SanDiegogirl

Why is is discriminatory to require that UK citizens bringing in spouses/relatives to the UK be able to support these people?

The US and Canada have financial requirements which the home country spouse has to abide by. While they might be lower than that of the UK and you can get third party sponsorship, they have to be fulfilled or no visa. Australia has a strict points and work related system.

...... and remember the UK provides the NHS for incoming spouses/relatives once they are resident - try getting something like that in the US, Canada or Australia.

People should be complaining about the free access to the UK by EU citizens and their spouses - to many examples of those entering without finances, qualifications or the ability to find work

Giantaxe

I think requiring someone support their immigrating spouse is fine. I disagree with the way the UK is doing it. The approach seems like it is more a political sop to reduce immigrant numbers rather than the claimed-for reason of not wanting people to become a burden on the state. For example, why is third party sponsorship not allowed? Why is the amount of income required so relatively high? As for the NHS, why not simply stipulate that the sponsor is responsible for NHS costs for x years after immigration? Or charge the immigrant a fee for NHS for that time period?

BritInParis

Swings and roundabouts. Australia doesn't have a financial requirement but it does have a quota so you may qualify but then you can be waiting 12-18 months for your visa to be granted. You can get your visa for the UK in a couple of weeks but you have to meet the income or savings requirements.

Editha

I'm not concerned with what other countries do. I think that all British citizens should be able to bring their spouse into the country regardless of their income. Family life is a basic human right.

But even if a financial requirement is to be made, the current one is manifestly unfair:

More than 40% of the population earn less than £18.600 p.a. Moreover, it is not enough to earn that. You have to do so for more than six months and have a permanent job. That appears to be the reason the couple in Cornwall failed. Permanent positions are hard to come by nowadays, and many more people are self-employed. If you take those factors into account, the percentage of the population who could not fulfil the financial requirement probably rises to more than half.

The six month requirement also separates couples who will be able to fulfil the financial requirement. I was discussing the rules on another forum today, where one of the contributors was complaining that he had missed most of his daughter's first year, while he was completing the six months employment and his wife was stuck in Singapore with their baby.

It not only discriminates against people on lower incomes. It also discriminates against women, who are less likely to be the main breadwinner and more likely to have responsibility for young children. They may have great difficulty meeting the earnings requirement, but their spouse could do so easily if allowed a visa to work.

There is absolutely no evidence that, before the regulations were brought in, there was a significant problem with foreign spouses making demands on public funds. If any money is being saved it must be negligible compared with the suffering caused.

Novocastrian

+1 @Editha.

I suppose you all read this... Non-EU family members do not need visa to enter UK, says European court | UK news | The Guardian

Not directly to the point but tangentially related.

bobbyleo

Its discriminatory because it is creating a two tier system between wealthy and not so wealthy UK citizen spouse regardless of other factors or sponsors.

By all means have a strict policy of preventing non uk citizens claiming benefits and a way of policing that, but at least make it a level playing field and give those families a chance of happiness in what is essentially the legal home of at least one of the party.

Vexcore

Why not have it... this way?

- Let them in, but they cannot claim any benefits at all for 5 years? you either work or don't work.

That could sort of work and put off certain people.

But i doubt the EU will allow that lol

Mrs Danvers

As far as I remember that's how it used to be. When I sponsored my ex husband for the UK I know I was making something like 14k in 1996-ish. I was living in a property my mother owned and within three weeks of arrival he had a job. He was not allowed to take public funds and we didn't.

Vexcore

Indeed, my friends thai wife came to UK in 1998, got a job in 3 months also.

Got redundant around 2006, and she hasn't had a decent job ever since.

2005 was a terrible year since all the poles/eu came in.

All foreigners that come to UK (should not be allowed to claim any benefits at all for a good 5 years or so) - or not be able to claim at all until they get citizenship.

rebeccajo

"Foreigners" who are issued family visas to the UK haven't been allowed to claim benefits before grant of ILR for - oh like ages. Way before the 2012 rules were implemented.

As an aside, I am forever taken back by your blunt nature. I can only guess that your wife doesn't mind being lumped into the category of "foreigner". My husband wouldn't be keen on it if I spoke that way. But maybe your wife is just use to these things.

Vexcore

lol @ 'Blunt Nature' but it's true? and i'm talking about the 'foreigners' that come here and just claim for the sake of it.....

my wife doesn't mind, she agrees with me on my views, she's hard working gal, hates the types of foreigners that come here and claim off the state.

why you say ILR? eu citizens can come and claim... ILR takes time yes but i'm on about the eu ones. - coming here and claim for the sake of it is wrong... you must agree with that.

Shall i call them 'Visitors' then? .....

Novocastrian

You're talking nonsense actually. I rather wish "Brascist" was a real word. Perhaps I'll have to patent it now that I've invented it.

Vexcore

So talking nonsense about stopping the 'freeloaders'?

Yes that is rubbish talk WHAT MUST I BE THINKING? let them all in let them bleed our system!

Don't hijack this fella's thread, stay on topic.

Brascist? clever but dull

rebeccajo

The other day someone said that immigrant of the migrant bashers wet dreams - that person who leaves all they have ever known in their homeland (family, friends, cultural familiarity, etc) only to travel thousands of miles to suck off the teat of some foreign government - well that person pretty much doesn't exist. But of course, like all boogey men, he continues to exist in the minds of those who fear all things that go bump in the dark.

As for the foreign born, I call them "immigrants". They and their kind built the largest economy the world has ever known. Many came here empty handed. They were called all sorts of names by the white usurpers. Far worse than "foreigner". I now call one "husband". That'll do, I think, as far as labels go.

Vexcore

You're missing the point becca...... i call them foreigners because that's what they are.... what else shall i call them tourists? visitors? lol

Don't be scared/afraid to speak out... your husband is one but you call him husband like my wife is one i call her wife.
( it doesn't brand you racist if you call an outsider a foreigner) - that's what many fear it's your country for gods sake. lol
i'm on about a general discussion so i use the term 'foreigners'