Before you permanently move to the US

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

It also states the the UKC must be physically present in the UK for one year before filing. It's not clear to me what it is like if you are moving from somewhere else with a non-UKC spouse, which I'm sure would be a lot of people, presumably giving up a job to find a new one in the UK.

I haven't looked at all the detail though.

[*Snowdrop* 603]

It also states the the UKC must be physically present in the UK for one year before filing. It's not clear to me what it is like if you are moving from somewhere else with a non-UKC spouse, which I'm sure would be a lot of people, presumably giving up a job to find a new one in the UK.

I haven't looked at all the detail though.

I don't think the actual amount is that bad - it's not an unreasonable threshold in itself but not allowing the option of a co-sponsor is really prohibitive.

So the returning UKC with a non-UK spouse has to be the one showing either an income over the threshold - if you are returning after living abroad they acknowledge that this would mean a separation for a family so they say they will accept a definite job offer in the UK showing an income above stated level BUT - and this is what gets me... you also have to show you have been working (in your foreign residence) at a job which is above the threshold for the previous six months.

They will not however consider the UKC's foreign spouse under the above rules which I think is unfair.

So in my situation - when I was in the UK I had a job which easily met the requirements but I gave that up to come here and be with my American husband. We decided to start a family and I stay at home and look after our child - I do work part-time from home in my professional field to keep up my resume etc but I don't make enough money doing that to meet these requirements.

So if we want to move to the UK I need to put my child into daycare - find a job to meet the requirements - do it for at least six months and then manage to get a job offer from a company in the UK. I know that's not the greatest hardship in the world but it's certainly made the system more difficult for us.

And my parents would be more than happy to be co-sponsors if that was allowed.

Oh well, time to start adding it in to the planning for the future. Maybe the rules will change again before we need to move back.

[Justine+David 218]

Can you go over with a certain amount of savings? What about retirees returning?

[Damian&Kelly 16]

After reading almost the whole document in a panic, my husband called home. He talked to his father who had just read the article in the UK news paper. The UK news paper was trying to make the UK people aware of what this will do to some of it's own people. It said that it was racist, and that it would split families up. After talking to a few people in the UK, everyone's feelings are that these exact rules will never hold true with the population. I do believe things were too easy, but to make it for the rich is not stopping anything as the rich are usually the scammers paying their way into England. If anything they should test relationships more, interviews and such. I mean my husband and I would answer any question and do any paperwork, but just because we don't have money in the bank we can't move back to his home country? this is crazy and the 5 year period is outrageous, considering you have to renew it 2.5 years in and prove you still have the funds! As I said to my husband, it'd probably be easier to move to a different part of Europe together then his home country. My husband is still in shock, really ashamed of his country. I knew changes were in the making but I believe they are changing all the wrong things just because they put themselves in a position that should have never came about! Now all the complaining about US immigration is nothing, as it may take long but it's still doable.

[NotworkSte 19]

I am totally stunned by parts of this. I can't think of anything else to say right now on it.

[Justine+David 218]

Aha, it looks like it's 62,600 pounds worth of savings if you don't have a job, plus more if you have any children. Lovely. Never mind that David is a teacher and I am a NICU RN (of which there is a shortage in the UK). Really think they are kicking themselves in the foot here as if we moved over there we'd both be taking a significant pay cut (me at 50% and David at 30%) and yet would be hugely benefiting society (not that that should be a requirement, of course, but just goes to show)...

I might be able to get over on a work visa which would probably be much cheaper and our future kids and David could move over whenever since they'd be citizens.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What's crazy about this is that the UKC (especially a woman who is a SAHM) may not be the main breadwinner. And they don't count the non-UKC's income even if they have been married for years? So a UKC who stays at home with children (or is just a low earner or whatever) who happens to be married to a non-UKC who is a lawyer or corporate executive earning 6 figures but with less than $100k in savings is going to have problems?

My mind is boggled by the stupidity of it. I may need to pay a visit to uk-yankee to understand.

[*Snowdrop* 603]

What's crazy about this is that the UKC (especially a woman who is a SAHM) may not be the main breadwinner. And they don't count the non-UKC's income even if they have been married for years? So a UKC who stays at home with children (or is just a low earner or whatever) who happens to be married to a non-UKC who is a lawyer or corporate executive earning 6 figures but with less than $100k in savings is going to have problems?

My mind is boggled by the stupidity of it. I may need to pay a visit to uk-yankee to understand.

This is exactly what surprised me. And then not to give people in those situations the option of a co-sponsor.

[Krikit 1,163]

This is heartbreaking. Does anyone know if they can stop it from going forward as it is currently written? Can they send it back for a rewrite? I spoke to my sister about it. She currently lives there and was under the impression that it would not affect me at all. Which means to me that the media is not getting the information out there of how much this is going to affect us.

[Holly2234 66]

This is heartbreaking. Does anyone know if they can stop it from going forward as it is currently written? Can they send it back for a rewrite? I spoke to my sister about it. She currently lives there and was under the impression that it would not affect me at all. Which means to me that the media is not getting the information out there of how much this is going to affect us.

The media is not getting it out there as it really is at all. Ive seen it on the news and it is not showing anything other than numbers! "We will get the immigration rate down by X% in X amount of time!". That isnt really the point for the rest of us though...

[Jessa & Liam 11]

This is heartbreaking. Does anyone know if they can stop it from going forward as it is currently written? Can they send it back for a rewrite? I spoke to my sister about it. She currently lives there and was under the impression that it would not affect me at all. Which means to me that the media is not getting the information out there of how much this is going to affect us.

It still has to go to the House of Lords who can vote it down. Then it could be amended and reintroduced. As well as that I'd imagine that it would be very likely that it would be tested in Court - likely on Human Rights grounds and it having a disproportionate impact on the right to family life.

The media is not getting it out there as it really is at all. Ive seen it on the news and it is not showing anything other than numbers! "We will get the immigration rate down by X% in X amount of time!". That isnt really the point for the rest of us though...

The media's coverage of it has been pretty poor, especially on the details and the potential impact.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Jessa & Liam

[rocks 494]

What's crazy about this is that the UKC (especially a woman who is a SAHM) may not be the main breadwinner. And they don't count the non-UKC's income even if they have been married for years? So a UKC who stays at home with children (or is just a low earner or whatever) who happens to be married to a non-UKC who is a lawyer or corporate executive earning 6 figures but with less than $100k in savings is going to have problems?

My mind is boggled by the stupidity of it. I may need to pay a visit to uk-yankee to understand.

This is my problem. I'm the UKC, I'm not working. My husband is employed and will find employment in the UK too, but that isn't counted for anything. It seems that they only want rich, old people with tons of savings or male professionals. So it is ok if you're a SAHM if you're not a UKC, but if you are a UKC then stay out! I've never been so ashamed of my country in all my life.

[Justine+David 218]

Apparently if you're a high-flying professional, the document suggest that you get a work visa to come over...never mind that not all high-earners are in professional shortage occupations. I really hate the whole, "Well, it was going to be 25,000 pounds, so 18,000 is a great deal!" #######. The idea of no co-sponsors is the big crux in it all...

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

This is heartbreaking. Does anyone know if they can stop it from going forward as it is currently written? Can they send it back for a rewrite? I spoke to my sister about it. She currently lives there and was under the impression that it would not affect me at all. Which means to me that the media is not getting the information out there of how much this is going to affect us.

I don't think there is much info out there Krikit. The Guardian has written some scathing commentary on the proposals. SkyTV seems to be doing some commentary on the negative aspects. Otherwise I think the bill is being sold in the press as a way to cut migration into the "tens of thousands".

Which is impossible with these proposals btw. Migration to the UK stands at around 250,000 per year. There were around 50K spousal/fiance/partner visas issued last year. The Coalition predicts these measures will cut 18K to 30K migrants from that 50K figure. So if these proposals stand, they still cannot meet their public goal.

*edited for clarity*

Edited June 13, 2012 by Rebecca Jo

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Interesting that they announce today that they are extending their youth mobility scheme to allow Koreans to join. I would bet that a huge chunk of visa abuse comes from such schemes, along with working holiday schemes with participants staying after their visa expires or taking jobs the visa does not allow them to take. I knew of several working holiday visa holders that did exactly that.

I also wonder if there are new limitations placed on commonwealth citizens taking ancestral visas? I don't see anything in my research to suggest this is the case. It seems crazy to me that if might be easier to come to the UK if your dead grandmother was a British citizen than your living British spouse.