# Pregnant and new rules of spouse visa



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi, I am Japanese and my husband-to-be is UK citizen, I am currently live in UK with Youth Mobility Scheme visa which will expire in April 2013.
We have lived together 4 months so far and are planning to get married in this autumn and to apply the spouse visa, however his income doesn't meet the requirement. His annual salary is around 12K and our savings are 8K... it seems impossible to ask our parents to give us a cash as gift.
I am 24 weeks pregnant now, and our baby is coming in December. I am really worried about visa after next April, however he keeps saying the new rule is against human rights, so everything will be fine. He says he is British citizen so he has a right to keep his child here in UK, and his child is also UK citizen, the child has a right to have his mother, even if the new rule is set like that, we don't need to be separated.
I really think it is not "fine" at all... I know UKBA is very strict, if we can start preparing to solve this situation, I want to start preparing asap.
What options we can have? If we seek legal advisers or solicitors, they can help us to get my visa or they can't? Should I ask my husband-to-be to get an another job to meet the income requirement? Or should we think to relocate another EU countries as EEA member?
I have no idea what is the best way to us.... Please someone help.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

nolico said:


> Hi, I am Japanese and my husband-to-be is UK citizen, I am currently live in UK with Youth Mobility Scheme visa which will expire in April 2013.
> We have lived together 4 months so far and are planning to get married in this autumn and to apply the spouse visa, however his income doesn't meet the requirement. His annual salary is around 12K and our savings are 8K... it seems impossible to ask our parents to give us a cash as gift.
> I am 24 weeks pregnant now, and our baby is coming in December. I am really worried about visa after next April, however he keeps saying the new rule is against human rights, so everything will be fine. He says he is British citizen so he has a right to keep his child here in UK, and his child is also UK citizen, the child has a right to have his mother, even if the new rule is set like that, we don't need to be separated.
> I really think it is not "fine" at all... I know UKBA is very strict, if we can start preparing to solve this situation, I want to start preparing asap.
> ...


Konbanwa!

I'm sorry to hear about your problems. There is no easy solution. While your unborn child can stay in UK as a British citizen, you don't have automatic right to extend your stay without being approved for a spouse visa, for which the financial requirement is absolute and non-negotiable. So as things stand, your application for further leave to remain as spouse will be turned down. You can then appeal against the decision by resorting to human rights act, and while the UKBA is reluctant to split up a family, it will be far from easy to be allowed to stay. You need legal representation, and a lot of support from MP, community etc. 

Are you in a job and working at the moment? Then your income received in the past 12 months will count towards the minimum requirement, as does your maternity allowance.

Odaijini!


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Joppa said:


> Are you in a job and working at the moment? Then your income received in the past 12 months will count towards the minimum requirement, as does your maternity allowance.
> 
> Odaijini!


Hi Joppa, thank you for your quick reply and you said to me odaijini.
Unfortunately I don't work at the moment it is difficult to find a job as I live in countryside and pregnant, I had some small works and income this year but it will not help the financial requirement. If I am not pregnant I would have relocated to London or somewhere large city to find a job or simply return to Japan to start making up savings but both of them are difficult to me right now.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

nolico said:


> Hi Joppa, thank you for your quick reply and you said to me odaijini.
> Unfortunately I don't work at the moment it is difficult to find a job as I live in countryside and pregnant, I had some small works and income this year but it will not help the financial requirement. If I am not pregnant I would have relocated to London or somewhere large city to find a job or simply return to Japan to start making up savings but both of them are difficult to me right now.


There is always a plan B and that is returning to Japan with your child and new husband. He will need a spouse visa, which isn't too difficult to get and doesn't come with stringent financial requirement like in UK. The choice for you as sponsor is either to guarantee his living expenses in Japan, or for him to obtain a certificate of eligibility, i.e. having a university degree which enables him to apply for a job as English (conversation) teacher (eikaiwa koshi).
See Spouse visa
Before you can apply for his visa, you need to register your marriage and your child's birth in Japan. This can take about 3 months.
Details (in Japanese): Koseki
You apply everything through the Consulate General in Edinburgh.
If you run out of time, you (and your child) will have to go to Japan first and your husband to join you when his visa is issued.

As you know, job prospect esp for a foreigner is none too good in Japan, with many language schools closing down and general reluctance to hire staff (esp with no Japanese speaking ability). Also the immigration rules have recently changed and there is now a stringent residence permit scheme (replacing alien registration card). But a few years in Japan, with your family support, may provide a breathing space for planning your future without constant money and immigration worries.


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Joppa said:


> There is always a plan B and that is returning to Japan with your child and new husband. He will need a spouse visa, which isn't too difficult to get and doesn't come with stringent financial requirement like in UK. The choice for you as sponsor is either to guarantee his living expenses in Japan, or for him to obtain a certificate of eligibility, i.e. having a university degree which enables him to apply for a job as English (conversation) teacher (eikaiwa koshi).
> Before you can apply for his visa, you need to register your marriage and your child's birth in Japan. This can take about 3 months.
> You apply everything through the Consulate General in Edinburgh.
> If you run out of time, you (and your child) will have to go to Japan first and your husband to join you when his visa is issued.
> ...


Hi Joppa, thank you very much for the additional plan and a lot of information!
We also consider to relocate to Japan together, but he can not speak Japanese and he doesn't have a degree, so it will be difficult to get a job there. Then it will be OK I guess I can find a job in Japan and work hard to maintain my family, however we are worried if he quit current job in UK and leave from UK, the situation for the future will be more difficult. The immigration rule in UK is getting worse every year. It seems we can not make our life in UK in the future.

I am really shocked why this is happen in this year. I envy all of people who could apply before the rule is changed.

Anyway, we will speak to MP as soon as possible. Thank you very much again for your advice!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

nolico said:


> Hi Joppa, thank you very much for the additional plan and a lot of information!
> We also consider to relocate to Japan together, but he can not speak Japanese and he doesn't have a degree, so it will be difficult to get a job there. Then it will be OK I guess I can find a job in Japan and work hard to maintain my family, however we are worried if he quit current job in UK and leave from UK, the situation for the future will be more difficult. The immigration rule in UK is getting worse every year. It seems we can not make our life in UK in the future.
> 
> I am really shocked why this is happen in this year. I envy all of people who could apply before the rule is changed.
> ...


Yes, I can see that.
I don't know how much help your MP can offer, as UKBA doesn't like making exceptions and applies the rules vigorously.
Do register the birth at the consulate as well. He or she can retain dual citizenship until they are 22, when they have to choose one or the other. Also do the same with marriage, so that details will go on your family register in Japan (koseki). Even if you decide to change your surname, your official name (like on your passport) will stay the same, but on request they can add your new married name to your passport in brackets. So if you become Mrs Noriko Smith, your passport can show Noriko Tanaka (Smith). This is because your Japanese passport must show the name on your koseki, and as you are marrying a non-Japanese, you cannot change your koseki name. If you were marrying a Japanese, the two kosekis would be merged (or rather a new one created), and if you decide your husband to be the first name on the register, you automatically take on his surname.


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Joppa said:


> Yes, I can see that.
> I don't know how much help your MP can offer, as UKBA doesn't like making exceptions and applies the rules vigorously.
> Do register the birth at the consulate as well. He or she can retain dual citizenship until they are 22, when they have to choose one or the other. Also do the same with marriage, so that details will go on your family register in Japan (koseki). Even if you decide to change your surname, your official name (like on your passport) will stay the same, but on request they can add your new married name to your passport in brackets. So if you become Mrs Noriko Smith, your passport can show Noriko Tanaka (Smith). This is because your Japanese passport must show the name on your koseki, and as you are marrying a non-Japanese, you cannot change your koseki name. If you were marrying a Japanese, the two kosekis would be merged (or rather a new one created), and if you decide your husband to be the first name on the register, you automatically take on his surname.


Hi Joppa, yes I also think UKBA doesn't consider for each cases. Thank you for your advice about if we relocate to Japan. I was not sure about koseki when I get married with foreign people, so it was a helpful advice.
Thank you very much for all of your advice so far.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I have lived in Japan so I know about all these things.
Best of luck whatever you decide.

Ganbatte ne!


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi, I gave up to get a spouse visa once but my husband got a better job recently even still it can not meet the financial requirement, we rethink to stay in the UK as much as possible until my husband obtain skills.

Now, I am thinking the two ways.

1) Find a good solicitor, apply to the FLR(M) visa, refused and appeal.
2) Return to my country after expire current visa and apply another visa such as 6 months Visitor visa or Extended Student Visitor visa.

Then I have questions.
1) Is there any successful opportunity of the appeal to the court after refused my FLR application? The court consider the human rights and each couple's situations?
2) I got married to British citizen and have a baby here, is it possible to get a Extended Student Visitor visa after 2 years Youth Mobility Scheme visa?

If there is no luck for the appeal, I don't want to leave my refused application status on the UKBA database, I want to try to get an another visa or choose exile to Japan. However if there is a luck to appeal, I want to try to get a FLR visa.

Please give me any ideas or thoughts. Thank you.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't know how much closer to the £18,600 your husband is, but if he's only about £2000 (or thereabouts) short, is it possible that he could take a part-time job (anything) that he can work in addition to his main job until he has enough payslips showing he exceeded £18,600 in 12 months (hopefully before April 2013).

I know that him taking a second job in addition to his current job is a big undertaking and so I don't suggest it lightly, but wanted to mention it as another option open to you - just in case that helps.

This sort of situation makes me so very sad regarding the new rules. I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately the requirement £18,600 is far from his current income although he works 50+ a week, so it is difficult for me to ask him to get an another part-time job... but I know increasing income is the only way to solve this concern. Thank you for your advice.

I am still thinking I should try to apply FLR visa or not. One of my Japanese friends got a spouse visa under a new rule even her husband (british citizen) doesn't work in the UK yet. Both of them live in Japan now, and her husband got an offer from UK company and the company write a letter to say they promise to pay him over £18,600 a year. Then recently she got a spouse visa without any problems. I thought the new rule was strict, but she got a visa...


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

Unfortunately, it's different when BOTH partners are overseas. Provided that the UK citizen has previously earned the equivalent of £18,600 in employment overseas AND they have a confirmed job offer in the UK of £18,600 or more, they qualify. It's a slightly different rule in that situation (though the onus is still on the UK citizen to have both been earning the equivalent of £18,600 already - AND they must have a job offer of at least that much waiting for them in the UK too).

In your current situation, you won't qualify for the FLR visa because your husband doesn't meet the financial requirement, and I fear that if you DO apply you'll be given a refusal on your records. I really don't know what to suggest. It's clear your husband is working very hard and a 50-hour week gives no room for another job on top, but the only way he can sponsor you is if he can find a higher-paid job, or alternatively switch to another job with easier hours that would enable him to work a part-time job in addition.


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

I see... I know you don't know but do you think is there any luck to be considered our situation by appeal after refusal my application?
If the possibility is 0%, I want to quit thinking to apply FLR and find alternative way. This situation have been made me sick for a long time. And we are suffering from this financial requirement it means we are not so rich, but when we need another assistance we have to pay a lot of money for lawyer or solicitor...

One more thing what I want to know, if I apply and am refused FLR, then until the appeal date I can stay in UK or I have to leave from UK anyway after my current visa is expired?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

nolico said:


> I see... I know you don't know but do you think is there any luck to be considered our situation by appeal after refusal my application?
> If the possibility is 0%, I want to quit thinking to apply FLR and find alternative way. This situation have been made me sick for a long time. And we are suffering from this financial requirement it means we are not so rich, but when we need another assistance we have to pay a lot of money for lawyer or solicitor...
> 
> One more thing what I want to know, if I apply and am refused FLR, then until the appeal date I can stay in UK or I have to leave from UK anyway after my current visa is expired?


Appeal under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights is possible but you are unlikely to succeed, and UKBA will defend vigorously. Read this recent statement on UKBA's view of Article 8 and recent change to immigration rules: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/echr-fam-mig.pdf

Until your appeal is heard and judgement is delivered, you can stay.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

Edited - Joppa beat me to it 

Does the company your husband works for have business elsewhere in Europe? If so, and he went to work in another EEA country for 6 months or more, he could exercise his Treaty rights and bring you back to the UK with him on an EEA Family Permit (no stringent financial requirements to be met).


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi Joppa and 2farapart, sorry for the late reply.

Unfortunately my husband works for doesn't have any branches elsewhere in Europe. I thought that route sounds great though. I wonder, we have some savings, if we move to cheaper living cost EU country, spend 6 months by savings and go back to UK with EEA Family Permit, but it will not work successfully? My husband said this idea will be impossible...

Then, again I think about to apply FLR(M) even I know it will be rejected. Do you think it is the most dangerous way under this situation? I should not try without meeting requirement? If I try to apply, I can apply it 28 days before my current YMS expiry date, is this correct?

Sorry for many ridiculous questions. I don't know which way is the best way for our family.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

I believe your husband would also need to work in the EU country for at least 6 months. If that is a possibility, then the EEA route could be open to you. The difficulty of course is his getting a job in a country whose language he might not speak, so it's not terribly easy. But if he can do it (I believe any type of work qualifies but must be for 6 months or longer), the EEA Family Permit grants Treaty rights where you could legally return with your husband to the UK on a Family permit and avoid the finance constraints of the spouse visa.

The problem with applying for the spouse visa when you don't meet the rules is that you will gain a visa refusal on your records, which can make it a bit more difficult to apply the next time. You really don't want that to happen. People with visa refusals have even more worry and stress to go through when they apply.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

nolico said:


> Hi Joppa and 2farapart, sorry for the late reply.
> 
> Unfortunately my husband works for doesn't have any branches elsewhere in Europe. I thought that route sounds great though. I wonder, we have some savings, if we move to cheaper living cost EU country, spend 6 months by savings and go back to UK with EEA Family Permit, but it will not work successfully? My husband said this idea will be impossible...


Yes, impossible. To qualify under the Surinder Singh provision (that's what we've been talking about), your husband must be in an economic capacity in another EEA country by working or self-employment. Being self sufficient isn't enough.



> Then, again I think about to apply FLR(M) even I know it will be rejected. Do you think it is the most dangerous way under this situation? I should not try without meeting requirement? If I try to apply, I can apply it 28 days before my current YMS expiry date, is this correct?
> 
> Sorry for many ridiculous questions. I don't know which way is the best way for our family.


As you have been advised, you shouldn't apply for a leave for which you won't qualify, such as FLR as spouse. Apart from getting a black mark on your immigration record (and you have to mention it EVERY time you apply for another visa), you will lose the hefty application fee. 

In any case, all the very best for your delivery - it must been getting very close. Don't get too stressed out (I know it's difficult), as the health of mother and baby is paramount.
As I have said before, odaijini. Anzan de arimasu yoni.


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Thank you very much, Joppa and 2farapart.

I understand there is no way I can extend my stay under this situation.
I am disappointed this heartless country... I am tired of crying. We are going to preparing to be apart or exile together from UK.
Thank you for all of your advice and Joppa, thank you for your concern for me and my baby.


----------



## cc9 (Oct 29, 2012)

I am very saddened to read this story. It's ridiculous that an honest, hard working UK citizen is unable to keep his wife with him in his own country. 
The UKBA rules target only those hard working UK citizens they should be designed to protect. People who intend to move here illegally will always find a way  
I wish you all the best in the future months and am sad and disgusted how my country treats the spouses of their own citizens.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

It makes me sad too. Had nolico been a citizen of an EEA country, she could just live here without proving that either she or her husband have a given salary because UK is a member country too. Someone working 50 hours a week and not claiming any public funds should be rewarded, not penalised.

Unfortunately, the government is committed to squeezing net immigration down by a huge amount, so setting limits such as this fits in with their manifesto (and with more European countries set to be permitted free entry into the UK in 2014, the government is not going to back down). They also wanted to 'simplify' the system, and to that end they wanted a single income figure they could use to determine whether an application passes or fails. They picked the lowest of three offered income levels, but such a method doesn't allow more complicated decisions about whether someone will absolutely support their partner no matter how small their income, and removes that judgement from the caseworker's assessment role. As a result, hard-working UK citizens who fall just under the income amount will be denied the freedom to live together in the UK.


----------



## Crawford (Jan 23, 2011)

I really don't think that the UKBA can win when it comes to immigration in the UK.

With reports that population is growing at an all time high, lack of housing, benefit payments being unsustainable etc, you read of British people wanting a curb on the level of persons being admitted to the country.

So financial requirements are put in place to try and reduce the number of immigrants and to only admit those that can truly support themselves without recourse to public funds and family handouts ..... but now those that are being refused admittance due to these restrictions are claiming "unfair"

If you read this couple's story, the UK citizen earns around 12K a year, the girlfriend was on a youth work visa (which is due to expire in April 2013), she became pregnant so is now unable to work, and now they wish for her to remain in the UK.

The UKBA is not (and should not be) concerned about people's personal life choices and have to make decisions based on what is the best/kindest/nicest thing to do for applicants.

This couple knew the rules; they decided to have a child when, quite frankly his salary hardly supports himself never mind a wife and child. 

He might be a hard working UK citizen but he does not earn enough to support admitting a foreign wife, and therefore does not qualify under the immigration rules.

What is "unfair" about this? Most other countries have financial restrictions imposed for immigration purposes.

(I am prepared for the "flaming" I am about to receive regarding this posting)


----------



## cc9 (Oct 29, 2012)

As a UK citizen surely he should be afforded at least the same rights as foreign EU nationals who come to live in this country.
EU nationals have little or no restriction on bringing their spouse to live in the UK. It is ridiculous to think that we the tax payers have no rights in our own country. 
If the government makes it impossible for foreign spouses to claim any benefits then surely this will appease those who think that non EU spouses are purely after an easy life here...


----------



## nolico (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi Crawford,

It might sound excuse but we didn't know the new rule was introduced in July. I noticed I was pregnant in April. I know it was our fault we had a baby before I got a permanent visa. But under the old rule I could get a spouse visa so we didn't expect this situation. Our each parents and family said they could support us financially if we need and we have little savings. So far there are no problems to live dairy life, it's not rich life though. We don't need to access public funds. (I know we must not).
EU people can bring their non-EEA spouse into UK without any problems, I think it is unfair.

Anyway, I gave up to stay in UK together. Because my British husband is not rich, and because I am not British or EU member, I am not welcomed to this country.


----------



## Crawford (Jan 23, 2011)

cc9 said:


> As a UK citizen surely he should be afforded at least the same rights as foreign EU nationals who come to live in this country.
> EU nationals have little or no restriction on bringing their spouse to live in the UK. It is ridiculous to think that we the tax payers have no rights in our own country.
> If the government makes it impossible for foreign spouses to claim any benefits then surely this will appease those who think that non EU spouses are purely after an easy life here...


The rights of foreign EU nationals are ruled by the "powers that be" in Brussels, those of non EU nationals by British Immigration.

I agree that there is little restriction with regard EU nationals living in the UK. Another situation which, again, is of concern to many British people and who would like it amended.

Allowing a UK citizen the same "rights" to bring in his/her non-EU spouse, as that of one wishing to live in the country with his EU spouse , reduces even further the ability of the UK to manage/determine/restrict immigration to the country. As I said previously, the majority of countries have financial restrictions regarding immigration - the EU is an exception in this case.

While there are different rules for EU and non EU immigrants (and which are regarded by some people as "unfair") they ARE in place to control/restrict/quantify those people wishing to enter the UK - one benefit that British taxpayers might appreciate.

Maybe instead of constantly bashing the UKBA for its "draconian measure" (as some call it), these voices would be better used trying to change the general "entry for all" from the EU.


----------



## cc9 (Oct 29, 2012)

Immigration is of course an emotive issue for those of us who are likely to be separated from our loved ones for long periods of time or forced to relocate our lives to another country.
To be honest I was very naive when I got married. I married for love with little or no thought of immigration. I was horrified when I realised how difficult it is to relocate my husband permanently.
I am now in a position where I may have to choose between my husband and my elderly mother. 
I understand the level of immigration is being seen as a drain on this country, however these new rules seem to be targeting the honest community they should be designed to protect while still allowing vast numbers of EU nationals to move here.
Oh and I pay taxes too so surely I should have rights.
Maybe this government should just go the whole hog and make it illegal for its citizens to marry anyone from outside the EU!!!!!!!


----------



## samantha1986 (Feb 7, 2013)

I have the same situation, I am a britsish citerzen and my soon to be husband is Australian. It is very fustraiting as we both have jobs to go back to in the Uk, we supported ourselfs for 2 years also while he was on a 2 year working visa, we are now both in Australia to see his family and to marry.. I earn min wage and therfore do not meet the financial threshold of 18,600. We may have a solution for this, but it will take 6 months to resolve, so we are heading back to the Uk together as i think he is allowed 6 months there then will have to return to Australia to then apply for his spouse visa. But if we still dont meet this financial threshold after 6months of hard work we are just stuck and we dont wish to live in Australia!... its very hards for people now to be happy with a foren partner. its against humman rights alost i think! should be anyway! I am meetin gwith my local Mp in April hopefully and see if there is anything possible we can do.


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

Disregarding the argument of whether £18,600 is a fair amount or not (given the cost of living in the UK it's certainly on the lower side but it doesn't take into account whether the couple have any housing costs to bear), I think this is the single biggest injustice of the new rules: when both people are overseas and the 'breadwinner' is the non-UK national, there is little hope of the UK citizen returning home with their family unless they are able to save (not borrow) the pre-requisite £62,500 (an amount unrealistic to most).


----------



## KHP (Oct 25, 2012)

2farapart said:


> Disregarding the argument of whether £18,600 is a fair amount or not (given the cost of living in the UK it's certainly on the lower side but it doesn't take into account whether the couple have any housing costs to bear), I think this is the single biggest injustice of the new rules: when both people are overseas and the 'breadwinner' is the non-UK national, there is little hope of the UK citizen returning home with their family unless they are able to save (not borrow) the pre-requisite £62,500 (an amount unrealistic to most).


The new rules are also very sexist. I am the main 'breadwinner' and the British citizen. I have been living abroad for nearly 2 years with my husband. We now want to live in the UK because my father recently passed away and my mother is alone. 

I have fortunately found a job that pays over the minimum requirement, so financially we will be fine but it means I will no longer be able to have a baby this year as I had hoped and my time is running out! I will have to wait at least 8-9 months for my husband to be able to join me and then fulfill the requirements of my new jobs until I can even try for a baby. So in that way I think the new rules are biased against women, especially if they are the main breadwinner and the sponsor.


----------



## samantha1986 (Feb 7, 2013)

2farapart said:


> Disregarding the argument of whether £18,600 is a fair amount or not (given the cost of living in the UK it's certainly on the lower side but it doesn't take into account whether the couple have any housing costs to bear), I think this is the single biggest injustice of the new rules: when both people are overseas and the 'breadwinner' is the non-UK national, there is little hope of the UK citizen returning home with their family unless they are able to save (not borrow) the pre-requisite £62,500 (an amount unrealistic to most).


All i can say its a shocker! It isnt right and surley they can not split up husbands and wife's, adn children as some are in the same situation with kids! my partners past family originates from england, but its to many generations back to even go for ansestory... yea its very unreaslistic amount of money, i just dont understand how i would save that amount when im on min wage? I just dont get it when we both have jobs to go back to and his is more well payed than mine...


----------



## 2farapart (Aug 18, 2011)

The difficulties in arguing 'unfair' (and I DO think there is unfairness in the rules in how they are sometimes applied) is that there are still credible (unwritten) arguments that UKBA could use...

*A wage of £18,600 is very low for living independently in many parts of the UK.* For anyone who needs to pay rent/mortgage based on today's prices, pay for transport to work, clothe and feed themselves, it's hard to imagine how a couple might survive on this amount (many do not and rely on tax credits or other people to house them just to get by). UKBA has been moving towards insisting applicants and their sponsors can live independently (not depend on others) and the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) proposed three figures, of which £18,600 was the lowest. Currently, UKBA still allows for people living with family/friends (at least in the short term), but they do expect sponsors to be able to support their applicant partners without financial help - a reasonable expectation. *Where this goes wrong* is where housing costs and cost of living are low and so a lower salary is adequate, where the sponsor is not the breadwinner when both parties are abroad (and the overseas applicant already has a guaranteed offer of employment in the UK), or where the sponsor is the breadwinner but working in a country where even high wages offering a high standard of living in that country do not convert to £18,600 or more in UK sterling.

Which then brings out the next argument:* why do the couple 'need' to live in the UK and not the other country *(this includes British expats who moved overseas to live with a non-UK partner). Denmark is one country where applicants must also demonstrate sufficient ties to the country and not the other country as part of their application. Although UKBA did not formally adopt this, the MAC were never-the-less very interested in the concept and kept referring back to it (wouldn't surprise me to see this added one day as a new requirement). Some people would have a fairly robust argument (perhaps family ties are all in the UK and the UKC only moved abroad for work originally, or a gay or mixed-ethnicity/religion couple where the other country would not permit the two to be together as a couple legally, morally or whatever). Others who are 'comfortable' where they are would have a harder time proving that the UK is the country where they should be living. The UK citizen is of course entitled to return at any time, but the argument of splitting up familes falls where UKBA's view could arguably be that it is the UKC splitting up the family by moving back to the UK of their own volition, whereas if they'd stayed overseas the family would not be split.

And finally, the argument that *individuals (not UKBA) are responsible for their own life decisions*. Whether or not this is fair is a moot point really and I can only see the situation worsen. We have an increasingly international population with overseas students and workers in the UK, and internet-based relationships are increasing at a massive rate too. Theresa May once referred to this and said in so many words that the government recognised that we were moving much more towards an international society in Britain (and the rest of the world) and as such they did not want to curtail the rights of UK citizens to be with their families/loved ones who are overseas, but at the same time they must be _sufficiently independent _in order to live in Britain as opposed to another country. So, where applicants do find themselves caught between visas in the UK with perhaps an unexpected baby on the way etc, UKBA could argue that it is incumbent on both the UK citizen and their partner to ensure they would meet the requirements of a visa before allowing themselves to fall into such situations.

Finally, *a significant percentage of the UK popultion wants to see immigration reduced or even stopped.* A symptom of an ailing economy (like anywhere) is that people will look to blame 'someone else' and thanks largely to the media with scaremongering tales, some based on fact, and others not so much so), immigrants have for a long time received the brunt of blame for the fact UK citizens cannot find a well-paid (or even ANY) job, see their cost of living standards eroded each year, see public funding reduced or stopped and a population explosion with declining housing for everybody. So, any political party offering a policy to tackle immigration is onto an instant vote-winner. And to the argument that a political party will adopt ANY policy in order to secure a large percentage of votes, it can also be argued as nothing more than giving the UK public what they want most - in other words, democracy as it's meant to be.

These aren't MY arguments by any means (it was hard enough and terrifying enough for my partner to apply when we DID meet all the requirements), but I can see where UKBA might have counter arguments to the rules that have been put in place. There is talk of high-court and European appeals and such, but how successful these would be against an overarching requirement to reduce immigration - especially immigration that offers the UK no world productivity or economic benefit - I have no idea.


----------

