Stark choice under new immigration rules: exile or family breakup

[joebloggs]

looks like next week we will know

Home secretary Teresa May faces criticism from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants over rule changes which would mean British citizens 'effectively exiled on account of choosing to have a relationship with a non-EEA national'. Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian

British citizens with foreign-born partners are to be given the choice of indefinite "exile" in countries including Yemen or Syria or face the breakup of their families if they want to remain in the UK, under radical immigration changes to be announced next week, MPs have been told.

The home secretary, Theresa May, is expected to confirm that she will introduce a new minimum income requirement for a British "sponsor" without children of up to £25,700 a year, and a stringent English speaking test for foreign-born husbands, wives or partners of UK citizens applying to come to live in Britain on a family visa.

Immigration welfare campaigners say that the move will exclude two-thirds of British people – those who have a minimum gross income of under £25,700 a year – from living in the UK as a couple if they marry a non-EU national. They estimate that between 45% and 60% of the 53,000 family visas currently issued each year could fall foul of the new rules.

Ministers have also been considering extending the probationary period for overseas spouses and partners of British citizens from two to five years and introducing an "attachment test" to show that the "combined attachment" of the couple is greater to Britain than any other country.

The changes are to be introduced alongside new immigration rules, making clear that an illegal migrant or a convicted foreign national facing deportation who has established a family life in Britain will only be blocked by the courts from being removed, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, in rare and exceptional cases. Instead they, too, will face a choice between separating from their British-based spouse or partner or going to live with their partner as a family overseas.

The moves to restrict the family route for migrants coming to Britain form part of the home secretary's drive to reduce net migration from 250,000 to "tens of thousands" by the next general election.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) has sent MPs a dossier of 13 detailed cases of families who would face serious consequences under the proposals, "to provide a snapshot of the reality of the lives of ordinary British citizens and settled people who want their husbands, wives, civil partners and in some cases children to join them in the UK". It includes the case of Anna, a British woman who is pregnant with twins, earning £31,000 a year, who may have to give up her home, job, flat and friends in the UK and move to Yemen to live with her husband, Ahmed, at a time when the Foreign Office has advised British nationals not to travel there. The fact that Anna is expecting twins means the minimum income maintenance requirement in her case will be set in a range from £24,800-£46,260, rather than at the childless couple rate of £25,700.

It also highlights the case of Emma , a British graduate who works, and is due to complete a journalism course this year, who may also have to give up her flat, family and friends in Britain, and travel to Syria where her Palestinian husband was born.

The JCWI says that the dossier shows how the ordinary circumstances of life, such as pregnancy, accidents at work, disability, low pay, poor currency exchange rates and nationality laws in foreign countries could penalise people if the proposals make it into Britain's immigration rules.

The dossier also highlights how an extension of the probationary period for those granted family visas could trap more women in violent marriages and suffering domestic abuse in silence because of the fear of being deported if they complain.

"When, if ever, is it acceptable for British citizens to be placed in a position where they are effectively indefinitely exiled from their own countries on account of choosing to have a relationship with a non-European Economic Area national?" asks the JCWI pamphlet, United by Love/Divided by Law?

When the home secretary published her proposals in May she said that it was obvious that British citizens and those settled here should be able to marry or enter into a civil partnership with whomever they choose: "But if they want to establish their family life in the UK, rather than overseas, then their spouse or partner must have a genuine attachment to the UK, be able to speak English, and integrate into our society, and they must not be a burden on the taxpayer. Families should be able to manage their own lives. If a British citizen or a person settled here cannot support their foreign spouse or partner they cannot expect the taxpayer to do it for them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...s-stark-choice

[joebloggs]

" If a British citizen or a person settled here cannot support their foreign spouse or partner they cannot expect the taxpayer to do it for them."[/I]

British or settled person, does that mean Europeans living in the UK

not it doesn't you a British citizen tax payer cant bring your wife if you dont earn £25k+ but someone from Europe who is working in the UK can claim benefits and will have no problem bringing his non euro wife and kids to the uk

only in this country could you get away with like this..

[gWaPito]

Im not going to mention the last sentence on your initial post Joe

Going by that, its looks far worse than we thought. Especially if you got kids.

It certainly looks as if Ms May means business in tackling over population. Like the police, they pick on the easy law abiding.

[lastlid]

An attachment test Wonder what that will consist of?

[lastlid]

This is pretty much what has been said all along. Unfortunately.

[gWaPito]

The 25/26k yes, that has been said all along but, I dont recollect reading about the kiddie accumulator...ie you pay much more if your non european partner has children

Did you read the example of the british woman on 31k a year expecting twins....her wage isn't high enough so, if she wants with her husband, she will have to exile her country.

[lastlid]

The 25/26k yes, that has been said all along but, I dont recollect reading about the kiddie accumulator...ie you pay much more if your non european partner has children

Did you read the example of the british woman on 31k a year expecting twins....her wage isn't high enough so, if she wants with her husband, she will have to exile her country.

That cropped up in some document a month or two back. I saw it again last night when I looked.

[joebloggs]

Immigration welfare campaigners say that the move will exclude two-thirds of British people – those who have a minimum gross income of under £25,700 a year – from living in the UK as a couple if they marry a non-EU national. They estimate that between 45% and 60% of the 53,000 family visas currently issued each year could fall foul of the new rules.

so 30,000 applications could be refused a year, 600 a week, near 100 a day
i cannot see this happening

[lastlid]

There you go....


Her plans include increasing the minimum income requirement for anyone wishing to bring a spouse, partner or dependent to the UK from outside the European Union from £13,700 to £25,700.
That figure could climb to up to £62,600 if they wanted children to join them in Britain.


Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/894150-t...#ixzz1xEIO9yQA

[joebloggs]

The 25/26k yes, that has been said all along but, I dont recollect reading about the kiddie accumulator...ie you pay much more if your non european partner has children

Did you read the example of the british woman on 31k a year expecting twins....her wage isn't high enough so, if she wants with her husband, she will have to exile her country.

these kids will probably be British citizens, this opens up another can of worms, you cannot expect British kids to move to another country, you need to look at the best interest of the kids, so there will be problems with keeping the father apart from them,,
i thought you needed to earn more if you wanted to bring the kids to the UK, but from this, you need to earn more even if they are already in the UK

[lastlid]

so 30,000 applications could be refused a year, 600 a week, near 100 a day
i cannot see this happening

No sign of a U turn yet though Joe?

[Terpe]

It's very disappointing (to say the least) to see this report from The Guardian.

If it's accurate, it seems that the extreme measures we all feared so much will be pushed through.

It's difficult to imagine that there will be sufficient opposition to prevent implementation, but lets just stay positive that there may be some workaround.
We'll need to study all the details.

This is going to be a huge trial for so many members and friends.

There but for the grace of God, go I ...............

[joebloggs]

No sign of a U turn yet though Joe?

wait til next week, a lot of MP's are going to have angry voters on their back soon, not just a few, many.

i would estimate that 90%+ of spouse visa are granted on here first time, so a refusal rate is 10% or even less , but the refusal rate could jump to 50 or 60%

[joebloggs]

If it's accurate, it seems that the extreme measures we all feared so much will be pushed through.

It's difficult to imagine that there will be sufficient opposition to prevent implementation,..

i think and hope your wrong Peter, the Tories dont have enough for a majority gov now, they need the liberals and i cant see them being happy about this, and the liberal will be wiped out an the next election, probably 4th behind UKIP !

so either protest now or wait for the labour party to get back in power and scrap this, but i cant see it lasting that long, the gov was forced to lower the age you could apply for a spouse visa from 21 to 18, they had to scrap the COA, HSMP took the gov to court and won, there are many more defeats this gov has had, but this one is by far the one that will cost May her job and the tories many votes.

[lastlid]

The lady is not for turning.... I fear.

[joebloggs]

The lady is not for turning.... I fear.

yes models herself on thatcher and looked what happened to her

[lastlid]

Any thoughts on this " attachment test " ?

Will they look at the number of times the couple visited the Philippines after the visa has been issued or the amount of time the sponsor has spent in the UK? The birthplace of the sponsor? Etc etc etc.

Maybe we need to keep quite about our tentative intentions to emmigrate to the Philippines?

[lastlid]

Danish attachment test.....

Look closer at the proposals. The attachment requirement as it is implemented in Denmark means that when a Citizen wishes to bring a partner (from outside the EU) to live with him/her in Denmark, they have to be able to prove that their joint connection to Denmark is greater than their joint connection to any other country. The Danish regulations - and their implementation - are so strict that many Danish people give up on trying to live with their spouses in Denmark. (It is a little easier if you are trying to bring in a spouse from the EU, or if the Danish citizen moves to an EU country first.)

The consultation guide explains to some extent how the Danish attachment is 'determined' and the factors taken into account: how long each party has lived in Denmark; whether one or both parties have family and/or acquaintances in Denmark; whether one or both parties have custody of or visiting rights to a child under 18 in Denmark; whether one or both parties have completed an educational programme in Denmark, or have a solid connection to the Danish labour market; how well both parties speak Danish; the extent of both parties' ties to another country, including whether extended visits have been made to that country; and whether the applicant has children or other family members in any other country.

In practice, proving your attachment according to these criteria is extremely complicated for those involved: let me present my own case as a hypothetical example, though many similar examples exist. ....................


http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/an...to-danish-trap

I foresee more fees.....

[gWaPito]

wait til next week, a lot of MP's are going to have angry voters on their back soon, not just a few, many.

i would estimate that 90%+ of spouse visa are granted on here first time, so a refusal rate is 10% or even less , but the refusal rate could jump to 50 or 60%

I dont think so Joe...
Its'only' going to effect a quarter of a million people a year....I dont think the remaining 65 million are gonna be that fussed

The refusal rate wont be that high Joe....the applicants will know the criteria..they wont be silly enough to waste there monies.

T he attachment test is the least of peoples worries...basically its wondering when they are going to win the lotto...thsts the only way, for some are going to get in the uk

[lastlid]

I dont think so Joe...
Its'only' going to effect a quarter of a million people a year....I dont think the remaining 65 million are gonna be that fussed

That is the problem. It is a large percentage but of a small amount of the UK population.

[joebloggs]

I dont think so Joe...
Its'only' going to effect a quarter of a million people a year....I dont think the remaining 65 million are gonna be that fussed

i don't think so, i know many Mp's are already overloaded with immigration cases, wait til they get *5 the workload who do you think they will blame and dont you think everyone of those 30,000 who are refused a visa will contact their MP ? of course you will.

in simple terms 30000 refused a visa / 650 mp's = 46 refusal each, nearly every week another person will be why their visa is refused and why they as a British citizen, some who have never claimed benefits , cant bring their partner to the UK,

[lastlid]

But if you arent earning 25700 a year then you may well not apply, for fear of refusal and losing money. So not so many refusals as it might seem.

[Terpe]

I just don't see 30,000 refusals.
I see 30,000 less applications.

Have to agree with gWaPito, people are not going to risk the huge application fees if they clearly don't meet the criteria of Income Thresholds.
Not unless there will be some workaround or loophole that just can't be closed.

[joebloggs]

That is the problem. It is a large percentage but of a small amount of the UK population.

how many people do you think were effected by the change from 18 to 21 for a settlement visa ? if you use the same figure of 50,000 apps, how many would you guess were under 21 ? - 5,000 ?? yet the gov was forced to change it back to 18.

it only takes one person to take the gov to court/ judicial review or the ECHR and win.

i've seen how HSMP beat the gov, i've seen how IMG's beat the gov ..

[lastlid]

So. For someone who already has a spouse visa or completed FLR then they can face further FLR as ILR has been extended to 5 years - more fees. And attachment test - more fees. Aswell as the other fees ( Life in the UK, ILR etc.) WOW.

[lastlid]

how many people do you think were effected by the change from 18 to 21 for a settlement visa ? if you use the same figure of 50,000 apps, how many would you guess were under 21 ? - 5,000 ?? yet the gov was forced to change it back to 18.

it only takes one person to take the gov to court/ judicial review or the ECHR and win.

i've seen how HSMP beat the gov, i've seen how IMG's beat the gov ..

I see what you mean. Good point. Thanks.

[Terpe]

So. For someone who already has a spouse visa or completed FLR then they can face further FLR as ILR has been extended to 5 years. More fees. And attachment test. More fees. Aswell as the other fees ( Life in the UK, ILR etc. WOW.

Well it's a possibility I guess. But we'll just need to see what the implementation ends up as.

[joebloggs]

But if you arent earning 25700 a year then you may well not apply, for fear of refusal and losing money. So not so many refusals as it might seem.

I just don't see 30,000 refusals.
I see 30,000 less applications.

Have to agree with gWaPito, people are not going to risk the huge application fees if they clearly don't meet the criteria of Income Thresholds.
Not unless there will be some workaround or loophole that just can't be closed.

so what are you going to do, you meet someone online, in another country or where ever, you get serious with them, and like most people you dont know anything about immigration law or rules, and maybe you get wed, or even worse dont get wed because you dont earn £25k+ a year. and because of that you can't be together

your right maybe people will not apply if they dont earn 25k, but dont you think many people will at this and contact their mp ? .

[lastlid]

Well it's a possibility I guess. But we'll just need to see what the implementation ends up as.

Just trying to think the above posting (#1) through.

[joebloggs]

i really cant see this happening, if it does not for long,, who can argue with the below ?

Any legislation has to be 'compatible' with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. If it's incompatible, that legislation can be struck out by the courts. The HRA provides a national remedy to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed by the UK eons ago. Previously, if someone wished to assert that their 'human rights' had been infringed, then remedy would have to have been sought through the European Court for Human Rights - so costly as to generally not be worth it.

Should a sponsor's minimum income proposal be introduced to the Immigration Rules, it could be perceived as a disproportionate interference in the right to a private and family life (Article 8), as well as discriminatory, and thereby 'incompatible' with the HRA. After all, it is 'not fair' that one person can have their foreign spouse settle simply because they earn x amount, whereas the bloke next door can't because he falls shy of an arbitrary threshold.

from davis Khan - immigration associates.