasonable presumption is that the company knows and has adjusted your husband's contract to meet the new Tier2 requirements. Additionally, iirc, the changes to the Tier2 (and other work related visas) were primarily focussed on settlement, not temporary (under five years) assignments to the UK. 

What we're talking about here are changes that have been proposed to the criteria non-EU/EEA nationals family migration route visas, commonly known as 'spouse/civil-same sex/unmarried/fiancee/family member (whew, that was a mouthful!). The first post in this thread has a link to a letter between two government officials leaked to The Telegraph, referring to some frankly draconian measures to curb family route immigration and settlement. The title of this thread, "£25,700..." refers to the minimum earned income the sponsor (the UKC or settled person) must have to admit one person-spouse/civil-same sex, etc, from a non-EU/EEA country. 

Savings of sponsor, savings and income of the non-EU/EEA applicant, potential for earnings, third party sponsors (relatives or friends) would not be considered under the recommendations proposed by the MAC Report (also a link in this thread); wiser heads have said that MAC Report recommendations are usually implemented.

So we are, those of us on family route migration visas from non-EU/EEA countries, just a leeeeeeeeeeeeeetle bit nervous, anxious, worried out of our minds about this. 

We're waiting to hear something, thought we'd hear in April but the leaks and asides in government speeches, memos, interviews, indicate something will be announced soon to be implemented by/in June 2012.

ETA: All of this is speculation, though-it's not official until an official announcement and date for implementation is announced. ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHD, it's nerve-wracking!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

There may be something in Wednesday's Queen's Speech, but even if nothing is said, it doesn't mean there will be no changes. Change in immigration rule only needs to be laid before the parliament, and no debate, voting or royal assent is needed for it to take effect. Only actual changes in immigration law have to be debated and passed, and a hike in maintenance requirement and what is admissible is just a change of details.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> There may be something in Wednesday's Queen's Speech, but even if nothing is said, it doesn't mean there will be no changes. Change in immigration rule only needs to be laid before the parliament, and no debate, voting or royal assent is needed for it to take effect. Only actual changes in immigration law have to be debated and passed, and a hike in maintenance requirement and what is admissible is just a change of details.


While I intend to watch the televised speech (scheduled for 1130hrsBST), I don't think there will be anything said about the changes because as you point out in your post, the proposed changes are details changes, not changes in the law. I think if they mention immigration at all it will be about keeping 'asylum abusers' out and deporting more people.

I do feel stretched way out of shape, waiting for the other shoe to drop on the proposed changes, and I'm sure everyone in the same immigration status feels the same. It's a constant anxiety just under the surface that bumps up to the top daily-very stressful!

That's why I'm so grateful to have the forum, it's a help to be able to talk with people going through the same thing.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

And that's a wrap on The Queen's Speech. The only mention of immigration was oblique and referred to strengthening the border. BBC has live coverage up now, and word for word posting of what Her Majesty said.


----------



## Kuya (Mar 28, 2012)

After careful consideration, I have decided against going through the EEA route should the Government introduce £25,700.00 as a minimum salary for a sponsor. Later this year I will be applying with my wife for a spouse visa, I earn just under £18,000 whilst not an amazing sum of money, I can support my wife. As I already do...

If we fail due to this increase, before I move to another country to follow the Surinder Singh ruling. I will be taking this to court and challenging this change of the rules. And I would suggest any other applicants to do the same.

I've not had a break in employment for 12 years now, why should I be forced out of a job and out of this country because a politician wants to push through some ill conceived idea?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> And that's a wrap on The Queen's Speech. The only mention of immigration was oblique and referred to strengthening the border. BBC has live coverage up now, and word for word posting of what Her Majesty said.


'Strengthening the border' is Home Office speak for tightening immigration rules, among other things, so it would include raising maintenance requirement and other rumoured proposals. But nothing is certain until announcement is made, so we are no wiser!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Kuya said:


> If we fail due to this increase, before I move to another country to follow the Surinder Singh ruling. I will be taking this to court and challenging this change of the rules. And I would suggest any other applicants to do the same.


The government is anticipating series of law suits and is changing the law to limit the UK court's ability to interfere with immigration decisions.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

Joppa said:


> The government is anticipating series of law suits and is changing the law to limit the UK court's ability to interfere with immigration decisions.


For people in same-sex relationships, the consequences are especially dire if not able to meet the conditions under the rumoured changes. Many countries simply don't recognise civil unions as valid marriages and so it would not be possible to return with our non-UK spouses to their country instead. Wondering if this might ultimately be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights? I know that I would not qualify for any US visa (gay marriages are not federally recognised and so I could not enter the US on this basis) and we'd have nowhere else to go where we could both be accepted. Not that this is the UK government's problem especially - just seems massively unfair.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

2farapart said:


> For people in same-sex relationships, the consequences are especially dire if not able to meet the conditions under the rumoured changes. Many countries simply don't recognise civil unions as valid marriages and so it would not be possible to return with our non-UK spouses to their country instead. Wondering if this might ultimately be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights? I know that I would not qualify for any US visa (gay marriages are not federally recognised and so I could not enter the US on this basis) and we'd have nowhere else to go where we could both be accepted. Not that this is the UK government's problem especially - just seems massively unfair.


ECHR has already said that same-sex union is a matter for each country to decide and legislate on, so no.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

Well, that blows  So this is license for the UK to say 'too bad - you might be married/cp'd here but you'll just have to split up or live 4000 miles apart' (because that would be the only option). Unbelievable!

Let's hope something more pressing and demanding occupies the government for a long while (like whether or not to tax pasties)...


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

2farapart said:


> Well, that blows  So this is license for the UK to say 'too bad - you might be married/cp'd here but you'll just have to split up or live 4000 miles apart' (because that would be the only option). Unbelievable!
> 
> Let's hope something more pressing and demanding occupies the government for a long while (like whether or not to tax pasties)...


You just have to meet the new maintenance requirement, whatever it is.
The government is determined to reduce immigration, and only a robust measure is likely to achieve results.


----------



## ALKB (Jan 20, 2012)

2farapart said:


> Well, that blows  So this is license for the UK to say 'too bad - you might be married/cp'd here but you'll just have to split up or live 4000 miles apart' (because that would be the only option). Unbelievable!
> 
> Let's hope something more pressing and demanding occupies the government for a long while (like whether or not to tax pasties)...


Friends of mine - both in the US right now - are looking into going to Ireland, Malta or any other EU country that will give them a job for a year or longer and then possibly go the EEA family permit route, since the UK partner could not stay in the US on the basis of a same sex relationship.

I guess it´s a bit easier for them because they were planning to move wherever they will get a job after uni anyhow.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> I think we are drifting away from the main issue of changes to family migration route. Any further political posting will have to be deleted.


Right, sorry.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

:bump:

Followers on this thread may find this report interesting. It was written by the UKBA in July 2011, before the MAC Report of Nov 2011:

UK Border Agency | Family migration

Scroll down to the pdf link for the family migration consultation (now closed for feedback). I'm on page 26 of 77.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

Interesting reading! It's clear to see where the recommendations have originated, and reasons why. It's very clear that the target of the proposals is pointed squarely at stamping out sham and forced marriages together with the pull on public funds and the measures being proposed seem to be bringing the UK more in line with other countries (although the sponsor earning threshold being proposed is a fair bit higher).


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

There is an interesting interview with the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, in today's Times (it's not available online - subscription only). No great revelations, but he just confirms what we have suspected. Some relevant extracts:

* The coalition government has pledged to reduce immigration from 240,000 to tens of thousands by 2015. It's still an achievable goal.
* Bans on the right of appeal for visitor visas. Coming in June is the stipulation that only those visiting close family member will be allowed to appeal, and from 2014, nobody.
* Announcement 'shortly' of changes that will make it more difficult for people to claim the right to a family life.
* Determined to reduce the number of immigrants who can bring their families to live in Britain. A UK husband will have to prove a minimum income before being allowed to bring in their foreign bride.
* Tougher English language requirement to promote integration.
* Making it more difficult to bring in elderly relatives, to reduce demand on NHS and other services.
* British business must reduce dependency on foreign workers. 

So it seems certain that announcement is imminent, maybe as early as next week.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Joppa said:


> There is an interesting interview with the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, in today's Times (it's not available online - subscription only). No great revelations, but he just confirms what we have suspected. Some relevant extracts:
> 
> * The coalition government has pledged to reduce immigration from 240,000 to tens of thousands by 2015. It's still an achievable goal.
> * Bans on the right of appeal for visitor visas. Coming in June is the stipulation that only those visiting close family member will be allowed to appeal, and from 2014, nobody.
> ...


Thanks for the updated information on this Joppa. 

My wife and I are both now in the UK (took a few days by QM2) feeling kinda boat-lagged as I got sick in the last couple of days of the trip  But overall great...
now we have all the appointments booked more specifically LITUK and then after two days gap ILR.

We will do this all within May...just hope UKBA will not enforce rules early that are to be implemented supposedly from June.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

manny.j said:


> Thanks for the updated information on this Joppa.
> 
> My wife and I are both now in the UK (took a few days by QM2) feeling kinda boat-lagged as I got sick in the last couple of days of the trip  But overall great...
> now we have all the appointments booked more specifically LITUK and then after two days gap ILR.
> ...


I think you'll be 99.99% fine.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

This has been published on the UKBA news pages in the last few hours, it mentions other changes to the family migration route will be announced 'in due course':

UK Border Agency | Removing full right of appeal for family visitors


----------



## Mervinia N (Aug 28, 2011)

Looks like those of us waiting for the new rules will be out of our misery (or even more firmly in it!) very shortly *bites fingernails, what's left of them anyway*


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

One thing I can't figure out is how the five year version of the probationary period works against the three year residency requirement of becoming a citizen.

For example, I'm a year into the 27 month probationary period; at 24 months under the current rules I am able to apply for the ILR, and then (as near as I can figure, which is another reason why I'm bringing it up) after another 12 months I will be at three years residency in the UK, and able to apply for British citizenship.

So if the rules change, and I (and others like me, timing wise) have to apply for FLR to extend my probationary visa out to the proposed five years (wait, didn't I retire from having to write bureaucratese, lol), can I still apply for citizenship once I've reached three years living in the UK? While I would still be on the probationary five years under the proposed rules?

My head hurts (jk, but sorta not)


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> One thing I can't figure out is how the five year version of the probationary period works against the three year residency requirement of becoming a citizen.
> 
> For example, I'm a year into the 27 month probationary period; at 24 months under the current rules I am able to apply for the ILR, and then (as near as I can figure, which is another reason why I'm bringing it up) after another 12 months I will be at three years residency in the UK, and able to apply for British citizenship.
> 
> So if the rules change, and I (and others like me, timing wise) have to apply for FLR to extend my probationary visa out to the proposed five years (wait, didn't I retire from having to write bureaucratese, lol), can I still apply for citizenship once I've reached three years living in the UK? While I would still be on the probationary five years under the proposed rules?


What will happen simply is that effectively the 3-year residential requirement for naturalisation of those married to a British citizen becomes 5 years. One of the pre-requisites of naturalisation is you have ILR (settled) status. You will still be better off than those not married to a citizen because while they need to be on ILR stuatus for a year, you can apply as soon as settlement is achieved.

This assumes that 5 years to settlement will affect those who are already on probationary period. In the past, Home Office have done both. Sometimes they allowed those who were already in UK to continue under existing rules, at other times everyone got caught and some had to extend their leave before being able to apply for settlement.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> What will happen simply is that effectively the 3-year residential requirement for naturalisation of those married to a British citizen becomes 5 years. One of the pre-requisites of naturalisation is you have ILR (settled) status. You will still be better off than those not married to a citizen because while they need to be on ILR stuatus for a year, you can apply as soon as settlement is achieved.
> 
> This assumes that 5 years to settlement will affect those who are already on probationary period. In the past, Home Office have done both. Sometimes they allowed those who were already in UK to continue under existing rules, at other times everyone got caught and some had to extend their leave before being able to apply for settlement.


Well, that's something of a 'whew', thank-you

I read something in the UKBA Family Migration July 2011 consultation about extending that probationary period for those in the middle of their probationary period-that UKBA is still discussing how to deal with it. They don't seem to have decided at the time of publishing that consultation if they will have people apply for FLRs to extend or not. 

Very interesting read, lol, my husband is making it difficult though-he wants me to work at learning to read pdf material without printing it out, and I'm going just a little crackers trying to make notes on a word.doc or a physical piece of paper. I should invest in the software that permits writing notes on pdf material, I really should!


----------



## Zama (Apr 23, 2012)

Joppa said:


> There is an interesting interview with the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, in today's Times (it's not available online - subscription only). No great revelations, but he just confirms what we have suspected. Some relevant extracts:
> 
> * The coalition government has pledged to reduce immigration from 240,000 to tens of thousands by 2015. It's still an achievable goal.
> * Bans on the right of appeal for visitor visas. Coming in June is the stipulation that only those visiting close family member will be allowed to appeal, and from 2014, nobody.
> ...


Joppa and others, any thoughts for how much they are going to increase English language requirements? 
As I understand the current acceptable level is B1 which is equivalent to IELTS band 4. Are they going to make it B2 or C1? 
It is kind of worrying, as I have just sat my IELTS test and I estimate my score would be 6.5 and I really doubt it will reach 7  
I feel gutted as it was not the easiest examination and this news did not help at all. 
We are thinking to apply for fiance visa this summer, possibly July, what are the chances that the new rules will come to effect that time? 

Thanks in advance for your reply!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Zama said:


> Joppa and others, any thoughts for how much they are going to increase English language requirements?
> As I understand the current acceptable level is B1 which is equivalent to IELTS band 4. Are they going to make it B2 or C1?
> It is kind of worrying, as I have just sat my IELTS test and I estimate my score would be 6.5 and I really doubt it will reach 7
> I feel gutted as it was not the easiest examination and this news did not help at all.
> We are thinking to apply for fiance visa this summer, possibly July, what are the chances that the new rules will come to effect that time?


We don't know yet, though the leaked letter said the level will be raised but didn't say by how much.
All indications are that the new rules will come sometime in June but it's just a speculation, and not all parts of the change may be introduced at the same time, a bit like the Budget!


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Thanks AnAmericanInScotland for the link on UKBA website.

Reading this relatively brief article completely, there is no doubt Govt is determined to reduce immigration via Non-EU family route. But the heading for this one appears to be targeting family visitors who had their visa issue turned down. This most likely affects citizens of countries who have to apply for visitor visa to meet their relative in the UK and not likes of USA and Canada where visitor visa is stamped at the airport immigration.

One thing does seem confirmed from this article is instead of changing the family immigration rules in June 2012, like we were expecting earlier, they will only be announced in June for changes to be implemented in July 2012. But they have kept the wordings, like many previous instances, vague as the term family in this article is focused on family relatives and not spouse visa, which for many on this forum is the biggest concern of all kinds of family visas.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

manny.j said:


> Thanks AnAmericanInScotland for the link on UKBA website.
> 
> Reading this relatively brief article completely, there is no doubt Govt is determined to reduce immigration via Non-EU family route. But the heading for this one appears to be targeting family visitors who had their visa issue turned down. This most likely affects citizens of countries who have to apply for visitor visa to meet their relative in the UK and not likes of USA and Canada where visitor visa is stamped at the airport immigration.
> 
> One thing does seem confirmed from this article is instead of changing the family immigration rules in June 2012, like we were expecting earlier, they will only be announced in June for changes to be implemented in July 2012. But they have kept the wordings, like many previous instances, vague as the term family in this article is focused on family relatives and not spouse visa, which for many on this forum is the biggest concern of all kinds of family visas.


Don't read too much into those differences in nuance between statements and press releases. 
We shall soon find out.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

manny.j said:


> Thanks AnAmericanInScotland for the link on UKBA website.
> 
> Reading this relatively brief article completely, there is no doubt Govt is determined to reduce immigration via Non-EU family route. But the heading for this one appears to be targeting family visitors who had their visa issue turned down. This most likely affects citizens of countries who have to apply for visitor visa to meet their relative in the UK and not likes of USA and Canada where visitor visa is stamped at the airport immigration.
> 
> One thing does seem confirmed from this article is instead of changing the family immigration rules in June 2012, like we were expecting earlier, they will only be announced in June for changes to be implemented in July 2012. But they have kept the wordings, like many previous instances, vague as the term family in this article is focused on family relatives and not spouse visa, which for many on this forum is the biggest concern of all kinds of family visas.


To me, the whole piece on the UKBA today was strictly about the appeals process for visitor visa refusals. The only thing that could remotely be connected to the family migration route was the bit at the very end-that changes to the family route would be announced in due course. 

I've finished reading the consultation paper; the information and reasoning behind a lot of the changes are actually quite reasonable, I wish I'd read the consultation before reading the MAC report.

Maybe not. That proposed maintenance amount is incredible. 

All we can do is wait, try to stay calm, and prop each other up as we wait.

ETA: I did note that the proposed changes to the family route will have to have parliamentary approval, that was interesting-leaves room for debate and possible lower income requirements?


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Don't read too much into those differences in nuance between statements and press releases.
> We shall soon find out.


I know I am being selfish here but I much rather hope they release any proposed changes after my wife gets her ILR by end of May  This just reflects our concern we are going through and I am sure many others in similar situation with spouse settlement visa. This is even though we feel my wife should have no predictable hassle under the current rules.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

manny.j said:


> I know I am being selfish here but I much rather hope they release any proposed changes after my wife gets her ILR by end of May  This just reflects our concern we are going through and I am sure many others in similar situation with spouse settlement visa. This is even though we feel my wife should have no predictable hassle under the current rules.


I think its wisest to follow the advice that Joppa and an American in Scotland have given: don't worry and sit tight and wait. You're wife's situation is better than most--all she has to do is pass the life in the UK test, which is massively easy! And if she doesn't pass at first, she can sit it again until she does, there's no limit. In fact, you can buy the software online to download now if you haven't yet, so she can begin preparing now. Here's the website:

Life in the UK Test website

Just get your papers in, have her start studying to sit the test and stop worrying as you'll make yourself ill over it. I think you'll both start feeling better as you go over the material and see how straightforward it is. Get on with it ad do well!:clap2:


----------



## dr1 (Feb 6, 2012)

I'll be applying for my ILR in 2014...under the proposed 5 year rules...does that mean me and my partner will have to apply for another FLR at the end of the probationary period?


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

dr1 said:


> I'll be applying for my ILR in 2014...under the proposed 5 year rules...does that mean me and my partner will have to apply for another FLR at the end of the probationary period?


Unfortunately, we don't know yet. It's very possible that will happen, but no-one will know until the proposed changes are actually announced. Would be lovely if they decided to allow all existing visas to remain on their current course, but I suspect they won't do that (it would probably be easier to make a blanket requirement for ILR a 5-year probation period - and raise much needed funds from those of us who would then have to apply for further extensions.


----------



## modbrain (May 16, 2012)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Well, this morning my husband had me researching emigrating to the US-if my visa is denied we'll be going back to the States.


Oh my goodness. When did you apply for the marriage visa?
I think I'll pay for the expedited service.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

modbrain said:


> Oh my goodness. When did you apply for the marriage visa?
> I think I'll pay for the expedited service.


I was granted the probationary 27 month visa in early June 2011 and have been back in the UK since a few days after the visa was granted. I'm hoping to apply for the ILR in May 2013-if possible because there is every possibility if all of the proposed changes are implemented that I will instead have to apply for the FLR(M) to extend the probationary visa to five years. Sigh. 

After looking into going to the US (something my very Scottish husband did not really want to do) we decided he would come out of retirement and find work that will meet/exceed the £25.700 proposed minimum-just in case. He did find work, it does meet the proposed new minimum.

And yes, the expedited service is a very good idea for at least two reasons-one that you will be spared a prolonged wait for a determination, and two that you might beat any changes being implemented with immediate affect that might hurt your application success potential.

Time really is of the essence with this set of proposed changes hanging over the heads of all those of us on the family migration route.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> After looking into going to the US (something my very Scottish husband did not really want to do) we decided he would come out of retirement and find work that will meet/exceed the £25.700 proposed minimum-just in case. He did find work, it does meet the proposed new minimum.


Oh fantastic! I've been thinking about you since all this started (and how many others potentially in the same predicament). This must be a great relief! Congratulations to him.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

2farapart said:


> Oh fantastic! I've been thinking about you since all this started (and how many others potentially in the same predicament). This must be a great relief! Congratulations to him.


Thank-you Of course, at first he was not especially thrilled-he was well entrenched in his retired guy routine, lol! Truth is though that he really was too young to hang out on the golf course and in his study and it was really beginning to show

All the jokes about retired husbands? Based on truth


----------



## lazarusnine (May 20, 2012)

I'm in a similar situation to many. I recently received my 2-year spousal visa, but fear that I'll be forced to apply for an extension under new rules. My wife will begin her Masters soon and hopes to continue toward her PhD, which will mean she will not be in a position to earn enough for sponsoring me. I'm also a PhD student, but my future income is meaningless under the proposed changes.

It's quite obvious that these proposals are highly discriminatory, but while there is no protection against discrimination based on income, there might be a case to be made regarding age discrimination. Many of the people affected by this legislation will be young couples or those close to (or currently in) retirement. This is the tentpole subject we should really be focusing on, because it is the one that we might actually be able to make a case for either at the UK level or (if it came to it) in the EU courts. It is very likely this government has not conducted an equality impact assessment and we should really be focusing on ways in which we can pick it apart. A handful of standout cases could really turn the tide, even after the legislation is implemented. I'm not an optimist generally, but I also don't think we should sit here and accept the 'fate' the Home Office would subject us to. There's no reason my wife should be forced to decide between me and her parents/siblings/academic future/home country.

Good luck to all, and don't stop contacting your MPs and raising awareness in any way you can.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

lazarusnine said:


> I'm in a similar situation to many. I recently received my 2-year spousal visa, but fear that I'll be forced to apply for an extension under new rules. My wife will begin her Masters soon and hopes to continue toward her PhD, which will mean she will not be in a position to earn enough for sponsoring me. I'm also a PhD student, but my future income is meaningless under the proposed changes.
> 
> It's quite obvious that these proposals are highly discriminatory, but while there is no protection against discrimination based on income, there might be a case to be made regarding age discrimination. Many of the people affected by this legislation will be young couples or those close to (or currently in) retirement. This is the tentpole subject we should really be focusing on, because it is the one that we might actually be able to make a case for either at the UK level or (if it came to it) in the EU courts. It is very likely this government has not conducted an equality impact assessment and we should really be focusing on ways in which we can pick it apart. A handful of standout cases could really turn the tide, even after the legislation is implemented. I'm not an optimist generally, but I also don't think we should sit here and accept the 'fate' the Home Office would subject us to. There's no reason my wife should be forced to decide between me and her parents/siblings/academic future/home country.
> 
> Good luck to all, and don't stop contacting your MPs and raising awareness in any way you can.


Good points. But:
1) Yes, government will have conducted impact assessment on equality and any other relevant factors before proposals are announced and implemented. They always do. Hence the delay?
2) The government is forestalling wholescale court actions by limiting the UK court's jurisdiction over immigration decisions, esp on human rights grounds. And without first going through UK courts, there is no appeal to European court. It will still be open to challenge in high court this curtailment in jurisdiction, but I'm sure the govrernment has thought through it and has robust defence in readiness.
3) All this, and the rest, is pure speculation. We just have to wait and see.


----------



## lazarusnine (May 20, 2012)

Joppa said:


> Good points. But:
> 1) Yes, government will have conducted impact assessment on equality and any other relevant factors before proposals are announced and implemented. They always do. Hence the delay?
> 2) The government is forestalling wholescale court actions by limiting the UK court's jurisdiction over immigration decisions, esp on human rights grounds. And without first going through UK courts, there is no appeal to European court. It will still be open to challenge in high court this curtailment in jurisdiction, but I'm sure the govrernment has thought through it and has robust defence in readiness.
> 3) All this, and the rest, is pure speculation. We just have to wait and see.


Excellent points. Though you'd be surprised how often this government doesn't conduct impact assessments. It's doubtful, for instance, that any were carried out when G4S was selected to house asylum seekers in Yorkshire. I do research in this area and the absences of these considerations are striking. However, try as they might, this government has been unable to extract itself from things like Article 8 of ECHR. One thing is for certain, a wait-and-see approach could cost us a lot.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

lazarusnine said:


> Excellent points. Though you'd be surprised how often this government doesn't conduct impact assessments. It's doubtful, for instance, that any were carried out when G4S was selected to house asylum seekers in Yorkshire. I do research in this area and the absences of these considerations are striking. However, try as they might, this government has been unable to extract itself from things like Article 8 of ECHR. One thing is for certain, a wait-and-see approach could cost us a lot.


I don't know what more we can do than we have done already-we've most of us read the MAC and the UKBA Family Migration July 2011 Consultation, and we've most of us contacted our MPs. 

What else is there? Threaten to take it to court? I'm sorry to sound flip, but lol, if we had the money for legal procedures we'd have the money to meet the proposed income requirement changes...


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I don't know what more we can do than we have done already-we've most of us read the MAC and the UKBA Family Migration July 2011 Consultation, and we've most of us contacted our MPs.
> 
> What else is there? Threaten to take it to court? I'm sorry to sound flip, but lol, if we had the money for legal procedures we'd have the money to meet the proposed income requirement changes...


I think there is a lot of hot air being released over this. The fact is, none of us knows what the new rules are, and how they will affect people at different stages of immigration procedure. It's pointless to formulate a plan of action when we know, well, nothing!

I personally feel that every government has the right to limit immigration only to those who make a positive economic and cultural contribution. Aside from genuine refugees and others whom we are under international treaty obligation to help, those who are eventually going to settle in UK should have an income, combined with their UK sponsor, at least equal to the average earnings level, and not the bare minimum just to survive. People in that group are more likely to make full use of public services, to which British taxpayers have contributed over many years and continue to so. So basically I have no objection to the argument that future migrants should at least be neutral, and preferably net contributors through taxation and spending power to our prosperity and economic growth. This is also a view taken by Australia towards would-be immigrants. And while citizens have the right to marry or enter into partnership with anyone they wish, they should meet similar tests when bringing their spouse/partner to settle in UK. People should consider the implications for international romance before they commit themselves to a permanent union.


----------



## newlight1 (Feb 13, 2012)

These proposals would mean that UK citizens who claim benefit or have a disability will be effectively blocked from bringing their loved ones to live with them in their country of right. Minorities clearly would be affected. This would persecute the thousands of genuine law abiding UK citizens who have partners from outside the UK, many UK citizens will be victimized for having done nothing wrong other than fall in love with a person from a non EU country. Totally human rights violation. We live in a Global world with worldwide communication via internet, telephones, travel and the government can not expect that people will not fall in love with people from outside the EU. 

Please everyone, you must write a letter to your MP if this concerns you. All you have to do is write a concise, to the point email, find your MP via writetothem.com and send it to them. MPs work for us and this is the kind of thing they will represent you on.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

newlight1 said:


> These proposals would mean that UK citizens who claim benefit or have a disability will be effectively blocked from bringing their loved ones to live with them in their country of right. Minorities clearly would be affected. This would persecute the thousands of genuine law abiding UK citizens who have partners from outside the UK, many UK citizens will be victimized for having done nothing wrong other than fall in love with a person from a non EU country. Totally human rights violation. We live in a Global world with worldwide communication via internet, telephones, travel and the government can not expect that people will not fall in love with people from outside the EU.
> 
> Please everyone, you must write a letter to your MP if this concerns you. All you have to do is write a concise, to the point email, find your MP via writetothem.com and send it to them. MPs work for us and this is the kind of thing they will represent you on.


I disagree.
While every British citizen has the right to marry or enter into partnership with anyone they choose, they have a choice to go and live in their spouse/partner's country, subject to its immigration rules, and don't have automatic right to bring them into UK with full access to NHS and other public services, to which their partners have contributed nothing. 

We no longer live in a world with an open door policy to allow anyone, simply on the basis of marriage or partnership, to live and eventually settle in the country without considering the effects that will have on its economic and social welfare. Is it right that UK, in the middle of a damaging recession with stubbornly high levels of debt, continue to allow nearly 250,000 net immigrants, up 20% on 2010? Is it right that those migrants have full access to employment market, competing for a few jobs going with those born and brought up in this country, whose parents have paid taxes for years to build up and maintain our public services? Doesn't the society have the right to decide who should be allowed in, based on their financial resources and those of their UK sponsors?

British citizens and others settled here need to reflect on those issues if they choose as their permanent companion someone who is subject to immigration control.


----------



## newlight1 (Feb 13, 2012)

I also disagree with you. 
No one should be denied the right to live in their own country should they wish to their spouse or Fiancee. You can not simply decide "ohh I will fall in love with this person or hmm I choose not to fall in love with this person as this person is from outside of the EU and would be therefore subject to Immigration Control". 

Immigration controls are really not a natural feature of life. They appear to be timeless but they are relatively new. Britain had none at all till 1905. While I think there should be some of course, but they should be fair and humane which the proposals are not humane. 



> Is it right that UK, in the middle of a damaging recession with stubbornly high levels of debt, continue to allow nearly 250,000 net immigrants, up 20% on 2010?


Who is responsible for the recession? The poor? The Disabled? The working class?? of course we know the answer to that, so why should innocent people suffer due to the banks/government errors?


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa said:


> I disagree.
> While every British citizen has the right to marry or enter into partnership with anyone they choose, they have a choice to go and live in their spouse/partner's country, subject to its immigration rules, and don't have automatic right to bring them into UK with full access to NHS and other public services, to which their partners have contributed nothing.
> 
> We no longer live in a world with an open door policy to allow anyone, simply on the basis of marriage or partnership, to live and eventually settle in the country without considering the effects that will have on its economic and social welfare. Is it right that UK, in the middle of a damaging recession with stubbornly high levels of debt, continue to allow nearly 250,000 net immigrants, up 20% on 2010? Is it right that those migrants have full access to employment market, competing for a few jobs going with those born and brought up in this country, whose parents have paid taxes for years to build up and maintain our public services? Doesn't the society have the right to decide who should be allowed in, based on their financial resources and those of their UK sponsors?
> ...


I think all of these aspects that you list are necessary to consider not only for the future but for the immediate present as well. Much of what you list greatly concerns spouses granted Indefinite Leave to Enter w/LITUK endorsement--these can immediately access public funds and the like and in the worst cases, become burdens on the state while the rest must wait 2 years and contribute through taxes but without access to public funds. On further reflection, immediate settlement for spouses who have been married for more than 4 years outside of the UK is generous to the point of verging on mad, as this time does not absolutely guarantee that a marriage is genuine. What is equally important at the outset but more important for the future is that the spouse experience living in the UK with his or her partner for a time, not only to "test the marriage" but also to find a position, find schools for their children and become acclamated with life in the country; its customs and culture. Unless we're talking about one seeking refugee status to avoid persecution and even death, settlement through the spousal route should mean something more than moving house. It should be about nation building--and of course this takes forsight and sacrifice and many degrees of discomfort.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

newlight1 said:


> I also disagree with you.
> No one should be denied the right to live in their own country should they wish to their spouse or Fiancee. You can not simply decide "ohh I will fall in love with this person or hmm I choose not to fall in love with this person as this person is from outside of the EU and would be therefore subject to Immigration Control".
> 
> Immigration controls are really not a natural feature of life. They appear to be timeless but they are relatively new. Britain had none at all till 1905. While I think there should be some of course, but they should be fair and humane which the proposals are not humane.
> ...


Governmenet, ie. our elected representatives, have the right and duty to control who can come into the country on the basis of what is in the national interest. The government has said UK wants to attract the brightest and the best who make a real difference to our prosperity and cultural life. Even the ECHR acknowledges that governments have the right to regulate for financial and economic reasons. 

The fact we have recession and high unemployment means that there is strong public demand to curtail immigration and the government have pledged to reduce immigration from 250,000 to below 100,000 by 2015, which is backed by 80% of the electorates.


----------



## lalchicy (Mar 25, 2012)

lols. What if you're moving from a country that's also suffering from recession (a.k.a the US) into the UK?... I'm screwed either way tbh. Immigrate to the US, I'm still stuck having to deal with the fact that there are so many illegal immigrants coming to this country... move to the UK... it's all the same. It's fair enough you say oh well just move to the other person's country... but for me and many of the other people from the US/UK there's a ton of obstacles no matter what... you can say, well that's what you asked for when you went into a long distance relationship.. but that's kind of heartless is it not?... Darryl's one of the sweetest, kindest people I've ever met, So many American guys have treated me horribly but he actually treated me like I was his girlfriend.. not just his play thing.. which is why I agreed to marry him. I'd rather not have something as trivial as a visa in my way... Sure, Darryl and I will probably be ok... but with this projected 5 year probationary period, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't scared. For the moment he has a great job.. great salary.. but what happens should god forbid, his business go under... or he gets made redundant... I realize these are normal things that people not in the situation i'm in are going through, but unlike them, I could lose the chance to be with my husband... and maybe be separated from him for a while. Also, I'm hoping to have kids... but if I choose to have them within the 5 year probation period.. I choose to risk not getting my visa renewed because my husband doesn't make 60k/year... I'll be living a very restricted marriage... we're unable to do what we want due to the massive uncertainty... sure we kind of asked for it by moving countries... but that doesn't mean it's not going to hurt. I'm really terrified... You can use the excuse, well the UK is having to pay taxes for us to be there... but if I had the choice for them not to have to pay taxes for me to be there, I would take it... also considering the fact that most UK citizens don't have to pay the outrageous application fees and moving fees that I'll be paying and that you all have universal healthcare, when I'll have to pay to use the doctors and such.. which i'm not necessarily complaining about... but.. every country has their problems... When I go over I'll more than likely be working a desk job of some sort... and if I take it from another English person, it's because I was better suited for the job just as the English person in my country was better suited for the job... let's not forget that English people move around too. Letterman's been joking about it for years how English actors have been stealing acting roles from the Americans... I'm guessing they steal jobs from other Americans as well... So.. with that in mind.. if this gets passed.. I'll do what I can in order to keep myself afloat.. but I'd rather not have to have this to worry about... especially not when my husband's 27 and we both wanted to start having kids before he turns 30..


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Let's keep the tone of this discussion moderate and friendly. After all, we are well known for giving and receiving helpful advice. 

It's difficult to approach a loaded topic like immigration dispassionately and objectively, because most of us have a personal reason to be on this forum, either as would-be migrant, migrant already in UK or as sponsor. So we cannot help getting personal and feeling hurt when people seem to be attacking us.

It's always been difficult to hold a civilised discussion on immigration in UK because either you are labelled racist or bleeding-heart liberal. But it's an issue that won't go away, and a robust yet fair immigration policy is essential for economic, financial, social and humanitarian reasons.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

When my husband and I decided to live in the UK for the rest of our lives, we did so with the agreement that I would not try to find work-my work skills and qualifications while (she sez modestly) rather good are not ones on the shortage list and we did not want me to take a job from a British-born job candidate. I also have private health care which takes up quite a bit of my very modest pension. 

We live quietly, we live modestly. But it is sometimes a razors edge really, to be in the UK as an 'outlander', people assume things about those of us who come over from another country. I sometimes am guilty of giving 'TMI' because I am so anxious that people understand I present no burden to the State, that I am not now nor will I ever be a burden on the State, that I am only two generations out of Caithness-my father was the first in our family to be born and buried outside of Scotland in nearly a thousand years.

I think one of the hardest parts about deciding to live in Scotland with my husband as opposed to him living with me in America is that there is a very real anger towards immigrants, it's palpable at times. Having lived in countries where violence against immigrants has boiled over into rioting and attacks against expats, it's a little worrisome sometimes, I have to admit. I don't think anything like that could happen here, but I have some wicked bad memories of Guatemala. When I read the comments under some of the articles on the proposed changes, the vehemence and ignorance of the fact that most of us have no intention of ever accessing public funds is a reminder of those frightening scenes in Central America.

British born citizens have every right to be angry about unrestrained immigration. They have every right to expect their government to enact and enforce laws to curb the unrestrained immigration that is straining the UK resources. The UK is an island, and not a big one, it's less than 900 miles from end to end, for heaven sake. Most of us who are here from America come from states that are bigger than the whole UK put together. 

The abuses of British hospitality are shocking and I don't blame anyone for their feelings about unrestrained immigration, and the abuses. This island is too small to take in everyone, so those who come here MUST pay their own way, it's the only way this can work.

I think it is the responsibility of every expat immigrant to walk very carefully in our new communities, and that includes especially not becoming a burden on the State. We MUST contribute, we must provide for ourselves.

I just wish there was a way to get it across to people that most of us aren't here to be 'useless eaters', we're here to, as Joppa put it,


> ...make a positive economic and cultural contribution


Joppa is also right in saying this is a difficult, loaded topic to discuss. But I hope we find a way to do so, because I would love to know-would it help if I had a tee-shirt made saying "No Really, I'm Paying My Own Way, And My GrandParents Are Buried Here!"?


----------



## lalchicy (Mar 25, 2012)

1. Sorry for getting really passionate back there, but I did feel like what you said came off a bit insulting, Joppa. I understand you're basing this completely on facts and what you're saying is true... but I feel like more of the blame should be put on the companies who hire immigrants than the people who choose to apply for the job, but that's just my opinion on the matter. ^^" I am willing to pay the extra fees, but it almost feels like I'm a bit of an ant underneath a magnifying glass with these added regulations. Also worth noting is that I had absolutely no choice when my forefathers decided on becoming independent from England... just throwing that in there for good measure. 

2. And this is specifically to AnAmericanInScotland, I admire that you can be so modest. However, I'm not in the position to do the same. I'm not going to beat around the bush, I need a job. Whether it's in America or the UK or Japan, whatever. I'd feel really horrible if I had to rely on my husband for tuition payments. If I didn't have that + the visa payments and so forth, I'd consider perhaps just a part time job, but for the moment, I just could not do that. Thankfully, I have a really great family lined up in the UK who are willing to help me with this... if anyone does choose to mess with me though, I'm more than willing to either ignore them or give them the finger in response depending on my mood.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I'm closing this thread until definite announcement is made.


----------

