rebeccajo

Pulaski

Plenty of people who really love their spouse and children have to spend time apart, and doing so doesn't mean they love their family any less.

Sometimes a little sacrifice is necessary to achieve a greater good, and in a world of wars, drought, famines, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and all manner of other perils natural and man-made, spending six months a part in the age of Skype is a truly little sacrifice.

ldollard

while in the scope of what you said 6 months (which is the absolute least amount of time, one would be apart, this is imagining instant day one employment) isn't that egregious.

As a British citizen I or my family, should not have to tolerate such requirements; when this law was supposedly enacted simply to stop sham marriages; the vast majority of which where perpetuated by non British people.

Its a discriminatory law.

rebeccajo

You do realize that other developed nations don't expect the same of their citizens when bringing in a foreign spouse?

I mean, you realize other developed nations allow for things like ALL of the savings of a couple to count towards support? Other developed nations allow for a family member to vouch for the couple? Other developed nations grant permanent residency to the alien spouse if the couple has been in a long marriage?

And while you're telling me how these rules protect the public purse, why don't you tell me how they protect you? These rules don't address public security at all. No security check of the alien. Nothing. Not a single bit.

You don't understand the system. Not at all.

Pulaski

No, it treats all British citizens equally. Whether it should or not is a different matter and I could see an argument for reducing the amount of income required for people who have been married for a long time, say 10 or more years.

But then I am also of the opinion that setting the threshold right at the cut-off for benefits is rather too low, and would definitely support something akin the the US requirement that income be 25% over the poverty threshold.

Pulaski

And? They can run their immigration how they want. Britain has, for some reason become a particular magnet, I suspect as much because of the value of speaking English as anything. Other countries, notably some of those in Eastern Europe, including Russia, are depopulating, and need to attract more immigrants, so they can afford to have more generous immigration policies. Britain has a shortage of housing, infrastructure is creaking at the seams, and immigration is proving to be a burden not a boon. Yeah, well there is a very specific reason for that, and again its because the rule had to be scrupulously even handed in its application that it has caught a few people up unintentionally while disproportionately affecting those groups who were making the greatest use of the family support provisions.

rebeccajo

Do you really think the reason for Britain's housing shortage is because of migration? This has nothing to do with entire estates being sold off over the last 30 years and far fewer new homes being built? A creaking infrastructure has nothing to do with privatization?

Do you really think there's something so terrible as parents vouching they will help a young couple start out a new life? For a brother or sister to offer that help? Are you so sour on the strength of family - so sure the government is the best judge of the character of nuclear family? Are you THAT sold on the Nanny State?

Pulaski

Sorry, but that is just politcal bo11ocks. If a house has an occupant it makes not a scrap of difference who owns it! Unless private owners have been secretly bulldozing their privately owned homes, for mysterious reasons unknown, and unnoticed by anyone, the shortage of homes has absolutely nothing to do with who owns the housing. ..... Should councils have built more houses is a whole other question.

So far as the broader question of infrastructure goes, the population of the UK increased from 57.4 million in 1991 to 58.9 million in 2001, an increase of about 150,000 people per year. Since 2001 the population increased to 63.2 million by 2011, or 430,000 per year, being population growth of three times as fast as it had been in the previous decade. This is inevitably going to put stress on infrastructure, and again has nothing to do with who owns the infrastructure. The most obvious strains are on the roads, and they are still publically owned!
No, and you seem oblivious to the reason, that I have tried twice in this thread to point out, without getting explicit about it. .... I have no issue with people helping out their relatives, however (as I tried to hint at but you don't seem to "get"), the largest numbers of unwanted, poor, often uneducated, immigrant spouses from outside Europe that the British government is trying to reduce while severely constrained by the race equality laws, and who were being sponsored by family members are those coming from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. By removing the family sponsorship provision the rules have disproportionately affected immigrants from South Asia.

rebeccajo

I got it perfectly. I was just waiting for you to stop hinting and flat-out say it.

....."those coming from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh"..............

Sooooo..........if it's not discrimination, what took you so long to utter it?

Because it's shameful. And you know it.

Pulaski

But it's not discrimination - all British citizens are treated equally. It is clear that it is YOU that wants differential treatment!

rebeccajo

I just want to be treated like the people 'moving in other circles'.

Pulaski

I have no idea what you mean by "people moving in other circles", because at the moment we are all treated the same, exactly the same, one set of rules, but apparently you don't like that.

Perth

I did just want to add that I am aware of more than one British citizen who owns their house free and clear and that is not taken into account, which is as silly as not taking into account the non-Eu's income. It's the one size fits all rules that I have a problems with, not having rules per se. I am beyond grateful that there is a savings category in which my OH will qualify. No doubt the fact that we have savings is due to the responsible and frugal way in which we have lived our lives. But I don't use that fact to berate others who may not be so fortunate (sometimes due to circumstances beyond their control).

WEBlue

Perhaps it's the "circles" themselves which are the problem. Discriminatory even. Arbitrary at the very least....

ldollard

That's what I was hinting at in my post. The entire immigration requirements where enacted because of sham marriages from South Asian country. But British born people are paying the price for it.