Like Tree67Likes

Taking foreign spouse to UK

Reply
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    But when you look at the restrictions and requirements, I also suspect that people who have the funds are just going to go "is it worth it".

    Silly things like proving that I can speak English ... f' it. Not worth it.
    Exactly...us, after a year of waiting which included being burgled and having our pub trashed by a gang of gypsies (we ran a pub in Oxford)...we said f' it.....

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,326
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Katherine:
    The UK is doing far less than many other European countries on the matter of Syrian refugees. So they are consistent. And I'm not sure one group is any more deserving than another - both genuine refugees AND families of british citizens should be welcome!
    Not sure I agree that the two groups should be treated equally. I do think both should be welcome, but I would put a prioritiy on keeping British people with their families over and above refugees. Difficult topic, no right answers I think.

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,678

    I think an argument could be made that if a refugee were turned away, their life would be in danger back in their home country whereas if it were in the case of the families, there is no danger to their lives.

    I say this even though in a few years I may return back to the UK with my foreign spouse.

    HK_Katherine likes this.

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    916

    In that case I wonder what the nation state is for? If holding a British passport is no advantage or even a disadvantage then what's the point?

    Immigration income threshold creates thousands of 'Skype kids', says report | Society | The Guardian


  5. #95

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Ern:
    In that case I wonder what the nation state is for? If holding a British passport is no advantage or even a disadvantage then what's the point?

    Immigration income threshold creates thousands of 'Skype kids', says report | Society | The Guardian

    The report says that the threshold is set at a level where a family is not entitled to benefits (which makes sense) but also that the threshold that would affect half the british population. Does this mean half the British population is entitled to benefits????

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    55

    Regarding the spouse of a British person and sponsoring them: The annoying thing about this is that only the British person's wages are counted towards the amount you need to earn to sponsor your spouse to join you. Yet if the family were together as a unit, surely the wages of the family should be looked at together to see if there is a likelihood of using the benefit system. In our case the main breadwinner and person most likely to earn a good wage in the UK is the non British spouse, not me!

    shri likes this.

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    CWB
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Katherine:
    The report says that the threshold is set at a level where a family is not entitled to benefits (which makes sense) but also that the threshold that would affect half the british population. Does this mean half the British population is entitled to benefits????
    The threshold set for migration purposes, in this case, is set far above the level of the minimum wage and people who are earning this sort of money would not typically be entitled to benefits. It is fairly close to the median UK income, I believe. But when you factor-in a family, then the range of benefits (including child benefit) which become available increases. We're not talking about a person on job-seekers' allowance or income support. We're not talking about a really, genuinely low level of income. But between the 'minimum wage' level of income and the threshold set by the Government for immigration purposes, there lie a range of benefits to which families might be entitled.

    A couple of points on that. First, many of these 'benefits' are in the form of tax breaks for families, and while that does mean a cost to the tax-payer, it is not exactly the same thing as is often imagined - handing out money to non-working immigrants. Second, even after the threshold has been reached (and/or exceeded), a family will still be entitled to certain benefits such as child benefit.

    Third, as the Government is slashing benefits entitlement across the board, it ought, properly, to keep this threshold under review, as the argument for it disappears if the immigrating partner would no longer be entitled to benefits anyway.

    Finally, it is absurd that the incoming spouse's savings and income are completely disregarded. A highly skilled professional with a high income, lots of spare cash tucked away in the bank is treated in exactly the same way as a unskilled, debt-ridden spouse. That is to say, they are on the wrong end of a politically motivated policy. Doing things like setting income thresholds is one of the very few ways in which the UK Government really can deliver on its promise to reduce immigration. But it's not just immigration. It's very much like this across the board with Government policies. Target the law-abiding with tougher regulations because there's not very much you can do about those who are hell-bent on circumventing the rules.

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,060

    Excellent post M Khan. I think the best way to "fight" this policy is to undermine the "logic" by which the Government sells it - which I think you did well. Now... how to publicise???


  9. #99

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    CWB
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Katherine:
    Excellent post M Khan. I think the best way to "fight" this policy is to undermine the "logic" by which the Government sells it - which I think you did well. Now... how to publicise???
    Sadly, in the grand scheme of things, all a Government ever has to do with an issue like this is to deflect. It is one among thousands of issues and no single one of them is an election-breaker. So, while the logic may be fundamentally flawed, anything short of sustained, prime time TV criticism from a host of top celebrity names just isn't going to draw the Government into issuing anything more than a pro forma response. And even then they can still largely rely on deflection. The policy was approved by Parliament. Immigration is a key concern of the People and controlling it is a Manifesto Pledge. A popular mandate for the policy was established through democratic re-election of the Government. Judged to be lawful by the courts. These are tough economic times and we can't afford to play loose with the country's finances by supporting incoming foreigners, especially when so many Britons are being asked to make savings. Etc., etc., etc..

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    916

    Going home poor becoming less attractive than ever. Not only can you not get your foreign wife in but benefit eligibility could be delayed. Less and less of a safety net.

    Not clear from the article whether tax credits for expats returning from non-EU countries are specifically included, but that must be the implication.

    Cameron could extend tax credits ban to British expats to reach EU deal | Politics | The Guardian


Reply
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast