roaringmouse

The EEA route is 6 months in an EEA country, and under current rules a person married to a British citizen only needs to be a permanent resident on the day they apply (no 1 year minimum). So that timeline would look more like:
6 months in EEA country + 5 years on permit in UK + 1 day on PR = 5½ years or thereabouts.

Of course, the citizenship requirements for spouses of a British citizen could be changed to match everyone else in due course - particularly as the new rules for spouse visas mean 5 years before you can get ILR.

englishguygoinghome

OK - so I've actually gone and read the statement of intent on the UKBA website: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...oi-fam-mig.pdf

It's an absolute disgrace and makes me ashamed to be British and very angry. It also makes me bloody pleased that we decided to come back when we did - our increasingly negative experiences with the UKBA were a primary cause for that!

To answer the common questions people are asking:
Which rules will be used / transitional period
- If you are granted any kind of leave BEFORE the 9th July then the old rules apply all the way through to ILR (settlement). EXCEPT the need to pass BOTH the KOL and a language test if you go for settlement after October 2013.
- If you APPLY before the 9th July then the current rules arae in force for that application
- That leaves a gap in the logic for people who APPLY before the 9th July but are GRANTED after the 9th of July which isn't covered anywhere - I'd guess that means that you take pot luck with the ECO who looks at your papers (seems to be the way of things quite often with the UKBA!)

Savings:
- You don't need to show income from your savings. You just need enough that you can spend the threshold income per year (reducing your savings) and still have 16k or more left after your probabtionary period expires.

Kids:
- As mentioned above: If your Kids are british citizens then they are not considered and the threshold doesn't go up. It's only foreign kids who are being sponsored who add to the threshold.

Please excuse me while I go and damage something or someone ...

robin1234

Savings - the part of your message I've highlighted - that is very significant. I agree the whole policy is a disgrace, a nightmare, and will cause many people a lot of grief & disappointment. But that way of treating savings, that you only need enough to cover the probationary period, not the rest of your life, means that a lot of retired people with moderate savings WILL be able to return to the UK. Yes, the process will be lengthy and bureaucratic, but it will be doable.

To quantify.. many older people do have £62,500, but they do not have the half million plus that they'd need to get an annuity of £20,000 per annum.

nun

....but if you paid your voluntary NI so you get basic state pension or have a state pension from another country that will help. The ironic thing is I think the UK will still pay you the married couples pension whatever your spouse's citizenship or residency.

calliope

Yes it's very Tory - the richer you are, the easier this process will be to dodge.

robin1234

Having savings of £62,500 doesn't mean a couple is "rich.". It might just mean that they are of retirement age and have some savings. And I'm not sure what you mean by "dodging the process.". It is part of the process..

Mummy in the foothills

Or that they have sold their home to be able to meet requirements.

calliope

Most ordinary working people will not have savings of $100,000, sorry. With dodge I just mean the richer you are the more likely you can bring your spouse to Britain, irrespective of the fact a poorer couple might require much less money to live, but they would still be banned, because of the relative poverty. Which obviously is disgraceful.

robin1234

Sorry; apparently the median net worth of Americans my age (61) is $180,000. And of Americans aged 65, $232,000. (Source; Nielson Claritas, via CNN Money.)

Sally Redux

Is net worth just savings?

robin1234

No, the big thing in there apart from savings, I assume, is equity in the house. So the median couple (age sixty-five) would have $260,000 if they cashed in their US house to move to the UK. Even if they had zero income they would only need $100,000 of that to satisfy the UK immigration requirement.. If they each had $12,000 a year Social Security, their need for savings would be much less.

(I say $260,000 because those figures I quoted in my previous post were for individuals, not families..).

calliope

So the rich can move to Britain on their bank accounts, and the poor must sell their family home to do so. So the policy favours the rich, regardless of other factors.

robin1234

Certainly, people who have substantial savings and other assets have more choices, yes. That is a fact of life.

calliope

It is a fact of government policy in this case. Perhaps couples who fall into this category should be required to give 25% of their savings to the government?

robin1234

Huh? I'm not following this.

Prudent working people set aside a proportion of their income every year as retirement savings (significantly tax advantaged in both the US and the UK.). The accumulated retirement savings give them security in retirement. Also, may allow them to fulfill the immigration requirement to retire to the UK! Having a bit squirreled away doesn't make them bloody Croesus! I think you have to have a net worth of several millions these days to qualify as "rich!"