Changes to spouse visa requirements being announced next week

[Joppa]

Originally Posted by AnAmericanInScotland

Has every one signed this:

Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions

You need to be a resident or citizen. I've signed and am urging my UK friends to sign as well. It's not got many signatures and likely won't reach the needed number to trigger debate but signing it felt really, really, really good!

Good luck, but I suspect the majority of UK population would support government proposals (85% are said to back lower immigration), except those who are or whose family or close friends are involved in cross-border family reunion/migration. Because of the numbers involved, there can't be that many in that category. If each of 50,000 annual migrants has a dozen supporters, that's 600,000, 1% of UK population.

[bookman0105]

from the consultation document ..
• Basic English (A1 of CEFR)
• Test of relationship –
clear and objective criteria
• Minimum age of 21
• Possible attachment
requirement
• New minimum income
threshold for sponsors
• Housing certificate required
in some cases to meet
accommodation requirement
• No access to contributor y or
non-contributor y benefits
• New restrictions on sponsorship

then 5 years later a load more requirements ..

[AnAmericanInScotland]

Originally Posted by Joppa

Good luck, but I suspect the majority of UK population would support government proposals (85% are said to back lower immigration), except those who are or whose family or close friends are involved in cross-border family reunion/migration. Because of the numbers involved, there can't be that many in that category. If each of 50,000 annual migrants has a dozen supporters, that's 600,000, 1% of UK population.

Oh I know. It just felt very good to sign it. I mean really good. Sometimes the futile has a deeper significance.

When I first heard of it this morning it had 188 signatures, it just now has 250, up from the 238 it was at a half hour ago.

[Joppa]

Originally Posted by bookman0105

from the consultation document ..
• Basic English (A1 of CEFR)
• Test of relationship –
clear and objective criteria
• Minimum age of 21
• Possible attachment
requirement
• New minimum income
threshold for sponsors
• Housing certificate required
in some cases to meet
accommodation requirement
• No access to contributor y or
non-contributor y benefits
• New restrictions on sponsorship

then 5 years later a load more requirements ..

Since the cosultation, age limit of 21 has been found to be inadmissible so reduced to 18 from the end of last year.
I don't think there is anything basically wrong in those proposals, provided they can be justified on financial and legal grounds.
The basic argument, which I find difficult to refute, is why should the British tax-paying public have to pay for the cost of allowing overseas family members to live in UK, accessing non-chargeable public services like NHS and education?

[akdh]

Originally Posted by Joppa

I quite understand the plight of individuals trying to make a living in UK but cannot meet the supposed new income requirement. But as I have said before, the government only want to admit into the country those who are net contributors, and during their probationary period, be it 2 or 5 years, want them to earn enough to pay the per capita share of public services they use, chiefly health service and education (for those with dependants) through income tax and NI contributions. education.

I feel that if this was really the case, then the immigrant's income would also be counted.

Personally, our purchases and investments in the UK have far outweighed our toll on the NHS system...epilepsy and all (oh but wait, my son is a citizen...so he is just as much as entitled to an education as everyone else).

This is clearly xenophobia at its worst. Coming from Grimsby...where I saw that the majority of non-net contributors were not immigrants but...ahem...the younger folk.

[JollyCynic]

Originally Posted by Joppa

The basic argument, which I find difficult to refute, is why should the British tax-paying public have to pay for the cost of allowing overseas family members to live in UK, accessing non-chargeable public services like NHS and education?

Because it can be cheaper than the alternative. Nobody has made the distinction between citizen dependents and non-citizen dependents.

If a family of four moves to the UK together, with one non-citizen spouse, then there are two major negatives: The non-citizen spouse is a burden on NHS and taking a job away from a British national.

If the family of four is split, the single spouse and two children can become a much larger burden on the taxpayer.

The best solution, of course, as you suggest is to make those services chargeable.

This does not mitigate the problem of taking a job away from a British national.

[akdh]

Originally Posted by Joppa

The basic argument, which I find difficult to refute, is why should the British tax-paying public have to pay for the cost of allowing overseas family members to live in UK, accessing non-chargeable public services like NHS and education?

Because at the heart of the situation, there is a son who needs his mother. There is a husband who needs his wife. The son is a UK citizen, and so is his father.

The British tax-paying public is NOT paying for the costs of allowing overseas family members to live in the UK. The public didn't pay for my visa, my plane ticket, my food, my lodging, my clothes, my furniture, my toiletries, my transportation, my utilities, my education et cetera. I did, and it is all taxed and paid to the government (save for my education).

I'm all for the argument that education should be for everyone everywhere but that is a different argument.

As for the NHS...well...we didn't come here for it but sometimes medical treatment is a necessity. It's not an immigrant's fault if it is free is it?

Some words I found to better explain my feelings:

Neoliberal economics has gleefully supported the free movement of capital and goods, to the benefit of big finance and big business, but when it comes to the free movement of people, reaction is skittish. Toxic loans to economically strapped nations? No problem. Cheap plastic goods made by exploited laborers shipped around the world by burning fossil fuels? That’s business. But an individual or family seeking better access to education, health care or decent living conditions is subject to severe restrictions and prejudice.

Clearly there is an argument for improving conditions in countries that give rise to emigration. But people who are living outside of their country of birth and who contribute to society in their country of residence though work, involvement in the school system, in local associations for culture and sport and in a myriad of other ways, should be treated as full citizens. If citizenship means being a member of a community, then excluding people from that membership can only lead to alienation. Simpler access to citizenship would foster greater equality in the world, and enhance democracy.

Also, more thoughts on borders/citizenship etc. :http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/op...=1&ref=opinion

[Sorta Fairytale]

Originally Posted by AnAmericanInScotland

Has every one signed this:

Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions

You need to be a resident or citizen. I've signed and am urging my UK friends to sign as well. It's not got many signatures and likely won't reach the needed number to trigger debate but signing it felt really, really, really good!

Thanks AAIS this is awesome. It may make no difference at all, but its good to stand for what u believe in whether you think it will make any significant changes or not. If everyone followed their hearts, we could all make a difference in support of each other and human rights. I cannot sign but my fiancé and family and friends will.

[Joppa]

Originally Posted by akdh

Because at the heart of the situation, there is a son who needs his mother. There is a husband who needs his wife. The son is a UK citizen, and so is his father.

The British tax-paying public is NOT paying for the costs of allowing overseas family members to live in the UK. The public didn't pay for my visa, my plane ticket, my food, my lodging, my clothes, my furniture, my toiletries, my transportation, my utilities, my education et cetera. I did, and it is all taxed and paid to the government (save for my education).

I'm all for the argument that education should be for everyone everywhere but that is a different argument.

As for the NHS...well...we didn't come here for it but sometimes medical treatment is a necessity. It's not an immigrant's fault if it is free is it?

Ok, that's why the government is tightening the criteria for sponsoring non-EEA family members to relocate to UK, with much higher maintenance requirement and other proposals.
Yes, NHS is free to anyone resident here with no cost at the point of use, but it was created in post-war era very different from today, and it should only be free to those settled in UK. Everyone else should pay, as they have to just about anywhere else in the world. Same with free state education and social care.
Only then you can claim that non-EEA family members are completely independent and self-financing.
I do take your point that British and non-EEA children should be distinguished, though the government wants a simple system easy to understand and implement.

[Joppa]

Just to say that I am just about the only person on this forum, regardless of my moderator status, who generally supports the government proposals. By the nature of Expat Forum, almost all contributors have a stake in immigration policy and would probably find the proposed change distasteful, unjust, anti-family, racist and discriminatory.

I come from a neutral position. And I try to put another side of the coin to balance the discussion. That's all.

Let's keep the discussion friendly without acrimony! If it gets out of hand, I will consider closing this thread, as I had to do with similar threads in the past.