Before you permanently move to the US

[Captain Oates 910]

The unspoken sub-text to all this as we all know, is that they want to prevent British born Pakistanis and Bangladeshis importing millions of spouses from those countries.

Just because the whites have evolved in the UK and grown the language there for the last 1,500 years, they think they should be able come and go with their spouses as they please

A few minutes thought convinced me that British is British and we wouldn't stop a million British guys importing Thai girls would we ?

We might. That is an industry too

The government should be more open with what this is all about so that fairer rules can be devised which would not discriminate against any Brit of any race, but would address whatever concerns the government planners have, and in a way that applies to everyone and is fair and kind

In particular, the rules should be those that applied BEFORE the marriage and not after. Anyone married before the rule changes should have the old rules applied.

If someone marries knowing the new rules, then ok the new rules can apply - but the new rules are a GOTCHA

[rocks 494]

I totally agree. It's clear this is an attack on arranged marriages/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis etc, and if anyone else gets prevented from moving to the UK in the process, then that's an extra bonus! I can only imagine how envious the right wingers in this country are of these draconian rules.

My husband and I have less than 3 weeks to decide if we are going to apply or not! It would be far easier if it was based on when you were married and not when you applied, oh well. This makes USCIS look like angels!

[*Snowdrop* 603]

In the examples near the bottom of how people may or may not meet the financial requirements - this is one which seems very unfair:

Leroy has been studying in Australia for 4 years and has entered into a civil partnership with an Australian national. He has not been working. At the end of his course he gets a job offer in the UK to start in 6 weeks, paying £25,000. Leroy has no other income or savings.

Leroy will not meet the financial requirement under Option A or B. Leon can only rely on the income from a job offer in the UK if he has also been in employment at the required level of income overseas.

He's not been working overseas because he's been studying and has managed somehow to get a good job offer back in the UK paying well over the required amount. But he still doesn't qualify to be a sponsor for his partner under the new rules! Crazy.

He now has to either go back on his own and work for at least six months at his new job - be separate from his partner all that time - and then apply again.

Or he has to give up the job offer and get a job in Australia for six months at the required amount (if he's even allowed to work there as he was a student) and then reapply.

Of course it would be nice if we were all as lucky as Katy:

Katy has been travelling across the USA for 18 months with her American partner. Katy has investments that pay her £10,000 a year and she has £40,000 cash in the bank. She has not been working in the USA and has no job in the UK to return to.

Katy will meet the financial requirement through a combination of Options C and D. As she is not relying on any income from employment, she does not need to have a job offer in the UK and can meet the threshold in other ways.

Based on her non-employment income of £10,000, Katy will require £37,500 in savings to meet the threshold: ([£18,600 - £10,000] x 2.5) + £16,000. As she has more than this, the financial requirement is met.

[Holly2234 66]

In the examples near the bottom of how people may or may not meet the financial requirements - this is one which seems very unfair:

Leroy has been studying in Australia for 4 years and has entered into a civil partnership with an Australian national. He has not been working. At the end of his course he gets a job offer in the UK to start in 6 weeks, paying £25,000. Leroy has no other income or savings.

Leroy will not meet the financial requirement under Option A or B. Leon can only rely on the income from a job offer in the UK if he has also been in employment at the required level of income overseas.

He's not been working overseas because he's been studying and has managed somehow to get a good job offer back in the UK paying well over the required amount. But he still doesn't qualify to be a sponsor for his partner under the new rules! Crazy.

He now has to either go back on his own and work for at least six months at his new job - be separate from his partner all that time - and then apply again.

Or he has to give up the job offer and get a job in Australia for six months at the required amount (if he's even allowed to work there as he was a student) and then reapply.

Of course it would be nice if we were all as lucky as Katy:

Katy has been travelling across the USA for 18 months with her American partner. Katy has investments that pay her £10,000 a year and she has £40,000 cash in the bank. She has not been working in the USA and has no job in the UK to return to.

Katy will meet the financial requirement through a combination of Options C and D. As she is not relying on any income from employment, she does not need to have a job offer in the UK and can meet the threshold in other ways.

Based on her non-employment income of £10,000, Katy will require £37,500 in savings to meet the threshold: ([£18,600 - £10,000] x 2.5) + £16,000. As she has more than this, the financial requirement is met.

These are a great way of putting it in plain English. The system is not going to be fair at all.

[Captain Oates 910]

In the examples near the bottom of how people may or may not meet the financial requirements - this is one which seems very unfair:

Leroy has been studying in Australia for 4 years and has entered into a civil partnership with an Australian national. He has not been working. At the end of his course he gets a job offer in the UK to start in 6 weeks, paying £25,000. Leroy has no other income or savings.

Leroy will not meet the financial requirement under Option A or B. Leon can only rely on the income from a job offer in the UK if he has also been in employment at the required level of income overseas.

He's not been working overseas because he's been studying and has managed somehow to get a good job offer back in the UK paying well over the required amount. But he still doesn't qualify to be a sponsor for his partner under the new rules! Crazy.

He now has to either go back on his own and work for at least six months at his new job - be separate from his partner all that time - and then apply again.

Or he has to give up the job offer and get a job in Australia for six months at the required amount (if he's even allowed to work there as he was a student) and then reapply.

Of course it would be nice if we were all as lucky as Katy:

Katy has been travelling across the USA for 18 months with her American partner. Katy has investments that pay her £10,000 a year and she has £40,000 cash in the bank. She has not been working in the USA and has no job in the UK to return to.

Katy will meet the financial requirement through a combination of Options C and D. As she is not relying on any income from employment, she does not need to have a job offer in the UK and can meet the threshold in other ways.

Based on her non-employment income of £10,000, Katy will require £37,500 in savings to meet the threshold: ([£18,600 - £10,000] x 2.5) + £16,000. As she has more than this, the financial requirement is met.

It's a loan shark's dream.

Poor immigrants will be abused and used by the traffickers and loan sharks and be in their grip for years after they arrive.

Well off long-married re-immigrants will be put off with all this '5 years probation' stuff and will decide not to enter this uncertainty zone and not bring and spend their life savings and tax into the UK economy

Genius plan Mr Cameron - what else did you devise in the other half of your lunch hour

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

And in none of these stupid examples does it say "and Katy's partner is a Wall Street Banker with a trust fund worth $2.5m dollars"

Because if Katy does happen to fall short of the income requirements, that won't matter.

Stupid, stupid, stupid........

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

As it says in the video link I put up, if you oppose these changes, please send an e-mail to UK Shadow Minister for Immigration, Chris Bryant.

It is being reported that his office is responding to these messages. There's no way to know if Bryant himself is seeing these messages right now, but hopefully he will before Tuesday. Parliamentary debate on these issues occurs on Tuesday June 19.

bryantc@parliament.uk

Also here is an important blog to follow:

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/06/13/new-statement-of-intent-on-family-migration/

Edited June 14, 2012 by Rebecca Jo

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-minister-wrong-on-immigration/10785

The background:

Home secretary Theresa May says that under her new immigration rules, migrants who come to the UK from outside the EU will “not become a burden on the taxpayer.”

They want to introduce a minimum income level of £18,600 for UK residents who want their non-EU other halves to come and join them, even if that other half happens to be really quite rich. It would exclude around 45 per cent of those who enter for family reasons, they say.

Damian Green has claimed that while helping the Tories with their stated aim of cutting net migration from the “hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands”, the plans will save taxpayers some £700m a year.

He’s said that the “vast majority” of those who come in from outside the EU for marital reasons and are eligible for benefits, go on to claim them.

In January a row over immigration figures flared up . The department for work and pensions (DWP) released figures – which Mr Green stood by – claiming that of 371,000 arrivals to the UK who claimed benefits, more than 5,000 immigrants “with no right to claim state help” were being paid them wrongly.

That led to a strongly-worded rebuke from statistics watchdog, the UK Statistics Authority, which accused the DWP of publishing “misleading” figures. FactCheck’s already explained the problem with their figures here.

This time, Mr Green declined to give specifics of how many migrants who entered the UK on spousal visas went on to claim benefits, so FactCheck set out to find out.

The analysis:

FactCheck was surprised to hear from the immigration minister that it’s possible to come from anywhere in the world and get handouts within moments of setting foot on dry land.

So was the DWP, according to its response.

We asked the DWP whether a non-EU national could come to the UK and claim for state help as soon as they arrive.

A spokesman said: “Anyone outside the EU or European Economic Area can not arrive in the UK and claim benefits from day one.”

He added that in order to be eligible for claims, including housing benefit, income support, council tax benefits, or child benefits, a habitual residence test needs to be passed first.

Contributory benefits such as jobseekers’ allowance, the contributed part of employment support allowance, incapacity benefit or state pensions, can only be accessed if the individual has paid enough in national insurance.

And if someone were to come and live with their partner who’s already on benefits, does that autmatically make them eligible for their own benefits? “No,” was the answer from the DWP. “You still need to pass the habitual residency test.”

Mr Green claimed that of those entering for family reasons, nearly half were eligible for benefits and the vast majority of those claimed them. FactCheck asked the home office exactly how many people who entered the UK on marriage or spousal visas went on to claim benefits. They didn’t have a ready answer.

There are figures which tell us how many overseas nationals register for insurance numbers, including by region, and how many claimed for an out-of-work benefit within six months of registration.

But what they don’t tell us is how many of those people entered the UK through family immigration, whether as a spouse or dependant. The DWP didn’t have any further breakdowns, so we went back to the home office.

They referred us to a Migration Advisory Committee report. That was the one that Ms May based her minimum £18,600 income level on. The report told us that in 2010, 18 per cent of non-EU migrants came to the UK to join family members – some 54,000 people. It was roughly the same the previous year, according to the report.

In the year to mid-2011, 83 per cent of visas issued were for spouses or partners. Of them, two thirds were women and one third men.

It also showed that back in 2004, less than eight per cent of spouses brought other dependents – children or elderly relatives – with them, and most of those who did brought only one.

But what the report doesn’t say is how many of those people went on to claim benefits. Or indeed, how many of the people they were coming to join were on benefits.

FactCheck asked the home office if they could see the figures upon which Mr Green based his claim, but they didn’t appear to be available.

The verdict:

FactCheck can’t find anything to stand up either of Mr Green’s claims.

The only way in which someone entering the UK could come and live off benefits from “day one” would be if their partner was happy to give them a slice of their own, should they be receiving any.

But as we don’t know how many people on benefits then go on to sponsor a partner, we have no idea how many are prepared to do that.

Likewise, we can’t say whether the vast majority of those who enter for family reasons and are entitled to handouts, go on to claim them, although we’ve previously shown that a smaller proportion of overseas nationals claim benefits than UK nationals.

In these times of austerity, Ms May is, naturally, looking at reducing the burden on the state – whether through non-EU nationals or through UK citizens.

The only problem is that we can’t find any way of saying how much that burden would be reduced by. We went back to the home office for clarification on Mr Green’s comments.

They hadn’t responded by the time we went to press.

[Captain Oates 910]

Dear Mr Bryant

I write to register my disapproval of the current changes to spousal immigration which are before parliament.

I am a UK Citizen and my wife is American. In 2006 we went to the UK Consulate in Chicago and it took a few hours to obtain a UK ‘green card’ or Further Leave to Remain’ for her.

We lived in the UK and subsequently went to the US

The new law has two controversial aspects. The first is the income requirement which we can overcome, but the second abolishes the ‘married four years ‘ rule

We were relying on that rule which allowed a UK Citizen who had been married four years and lived outside the UK, to obtain permanent (not conditional) spousal residency on return to the UK

Under the new law, my wife would have to be ‘conditional ‘ for FIVE years with a renewal half way through and subject to various tests

I believe this law was rushed, and is in effect retrospective. It should only apply to persons married AFTER the new law is introduced and then when they marry, it is in full knowledge of the immigration consequences of their future plans

Retrospective law is repugnant to the English way of doing things and I hope you will oppose this aspect.

There must be people in Australia and Canada and Asia and all round the world who expected to bring their spouses to the UK under the four year rule and not to have it snatched away retrospectively

This new law is Draconian and a MUCH higher hurdle than the US which is only 3 years from resident card to citizenship !

That is as it may be, but the retrospective aspect is unacceptable

Thank you

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10878&st=16:56:33.3070000

This is a long video but interesting. Theresa May introducing her bill into Parliament on Monday.

[Glyn and Kathy 288]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10878&st=16:56:33.3070000

This is a long video but interesting. Theresa May introducing her bill into Parliament on Monday.

I can't even tell you how much I dislike this woman. Her voice makes me cringe!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I can't even tell you how much I dislike this woman. Her voice makes me cringe!

The clip actually makes a great Friday night drinking game.

Take a drink for every time she says "I/we think it is right" and "Migration Advisory Committee".

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm glad the same woman responsible for letting thousands into the country without proper vetting at Heathrow has now decided to clamp down on family visas

[rocks 494]

I'm glad the same woman responsible for letting thousands into the country without proper vetting at Heathrow has now decided to clamp down on family visas

[Justine+David 218]

David and I just watched the whole video. It is particularly hilarious and yet horrifying to hear from the "honourable gentleman" who asked the secretary how we would regulate people who purposely have children after they arrive in the UK... not quite, but close enough. As though all I'm good for is having 23489023590 babies and claiming public funds. She replied that she doesn't think government would be able to regulate people having babies after they've settled in the UK...

The whole thing, you have Conservatives saying all these ridiculous things, asking for even more regulations (in the meantime making the secretary look like she's being the reasonable one, holding them back) and Labour asking pointed questions, but receiving nothing answers.

The thing that got most under my skin was when someone asked about those serving in the military overseas, not meeting the threshold, yet hello, risking their lives for the protection of Britain. She said that it was a matter they were going to look into perhaps, but for now, the regulations would stand as stated. I am a military brat (grew up in a military family for those not familiar) and watched my Dad make many sacrifices for our family. He has served in two wars and has been in the Army for 33+ years (started as private, now is a colonel). Our family moved every 2-3 years throughout my childhood and my Dad worked 50+, often 60+ hour weeks, that is when he was here and not overseas in training, war, or other Army business trips. The thought of someone telling him that he couldn't bring his beloved (if my mom was foreign) over after dedicating his life to his country, is infuriating. I know Americans have a lot of respect for the Armed Forces; is this not the case in Britain? Even for USCIS, you only need 100% of the poverty line to bring your fiance/spouse over instead of 125%. I just can't see the US treating its own like this...why would Britain?

....well, I can only hope that things change in the years to come before we attempt to move over (if we are able, anyway). They had a law where you couldn't move over with your spouse if you were over 18, but under 21 and that didn't seem to last long. I have no idea of the sticking point of this.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Justine+David