I Got A Letter Back From Chris Row Today Regarding The Changes.

[lastlid]

Make a list out guys I will send it to my mp.

There seems to be a strong no comment posting, regarding the list, Andy. Not sure why. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree?

[joebloggs]

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?

This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.

nor can you claim 'more of' a benefit if one partner has no recourse to public funds.

all this is about is the gov appearing to do something about controlling immigration

[lastlid]

Fair point that

[yellowcloud]

Andy, I am preparing to write a list to send to my MP, so far this is what I have got.


Here I outline a few points in relation to the Immigration changes.

• 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach.

• There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.

FACT - the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR and it is a fact that the presence of a UK Citizens Sponsored spouse CAN not increase the sponsors housing benefit nor any other benefits, if anything if the Immigrant Spouse does work the sponsors housing benefit will decrease and look at the statistics the vast majority of immigrant spouses go straight into the working environment hence also contributing to the UK Economy.

• Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors. What I and some are saying is that the government shouldn’t really have it both ways.

• Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.

• Ms. May is correct in quoting the wording of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It is a qualified rather than an absolute right. However, measures that qualify should be proportionate, i.e. there is a need to justify that in effect the economic well-being of the country is being protected by these restrictions and that the means to do it are not disproportionate and quite clearly the restrictions that a sponsor must earn 18,600 are not only disproportionate but also made in error as a UKs Sponsors Immigrant spouse is not entitled to any public funds, the UK Citizens Immigrant spouses presence CAN NOT increase ANY public funds for the UK Citizen regardless of that the minimum income threshold is set at hence the economic well-being of the country is not affected.

In relation to the Human Rights Act which states (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every single case, that every applicants whose spouse earns less than 18,600 will affect the economic well-being of the UK and it is proportionate for every case. But in law they cannot Judges can not say that. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment! By May dictating to Judges is explicitly abrogating the independence of the judiciary. Not so long ago the UK Govt was attacking Mugabe regime for doubling up as judges, are they acting any different from the Mugabe/ Gadaffi Regimes?


The 18,600 threshold was calculated by a group of economists called the Migration Advisory Committee. This is the income level at which a British family would not receive any public funds in the form of income-related benefits (including tax credits).

A British Citizens Migrant Spouse has No Recourse to Public funds and CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether the UK Sponsor is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to any additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouses presence either, therefore there being NO burden on the UK Tax payer whatsoever. Hence making there no need for a Minimum earning threshold of 18,600.

• Under New Rules a British Citizen who receives DLA is not required to meet the new minimum earning threshold however many people with disabilities do not receive DLA.

This is another major hole in the new rules in that not every disadvantaged or disabled person receives DLA, as DLA is only for specific problems which a disabled person has. Not only that but someone who receives DLA for instance may lose it one week and the next week his spouse applies for ILR and how can this person be expected to go from being disabled and unable to work to receiving 18,600 per year immediately potentially? Hence his family spit apart, potentially his/her spouse being arrested by border control, split apart from her/his children after living here for 5 years and being put in a detention centre back to a country they have not lived in for 5 years!

[grahamw48]

Very good work sir.

How many EU workers/immigrants are likely to need the services of a translator at PUBLIC EXPENSE ?

How many Filipinas are likely to need such a service ?

What are the comparable crime figures for different sets of immigrants ?

The government needs to start dealing with REALITY, rather than discriminating in such a nonsensical and arbitrary way.

[lastlid]

Andy, I am preparing to write a list to send to my MP, so far this is what I have got.


Here I outline a few points in relation to the Immigration changes.

• 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach.

• There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.

FACT - the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR and it is a fact that the presence of a UK Citizens Sponsored spouse CAN not increase the sponsors housing benefit nor any other benefits, if anything if the Immigrant Spouse does work the sponsors housing benefit will decrease and look at the statistics the vast majority of immigrant spouses go straight into the working environment hence also contributing to the UK Economy.

• Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors. What I and some are saying is that the government shouldn’t really have it both ways.

• Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.

• Ms. May is correct in quoting the wording of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It is a qualified rather than an absolute right. However, measures that qualify should be proportionate, i.e. there is a need to justify that in effect the economic well-being of the country is being protected by these restrictions and that the means to do it are not disproportionate and quite clearly the restrictions that a sponsor must earn 18,600 are not only disproportionate but also made in error as a UKs Sponsors Immigrant spouse is not entitled to any public funds, the UK Citizens Immigrant spouses presence CAN NOT increase ANY public funds for the UK Citizen regardless of that the minimum income threshold is set at hence the economic well-being of the country is not affected.

In relation to the Human Rights Act which states (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every single case, that every applicants whose spouse earns less than 18,600 will affect the economic well-being of the UK and it is proportionate for every case. But in law they cannot Judges can not say that. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment! By May dictating to Judges is explicitly abrogating the independence of the judiciary. Not so long ago the UK Govt was attacking Mugabe regime for doubling up as judges, are they acting any different from the Mugabe/ Gadaffi Regimes?


The 18,600 threshold was calculated by a group of economists called the Migration Advisory Committee. This is the income level at which a British family would not receive any public funds in the form of income-related benefits (including tax credits).

A British Citizens Migrant Spouse has No Recourse to Public funds and CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether the UK Sponsor is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to any additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouses presence either, therefore there being NO burden on the UK Tax payer whatsoever. Hence making there no need for a Minimum earning threshold of 18,600.

• Under New Rules a British Citizen who receives DLA is not required to meet the new minimum earning threshold however many people with disabilities do not receive DLA.

This is another major hole in the new rules in that not every disadvantaged or disabled person receives DLA, as DLA is only for specific problems which a disabled person has. Not only that but someone who receives DLA for instance may lose it one week and the next week his spouse applies for ILR and how can this person be expected to go from being disabled and unable to work to receiving 18,600 per year immediately potentially? Hence his family spit apart, potentially his/her spouse being arrested by border control, split apart from her/his children after living here for 5 years and being put in a detention centre back to a country they have not lived in for 5 years!

Hopefully you might get some further input before you send it.....

Basically, even at the lower level of £18600, it is still too high.

[joebloggs]

you've missed one of the most important points out, how can if be fair that a non British European living in the UK for only a few months can bring their Non European spouse, child and family members using a EEA Family permit and these changes and restrictions do not effect them, a non British European living in the UK has a virtual legal right to bring them to the UK, while a British Citizen doesn't. how can this be just or fair ?.

[lastlid]

Another fair point from Joe.

Anyway, good luck with the letter. I am fortunate that my wife is here and we aren't affected by these new rules, but I don't like them one bit so I sympathise.

[joebloggs]

another point is, if you have kids born in the phils or UK, and you dont earn the £18.6k to bring your spouse here , common sense would tell you to get the kids to the UK and claim tax credits for them, maybe even the child care element of Tax creds and child benefit.
but if your spouse was here, you couldn't claim more of those benefits - so why not let her here ??? , but what is possible is that you wouldn't need to claim the childcare element (could be several £100's a month) as your spouse would be looking after the kids or even working and paying tax, and then if she was working you could be earning more than the tax credits cut off and not be able to claim tax creds saving the tax payer even more money

[yellowcloud]

Another fair point from Joe.

Yes, I am also going to include that in the letter too about other EEA Nationals able to bring in their spouses to the UK and a British Citizen can not.

Joe, I sent you a PM email not sure if you got it?

[lastlid]

Very good work sir.

How many EU workers/immigrants are likely to need the services of a translator at PUBLIC EXPENSE ?

How many Filipinas are likely to need such a service ?

What are the comparable crime figures for different sets of immigrants ?

The government needs to start dealing with REALITY, rather than discriminating in such a nonsensical and arbitrary way.

Exactly. All points that should be considered but evidently aren't.

[andy222]

I dont think we will get anywhere. The points that have been made are correct but this government wont budge on this. I will let you know if I get a reply from my mp.

[Terpe]

Very good work sir.

How many EU workers/immigrants are likely to need the services of a translator at PUBLIC EXPENSE ?

How many Filipinas are likely to need such a service ?

What are the comparable crime figures for different sets of immigrants ?

The government needs to start dealing with REALITY, rather than discriminating in such a nonsensical and arbitrary way.

I just caught this post Graham. Very good points indeed
Thank you.

[grahamw48]

oops....must have been one of my more rational moments Peter.

It does seem to me though, that in focusing on the 'cost to the public purse' aspect of family migration, the government are revealing a basic weakness in their argument as regards Filipino Spouses, as they are actually amongst the LEAST likely of immigrants to be a financial drain on the state.

I would like to see that proved otherwise in a court.

[lastlid]

oops....must have been one of my more rational moments Peter.

It does seem to me though, that in focusing on the 'cost to the public purse' aspect of family migration, the government are revealing a basic weakness in their argument as regards Filipino Spouses, as they are actually amongst the LEAST likely of immigrants to be a financial drain on the state.

I would like to see that proved otherwise in a court.

I think it is realised here on the Isle of Man, hence so may Filipinos here as a fraction of the total population. Marks and Sparks and Tesco here obviously realise it too. It is not just a coincidence that filipinos are here in such large numbers and so few from other no EU countries.

Basically, the UK government cant be 'd to be discerning.

[yellowcloud]

Hmm thats interesting, if we don't get the Fiance Visa maybe we can use the EEA Route and live in the Isle of Man? OR is the Isle of Man part of the UK?

[Dedworth]

oops....must have been one of my more rational moments Peter.

It does seem to me though, that in focusing on the 'cost to the public purse' aspect of family migration, the government are revealing a basic weakness in their argument as regards Filipino Spouses, as they are actually amongst the LEAST likely of immigrants to be a financial drain on the state.

I would like to see that proved otherwise in a court.

My "common sense post of the week" nomination

[lastlid]

Hmm thats interesting, if we don't get the Fiance Visa maybe we can use the EEA Route and live in the Isle of Man? OR is the Isle of Man part of the UK?

Not an easy one to answer, I am afraid. However, for the purposes of visa application it is part of the UK. But strictly speaking it isn't part of the UK, but part of the British Isles - slight difference. As far as I can make out, it isn't part of the EU but does have ties and agreements with it........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man

Notice the subtle difference in the passport cover.

[joebloggs]

Hmm thats interesting, if we don't get the Fiance Visa maybe we can use the EEA Route and live in the Isle of Man? OR is the Isle of Man part of the UK?

no i dont think so, IOM issues British passports , either go to Southern Ireland, south of France or Spain (the last 2 for the weather)

interesting about Asylum seekers

Asylum
What is the situation on the Isle of Man in respect of asylum claims?
The Isle of Man’s legislation does not include provision for asylum claims or support for asylum seekers. The Isle of Man (and the Channel Islands) benefit from an arrangement with the United Kingdom Government whereby it will accept the return of asylum seekers in cases where the individual concerned, having arrived here via the UK, would have had opportunity to claim asylum in the UK. For anyone entering from any other port of entry, the Immigration Service, under present arrangements, works with the UK to achieve a satisfactory outcome

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immig...leofmanpub.pdf

[lastlid]

no i dont think so, IOM issues British passports , either go to Southern Ireland, south of France or Spain (the last 2 for the weather)

interesting about Asylum seekers

Asylum
What is the situation on the Isle of Man in respect of asylum claims?
The Isle of Man’s legislation does not include provision for asylum claims or support for asylum seekers. The Isle of Man (and the Channel Islands) benefit from an arrangement with the United Kingdom Government whereby it will accept the return of asylum seekers in cases where the individual concerned, having arrived here via the UK, would have had opportunity to claim asylum in the UK. For anyone entering from any other port of entry, the Immigration Service, under present arrangements, works with the UK to achieve a satisfactory outcome

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immig...leofmanpub.pdf

Also note the words European Union on the passport cover. Yet the IOM isnt part of the EU. No mention of UK.

332px-Isle_of_Man_Passport.svg.jpg

[joebloggs]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have Associate Member status. The dependencies of other member states presumably have similar arrangements.

http://www.conformance.co.uk/info/eea.php

[joebloggs]

Who are the overseas workers, where do they come from?
The issue of National Insurance (NI) numbers gives some indication of all the nationalities working on the Isle of Man. During 2005/06 NI numbers were issued to people from Poland (271) India (155) South Africa (148) and the Philippines (76). No other country of origin had more than 50 NI numbers issued over that period.

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immig...leofmanpub.pdf

[lastlid]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have Associate Member status. The dependencies of other member states presumably have similar arrangements.

http://www.conformance.co.uk/info/eea.php

But heres a slightly different slant on it, from the Manx Government's own website......

"The Isle of Man has a special relationship with the European Union, set out in Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom's Treaty of Accession. The text of Protocol 3 is reproduced below. Under this special relationship the Island is neither a Member State nor an associate member of the European Union. It is also worth emphasising that, although the Island's relationship with the EU is through the UK, the Isle of Man is an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown and is not part of the UK".
http://www.gov.im/cso/externalrelations/eu.xml

Like I said. Complicated.

"I am a foreign national. What are the requirements if I want to come and live on the Isle of Man?
The admission of foreign nationals is regulated by the Isle of Man Immigration Rules. The Rules lay down the requirements for the entry and stay of foreign nationals in the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Rules, whilst not identical to the United Kingdom (UK) Rules, are based on the UK Rules and are very similar. However, they are not identical and there are some provisions in the UK Rules that do not apply here and some in the Isle of Man Rules that do not apply in the UK. There are also, as in the UK, provisions in the Rules that apply only to Commonwealth citizens. It is important that people interested in emigrating to the Isle of Man check to see what the requirements are as it may be that an entry clearance is required. Without the necessary entry clearance the passenger may be refused entry to the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man".

[lastlid]

Who are the overseas workers, where do they come from?
The issue of National Insurance (NI) numbers gives some indication of all the nationalities working on the Isle of Man. During 2005/06 NI numbers were issued to people from Poland (271) India (155) South Africa (148) and the Philippines (76). No other country of origin had more than 50 NI numbers issued over that period.

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immig...leofmanpub.pdf

Interesting stats but they don't match the blend that I see on the streets in 2012. It is really hard to find anyone from the Indian subcontinent here. Struggle to find an Indian restaurant.

I think that I have seen 1 person of West Indian origin. And hardly any more of African origin. If there are folk from South Africa then they are not indigenous African in origin.

The blend of ethnicities here are nothing like most places in England. There are no hidden, or otherwise, enclaves or ghettos. And it takes very little effort to cover all of the island and I really don't see very many Indians, barely a handful or two. Some are indeed in the medical profession.

I wouldn't disagree with the stats on the Poles. But they aren't non EU. In any case we aren't talking "Roman" here in the sense that Dedworth refers to. There aren't loads of rampant "Romas" begging on the streets or claiming benefit. The Poles are mainly in the hotel sector and dentistry etc.

Also, they are old stats.

Bottom line is that there aren't any immigration related problems here. Virtually none, unless you count those that come across on the ferry.

[joebloggs]

yes old stats, i think the IOM has very limited say on Immigrations law, I'm sure its Immigration law is made by Parliament.

[lastlid]

yes old stats, i think the IOM has very limited say on Immigrations law, I'm sure its Immigration law is made by Parliament.

But some of its Immigration law is a little different.

Anyhow, having said that Joe, how does one account for such a uniquely large percentage of Filipinos here? There must be some discretion being utilised here. Maybe the discretion is exercised by the employers in the first place? Many that I have come across have arrived here on work visas originally.

[joebloggs]

from those stats 76 Filipino's got nino's in 2005/06 when many people could get work permits - you just needed a sponsor , but with the recent restrictions i bet the number is low to zero in the last year or so.

[lastlid]

from those stats 76 Filipino's got nino's in 2005/06 when many people could get work permits - you just needed a sponsor , but with the recent restrictions i bet the number is low to zero in the last year or so.

But theres still a load of Filipinos here. Every other checkout in Tesco for a starters. Actually, you might be right as I noticed less over the last few months.