# Further News on Rules Change for Family Migration



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

There is a report in today's Sunday Times in which the immigration minister, Damian Green, is said to announce the first tranche of changes in immigration rules this week.

The announcement is expected to deal with migrants on points based system, of Tier 1 and Tier 2. He says that the government is going the reduce the number of immigrants coming into the country, and on Tier 1 and 2, while the 'brightest and the best' will be fast-tracked for a visa and eventual settlement, those who lack the skills to 'help drive economic growth' and contribute to UK's cultural and intellectual life will face greater scrutiny.

The second announcement, expected in 'a few months', will deal with family reunions, and for spouses, partners and fiancé(e)s, there will be a greater requirement to speak English and to have a household income up to £26,000 a year. 

So it looks as though the start of new rules for family members will be delayed, possibly to October or even next year, but as expected, the maintenance requirement will be vastly hiked up from £105.95 a week net after housing and council tax to £26k gross per year, or up to around double current levels, depending on the rent paid.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

Joppa said:


> There is a report in today's Sunday Times in which the immigration minister, Damian Green, is said to announce the first tranche of changes in immigration rules this week.
> 
> The announcement is expected to deal with migrants on points based system, of Tier 1 and Tier 2. He says that the government is going the reduce the number of immigrants coming into the country, and on Tier 1 and 2, while the 'brightest and the best' will be fast-tracked for a visa and eventual settlement, those who lack the skills to 'help drive economic growth' and contribute to UK's cultural and intellectual life will face greater scrutiny.
> 
> ...


I heard in the news articles about new immigration rules been proposed but was unclear on whether new rules for family members are delayed or not, as stated above. Is there any information on this or when it maybe released? 

I am asking so because, my wife already got her Entrance Clearance visa but, for family health problems here, we are considering delaying our travel for 6 months. We have been married for 4+ years with KOL REQ visa endorsement on her passport hence were hoping to apply for her ILR immediately after sitting LITUK test when we land there. Hence, any new rules on family immigration and how it may affect us is a concern for us in our current circumstances. We are hoping this delay would be a blessing for many in situation like ours etc.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

manny.j said:


> I heard in the news articles about new immigration rules been proposed but was unclear on whether new rules for family members are delayed or not, as stated above. Is there any information on this or when it maybe released?
> 
> I am asking so because, my wife already got her Entrance Clearance visa but, for family health problems here, we are considering delaying our travel for 6 months. We have been married for 4+ years with KOL REQ visa endorsement on her passport hence were hoping to apply for her ILR immediately after sitting LITUK test when we land there. Hence, any new rules on family immigration and how it may affect us is a concern for us in our current circumstances. We are hoping this delay would be a blessing for many in situation like ours etc.


We don't know yet. The Immigration Minister Damian Green said today that the government will *'soon' *be announcing *further changes to family migration* and reforms to settlement, breaking the link between temporary and permanent migration. It will also be completing its changes to eliminate abuse of the student visa route and is currently reviewing the annual limit on skilled economic migrants.
UK Border Agency | Making immigration work for Britain

It's unlikely that someone already holding a settlement visa with KOL REQ will be affected, so you can rest assured. Those who are on 2-year probationary period may not be so lucky, depending on the details. So we await with bated breath!


----------



## crazyyankee (Mar 9, 2011)

Yikes this is what I am afraid of.... just got my initial spouse visa in August so I still have a while before my ILR... income now is £28,800/yr hope this is acceptable... would be nice if they raise the income thresholds for family settlement they will bring the cost down.... wishful thinking I know LOL I will be checking freq. and if anyone hears or has an in on the info can you give me a heads up???? :confused2:


----------



## Kitara (Nov 29, 2011)

You mean those on 2 year probation will be affected?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Kitara said:


> You mean those on 2 year probation will be affected?


While those who are already living in UK on a visa are usually unaffected, nothing can be ruled out. For example, when some years ago the qualifying period for ILR for ancestry visa holders was increased from 4 to 5 years, those who were already in UK had to extend their visa for another year before they could apply for ILR.
For example, they can stipulate that those who will apply for ILR from 1st January 2013 will have to have lived in UK for 5 years for all categories, so dragging in people who are on a 2-year spouse visa, forcing them to extend their visa by 3 years.


----------



## Team Stephenson (Jan 12, 2012)

Thanks for this, Joppa. This makes me feel a little better because we were planning to do our spouse application at the latest by May. As long as I'm reading this correctly, we don't expect the £26k to come in to affect for a few months at least?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Team Stephenson said:


> Thanks for this, Joppa. This makes me feel a little better because we were planning to do our spouse application at the latest by May. As long as I'm reading this correctly, we don't expect the £26k to come in to affect for a few months at least?


It's pure speculation of course. Announcement may come tomorrow for implementation from April, for example. We just have to wait and see.


----------



## Team Stephenson (Jan 12, 2012)

Okay, thanks again.


----------



## domenica (Feb 5, 2012)

Hello, 

In regards to the foreseeable changes in required income: when they say "household income of £26k" is that combined, or just applicable to me (US citizen) or my fiance (UK citizen)?

Combined we meet the criteria. If it were based on my fiancé, he meets the requirement. But if it were on me, I have an annual income of $37,000 USD, which is less than the requirement.

We were looking into applying for the spousal visa after September this year. When these new changes are announced are they usually effective immediately? Would you advise us to apply sooner before the changes are announced/made?

Thank you!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

domenica said:


> Hello,
> 
> In regards to the foreseeable changes in required income: when they say "household income of £26k" is that combined, or just applicable to me (US citizen) or my fiance (UK citizen)?
> 
> Combined we meet the criteria. If it were based on my fiancé, he meets the requirement. But if it were on me, I have an annual income of $37,000 USD, which is less than the requirement.


Recommendation by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is that only UK sponsor's UK income should be taken into account.



> We were looking into applying for the spousal visa after September this year. When these new changes are announced are they usually effective immediately? Would you advise us to apply sooner before the changes are announced/made?


You normally get a few months' notice, so you'll have a chance to plan in advance, but not for long (maybe a few months).
I'd say keep your eyes peeled, and as soon as details are announced, be prepared to bring forward your plans to beat the deadline.


----------



## domenica (Feb 5, 2012)

Joppa said:


> You normally get a few months' notice, so you'll have a chance to plan in advance, but not for long (maybe a few months).
> I'd say keep your eyes peeled, and as soon as details are announced, be prepared to bring forward your plans to beat the deadline.


Since we are not married yet, how long after we have married can we begin the process of applying. From my understanding we would have to wait 6-8 weeks to obtain the certified marriage certificate here in the US, which I assume we would have to submit with our application. What other time should I consider? My concern is that time we begin our process could be affected contingent on new changes.

Thanks, Joppa!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

domenica said:


> Since we are not married yet, how long after we have married can we begin the process of applying. From my understanding we would have to wait 6-8 weeks to obtain the certified marriage certificate here in the US, which I assume we would have to submit with our application. What other time should I consider? My concern is that time we begin our process could be affected contingent on new changes.


I'm no expert on US marriage certificates, but my understanding is provided you take the signed license to the state or city vital records office in person (instead of letting the officiant mail it), you can often get your marriage registered and certificates issued within a few days, though this will obviously depend on the office you apply to. You can find out from them what the timescale is.

All things considered, it seems preferable to plan for an early wedding, to give yourself the best chance of applying before the deadline.


----------



## manny.j (Dec 4, 2011)

domenica said:


> Since we are not married yet, how long after we have married can we begin the process of applying. From my understanding we would have to wait 6-8 weeks to obtain the certified marriage certificate here in the US, which I assume we would have to submit with our application. What other time should I consider? My concern is that time we begin our process could be affected contingent on new changes.
> 
> Thanks, Joppa!


After getting married, you should get your marriage certificate mailed to you within 2 weeks. However, I suggest you go to you get multiple copies of the marriage certificate once you receive it, which should cost $10 per copy as its good to have a backup copy of such an important document.

If you are having your surname changed better to do right after your receive your marriage certificate, and prior to filing your visa application as its cheaper than doing so much later. This is done as follows:

*1st Step:* Take your marriage certificate to your local driving license issuer so you can update your name. 

*2nd Step:* Then next task is to have your name updated with the IRS via Social Security. Just go to your local SS office and provide them all the information, again take your marriage certificate and they will update your information and send you a new SS card in 2 weeks. 

*3rd Step:* Get your passport name changed by filling a form on the US passport from here. Send them all the required information together with your marriage certificate. Again you can do this step simultaneously with Step 1 and or 2 as long as you have multiple copies of your marriage certificate. Once you receive your new US passport with your surname updated, they will also return your marriage certificate in a separate mail.

*Misc. Steps:* Have your credit card company, household billing agencies know too so they can update your surname. This is relatively straightforward and can be done on the phone.

Now that you have your US passport with updated name, Social Security card you are all set to apply for your application.

We did all the above steps within four weeks after our subsequent marriage ceremony. Important thing is start collecting the forms before, take passport size photos (for your US passport) etc. It is not too complicated but yes it is time consuming


----------



## trigger87 (Dec 3, 2011)

Do you have to have your passport and documents changed to your married name before applying for the visa?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

trigger87 said:


> Do you have to have your passport and documents changed to your married name before applying for the visa?


No you don't. There are pros and cons of doing name change before and after getting your visa and travelling to UK. Some things are easier getting done prior to moving (e.g. driver's license). You don't need to change your name at all if you don't want to. Some countries (e.g. Spain) doesn't use your married (husband's) name for any official purposes and you retain your maiden name including your mother's surname for life.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

*income & things*



Joppa said:


> Recommendation by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is that only UK sponsor's UK income should be taken into account.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Joppa:
Hopefully you can help. I've read many of your posts and you seem to be of great service to those with questions. I'm 15 months into my 2 year probationary spouse visa. I have a full time job that gives me and my wife free housing as well as various other benefits in kind that supplement my stipend (I'm a C of E vicar). We also have large savings and rent we collect monthly from a flat overseas. Recently wife was made redundant by the university she was teaching in. My question is: If the new rules come into effect and my wife is still unemployed, will I be disqualified for applying for ILR at the end of my probationary period, (large savings, rent collected, my salary w/benefits in kind notwithstanding)? Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!:ranger:


----------



## crazyyankee (Mar 9, 2011)

Joppa said:


> No you don't. There are pros and cons of doing name change before and after getting your visa and travelling to UK. Some things are easier getting done prior to moving (e.g. driver's license). You don't need to change your name at all if you don't want to. Some countries (e.g. Spain) doesn't use your married (husband's) name for any official purposes and you retain your maiden name including your mother's surname for life.


Question for Joppa ..... my US passport is in maiden name along with spouse visa to UK. Could you let me know the pros and cons of changing??? I have looked into it and it is expensive. Can I continue with my present one and change it all when I apply for ILR in 20 months or so???? Thanks


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> Joppa:
> Hopefully you can help. I've read many of your posts and you seem to be of great service to those with questions. I'm 15 months into my 2 year probationary spouse visa. I have a full time job that gives me and my wife free housing as well as various other benefits in kind that supplement my stipend (I'm a C of E vicar). We also have large savings and rent we collect monthly from a flat overseas. Recently wife was made redundant by the university she was teaching in. My question is: If the new rules come into effect and my wife is still unemployed, will I be disqualified for applying for ILR at the end of my probationary period, (large savings, rent collected, my salary w/benefits in kind notwithstanding)? Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!:ranger:


The UKBA seems to have difficulties in understanding the peculiar way the Anglican clergy are paid, such as stipend paid by Church Commissioners but actually from diocesan stipend fund, local incomes like fees and chaplaincy which form part of the stipend, the value of free housing net of rent and council tax and tax relief on heating, lighting and gardening. 

To answer your question, first we don't know anything about the revised rules, what the maintenance requirement is going to be and how it is to be met. While the MAC report only talks about income of UK sponsor, it's quite likely that other steady UK income, such as your stipend, will be admissible (which at around £25k is about the level envisaged by MAC), even if your savings and foreign income will not. Secondly, we don't know anything about the timescale of introduction. You have about 8 months left before you can apply for ILR, which takes you to October. While it's possible that the new rules will come into effect before that and you are affected by the changes, I think it's more likely you do not. Thirdly, you do have the option of switching to Tier 2 religious worker visa, should the worst happen and you are unable to extend your spouse visa or qualify for ILR.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle (Feb 8, 2012)

Joppa: thanks for your quick and helpful response, we'll see how things go. Take care.


----------



## crazyyankee (Mar 9, 2011)

Joppa ......
I didnt know if you saw my post earlier??? wondering about name change


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

crazyyankee said:


> Question for Joppa ..... my US passport is in maiden name along with spouse visa to UK. Could you let me know the pros and cons of changing??? I have looked into it and it is expensive. Can I continue with my present one and change it all when I apply for ILR in 20 months or so????


There is no obligation to change your name if you are happy to keep using your maiden name for all practical purposes. If you do want to change, I agree it's best to do so while you are here on 2-year probation and then submit your new passport to be endorsed with ILR (a sticker). When you get your new passport and before you apply for ILR, you have to carry both passports while you travel abroad. You can book your flights in either name. If you want to open a bank account in your new name, show your passport plus your marriage certificate. Do the same when applying for your first driving licence (provisional) until you get your new passport.


----------



## crazyyankee (Mar 9, 2011)

Joppa said:


> There is no obligation to change your name if you are happy to keep using your maiden name for all practical purposes. If you do want to change, I agree it's best to do so while you are here on 2-year probation and then submit your new passport to be endorsed with ILR (a sticker). When you get your new passport and before you apply for ILR, you have to carry both passports while you travel abroad. You can book your flights in either name. If you want to open a bank account in your new name, show your passport plus your marriage certificate. Do the same when applying for your first driving licence (provisional) until you get your new passport.


Ok what I am puzzled about is... I have looked on the US Embassy site to change my name on passport... they will only change the US passport and void the old one... so what happens to my spouse visa from UKBA? Is that why I need to carry both passports? and if so will I need to carry marriage cert.??? AND when I apply for ILR I must take both passports... I want to do the same day at the enquiry office! There are so many questions! Thanks


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

crazyyankee said:


> Ok what I am puzzled about is... I have looked on the US Embassy site to change my name on passport... they will only change the US passport and void the old one... so what happens to my spouse visa from UKBA? Is that why I need to carry both passports? and if so will I need to carry marriage cert.??? AND when I apply for ILR I must take both passports... I want to do the same day at the enquiry office! There are so many questions! Thanks


Your questions are easily answered:
When you get your new passport, you must carry both to travel internationally - the new valid one and the old one with valid visa.
You don't need marriage certificate once you get your passport renewed.
Until then, if you want to conduct any business in your new name, they will want to see a documentary proof, so show your marriage certificate.
Yes, you must take both passports to your PEO appointment.


----------



## crazyyankee (Mar 9, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Your questions are easily answered:
> When you get your new passport, you must carry both to travel internationally - the new valid one and the old one with valid visa.
> You don't need marriage certificate once you get your passport renewed.
> Until then, if you want to conduct any business in your new name, they will want to see a documentary proof, so show your marriage certificate.
> Yes, you must take both passports to your PEO appointment.


Thanks so much Joppa.... I guess I am a perfectionist and dont want to mess anything up! I am sure as time goes on I will be back with more questions! Once again thanks so much!


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

The income requirement, if it is too high, will almost certainly be challenged in the European Courts and ruled unlawful. Just like the age requirement that both spouses be at least 21 that they tried to force. That was challenged, and they had to change it back to 18.

The income requirement should be based on the minimum wage or a portion of, like the US has 1.25% of the Federal Poverty Level. Anything too high is likely to discriminate in favour of wealthy people.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> The income requirement, if it is too high, will almost certainly be challenged in the European Courts and ruled unlawful. Just like the age requirement that both spouses be at least 21 that they tried to force. That was challenged, and they had to change it back to 18.
> 
> The income requirement should be based on the minimum wage or a portion of, like the US has 1.25% of the Federal Poverty Level. Anything too high is likely to discriminate in favour of wealthy people.


That is possible, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Have you read the MAC report? It gives the background to why £25,800 is a preferred level of UK sponsor's income, taking into account other countries' systems, including US.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Joppa said:


> That is possible, but we'll just have to wait and see.
> Have you read the MAC report?


Yes. IMO the proposed minimum income parameters are set way too high. Are they saying that if you have a career in a traditionally low paid job, that you are not allowed to have a foreign spouse and live in your own country? Is someone who works as a veterinary nurse, who has qualifications in that which she has studied for, a job that she loves, supposed to give it up and work in an office just to be allowed to be with the husband of her choice in her own country?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> Yes. IMO the proposed minimum income parameters are set way too high. Are they saying that if you have a career in a traditionally low paid job, that you are not allowed to have a foreign spouse and live in your own country? Is someone who works as a veterinary nurse, who has qualifications in that which she has studied for, a job that she loves, supposed to give it up and work in an office just to be allowed to be with the husband of her choice in her own country?


The brief that the MAC was given by the UKBA was to come to a recommended level of UK sponsor's income that is seen to comply with the immigration rules' requirement that the migrant and their family will have no recourse to public funds. They suggest a range of figures according to how the requirement is interpreted. They do admit that a large proportion of recent applicants from outside the Western world (North America, Australia, Japan etc) will not meet the new level, but the UKBA is under the government instruction to reduce immigration substantially, from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands annually, a move that is slowly happening but still some way to go. Alongside the government's desire to honour the citizens' right to bring spouse and partner from anywhere in the world, they also want to ensure that family migrants will be of economic benefit to the country and not put further pressure on overstretched public services.
They believe that such argument will broadly be welcomed by the British public.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

I know. It is breathtaking that they quote that at the higher income figure, 66% of applications will not succeed, like it is a great thing! All those British Citizens denied their rights to live with who they choose, and that is good? Funny how Mr Daily Mail reader probably buys into all that, until he happens to meet a Canadian/Australian whatever online and wants to bring her to the UK. Methinks Mr Daily Mail would change his opinion at this point!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> I know. It is breathtaking that they quote that at the higher income figure, 66% of applications will not succeed, like it is a great thing! All those British Citizens denied their rights to live with who they choose, and that is good? Funny how Mr Daily Mail reader probably buys into all that, until he happens to meet a Canadian/Australian whatever online and wants to bring her to the UK. Methinks Mr Daily Mail would change his opinion at this point!


Yes, but just about every Western European country is doing it, dismayed by the number of Third World citizens entering their country under family migration. While they cannot restrict EEA citizens bringing in whom they choose (guaranteed under EU law), they can put further pressure on their own citizens that the people they sponsor will meet high eligibility requirements. While individuals wanting to marry foreign nationals may be dismayed, the very same people don't want to see jobs and opportunities vanish for their UK-born family members because of the weight of consistently high immigration.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Well, I'm hoping it won't stand up in court. It is highly unfair to people who have no intention of claiming benefits. Why don't they just make the spouse sponsoring sign an affadavit of support like the US does, so that if the immigrant claims benefits, the sponsor (or any co-sponsor), has to pay the government back?


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

I think most people object to foreigners coming over on work visas, not people who are the genuine spouses of UKCs getting jobs here. Don't forget, anyone who comes here on a work on student visa can bring their spouse with them, and that spouse can work in any job they like.

Another point is that £26K is extremely high for a salary outside London. In the north for example, salaries are much lower but cost of living is also lower, so is it right to expect that the same salary is the requirement for the needs of a couple in Yorkshire as in Chelsea?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> Well, I'm hoping it won't stand up in court. It is highly unfair to people who have no intention of claiming benefits. Why don't they just make the spouse sponsoring sign an affadavit of support like the US does, so that if the immigrant claims benefits, the sponsor (or any co-sponsor), has to pay the government back?


That has been tried and is still in the system (see http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/visas/sponsorship-form.pdf), but clearly the better way is to screen applicants before they enter UK rather than chase up sponsors later. 
As I said, we just have to wait and see. At the same time as this latest round of policy changes, the government is trying to restrict the courts interfering with immigration policy.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

I've never heard of that sponsorship undertaking being used for spouses, are you sure it is for spouse visa applications?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> I've never heard of that sponsorship undertaking being used for spouses, are you sure it is for spouse visa applications?


It can be, in the sense that the government through DWP can reclaim the benefits illegally claimed by migrants, though the form is for use of co- or external sponsors.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> I think most people object to foreigners coming over on work visas, not people who are the genuine spouses of UKCs getting jobs here. Don't forget, anyone who comes here on a work on student visa can bring their spouse with them, and that spouse can work in any job they like.


Not any more. Only family members of students doing a degree or higher can, for a course lasting a year or more. Further restrictions will be in place in near future, no doubt. The difference between points-based system of working visas and family migration is while for the former you now need to meet stringent requirements about shortage skills, salary and resident labour market plus annual quota, the latter opens up the whole job market, except for training posts for non-UK trained doctors and dentists.

The fact the UK can do nothing about EEA migration is lending support to UKIP and others calling for withdrawal from EU.



> Another point is that £26K is extremely high for a salary outside London. In the north for example, salaries are much lower but cost of living is also lower, so is it right to expect that the same salary is the requirement for the needs of a couple in Yorkshire as in Chelsea?


£26k is in fact national average salary, ranging from £33k in London and £18k in parts of Lancashire where I live. MAC have examined the case for regionalisation of income level, but decided against it because of lack of transparency and diffculty of implementation.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Course they could just not give benefits to immigrants, but I guess that is too easy!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> Course they could just not give benefits to immigrants, but I guess that is too easy!


Most people subject to immigration control aren't entitled to most, but not all, benefits, but the system is overburdened and there isn't an effective cross-checking of documents and eligibility. For example, DWP and local council staff have no automatic right of access to Home Office database of immigrants.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Not any more. Only family members of students doing a degree or higher can, for a course lasting a year or more. Further restrictions will be in place in near future, no doubt. The difference between points-based system of working visas and family migration is while for the former you now need to meet stringent requirements about shortage skills, salary and resident labour market plus annual quota, the latter opens up the whole job market, except for training posts for non-UK trained doctors and dentists.
> 
> The fact the UK can do nothing about EEA migration is lending support to UKIP and others calling for withdrawal from EU.
> 
> ...


Don't forget 'average' will be greatly boosted by people who earn millions, that's not to say most people earn more than £26K. You yourself said that in Lancashire, someone on 'average' pay would be on £18K and would therefore not qualify to sponsor a foreign spouse. And it is ridiculous if someone on £25,999 can't apply for a spouse visa but someone on a pound more can.

At the end of the day one either agrees with the proposals or one doesn't. If we were applying for my American husband's visa now, I do earn enough to qualify. But I don't agree with the propsals that punish people in lower paid jobs. If you agree with the £26K minimum income, we will have to agree to differ.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Most people subject to immigration control aren't entitled to most, but not all, benefits, but the system is overburdened and there isn't an effective cross-checking of documents and eligibility. For example, DWP and local council staff have no automatic right of access to Home Office database of immigrants.


Why would they need access to a database of immigrants? The applicants could be asked to prove eligibility by providing their passport in the same way that one has to do to prove entitlement to work in the UK. It's not rocket science. Just 'cos the DWP is incompetent, why should Britons be denied the right to marry who they choose and live in their own country?


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

LondonSquirrel said:


> Well, I'm hoping it won't stand up in court. It is highly unfair to people who have no intention of claiming benefits. Why don't they just make the spouse sponsoring sign an affadavit of support like the US does, so that if the immigrant claims benefits, the sponsor (or any co-sponsor), has to pay the government back?


There are minimum requirements for support for a US citizen to sponsor their foreign spouse, too. It comes from a long history of marriages of convenience - arranged strictly for someone to get a visa. There are also those who actively prey on lonely men and women online to get a visa, come to the country (allegedly as the spouse of a citizen) and then vanish (sometimes with the spouse's life savings).

It sounds very noble saying that citizens should be able to bring over their foreign spouses, but there are many, many scams and hustlers out there and that's a good part of what the immigration laws are looking to protect against.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Bevdeforges said:


> There are minimum requirements for support for a US citizen to sponsor their foreign spouse, too. It comes from a long history of marriages of convenience - arranged strictly for someone to get a visa. There are also those who actively prey on lonely men and women online to get a visa, come to the country (allegedly as the spouse of a citizen) and then vanish (sometimes with the spouse's life savings).
> 
> It sounds very noble saying that citizens should be able to bring over their foreign spouses, but there are many, many scams and hustlers out there and that's a good part of what the immigration laws are looking to protect against.
> Cheers,
> Bev


I know about the 1.25% Federal Poverty Limit the US has for sponsors. The UK suggestion is way, way higher and even the body who have done the review estimated 66% of applications will fail if the limit is set at £26K.

I ask you, is it 'noble' that such a high proportion of genuine couples be denied in order to prevent the less than 1% of fraudulent claims (which in any case should be weeded out regardless of income)?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> Don't forget 'average' will be greatly boosted by people who earn millions, that's not to say most people earn more than £26K. You yourself said that in Lancashire, someone on 'average' pay would be on £18K and would therefore not qualify to sponsor a foreign spouse. And it is ridiculous if someone on £25,999 can't apply for a spouse visa but someone on a pound more can.
> 
> At the end of the day one either agrees with the proposals or one doesn't. If we were applying for my American husband's visa now, I do earn enough to qualify. But I don't agree with the propsals that punish people in lower paid jobs. If you agree with the £26K minimum income, we will have to agree to differ.


I am not stating my opinion. I'm just setting out the case for MAC as mandated by UKBA. I have a feeling that the final proposal will be tweaked to take account of some personal circumstances and certain compassionate, humanitarian grounds, but the substance will remain. I personally see no problems with a rule that requires UK sponsors to have a secure income that comfortably exceeds the trigger levels for various benefits and tax credits. If they can't, they have to rethink about bringing over foreign spouse and partner. There is usually an option of UK citizen moving abroad to be with their spouse/partner, so it isn't just a one-way thing.


----------



## LondonSquirrel (May 19, 2011)

Joppa said:


> I am not stating my opinion. I'm just setting out the case for MAC as mandated by UKBA. I have a feeling that the final proposal will be tweaked to take account of some personal circumstances and certain compassionate, humanitarian grounds, but the substance will remain. I personally see no problems with a rule that requires UK sponsors to have a secure income that comfortably exceeds the trigger levels for various benefits and tax credits. If they can't, they have to rethink about bringing over foreign spouse and partner. There is usually an option of UK citizen moving abroad to be with their spouse/partner, so it isn't just a one-way thing.


I think you are completely simplifying things by saying the UKC can move abroad. Firstly, often the UKC can't move because they have kids with an ex who will not allow them to be moved out of the country. And why should they move from their own country anyway? What if the other country also has income requirements that can't be met? Should they just shrug their shoulders, say 'It's for a noble cause for the greater good,' and either split up or live on a raft floating in the sea?

I think the whole thing is an outragious knee-jerk reaction to Daily Mail style hysteria and I can't believe people buy into i! I agree the sponsoring spouse should be working but the limits should be based on a percentage of minimum wage, like the US bases on Federal Pverty Levels. The idea should be that most applicants in genuine relationships who are working can succeed in their applications, not 66% fail!

Anyway I'm not worried, the European Court WILL rule against the UK if the limit is set too high. The age 21 thing probably affected very few people but it had to be changed. Something that affects 66% of applicants doesn't stand a hell's chance.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

LondonSquirrel said:


> I think you are completely simplifying things by saying the UKC can move abroad. Firstly, often the UKC can't move because they have kids with an ex who will not allow them to be moved out of the country. And why should they move from their own country anyway? What if the other country also has income requirements that can't be met? Should they just shrug their shoulders, say 'It's for a noble cause for the greater good,' and either split up or live on a raft floating in the sea?
> 
> I think the whole thing is an outragious knee-jerk reaction to Daily Mail style hysteria and I can't believe people buy into i! I agree the sponsoring spouse should be working but the limits should be based on a percentage of minimum wage, like the US bases on Federal Pverty Levels. The idea should be that most applicants in genuine relationships who are working can succeed in their applications, not 66% fail!
> 
> Anyway I'm not worried, the European Court WILL rule against the UK if the limit is set too high. The age 21 thing probably affected very few people but it had to be changed. Something that affects 66% of applicants doesn't stand a hell's chance.


I think if the new rules force people to think twice before getting into a relationship with a foreign national, that's not a bad thing. While one talks about the right of citizens, there is also responsibility in exercising the right. What if 50% of people of working age decided to bring in foreign partners, plus their dependants from previous relationship, putting further pressure on public services and shrinking job market? Doesn't the society have some say in it at all? While we may diagree about the exact level of income requirement, the basic principle is a sound one. The age limit of 18 or 21 was a technical issue. Whether a foreign partner is a genuine migrant based on love and commitment or a disguised economic migrant is one which the country is entitled to know after careful examination of evidence. The revised rules are said to clarify the definition of genuine relationship for immigration purposes, for so long a grey area. 
As I said, we'll have to wait and see. The publication of rules, expected by now, has obviously been delayed, so I assume the government is taking time over fine tuning them so as to make them less likely to fall foul of EU judgments.

I think we are now going over the same grounds and until the full rules are published, we are just talking in a vacuum. So I'm closing this thread until then.


----------

