pennylessinindia

This may not be the best place to post but I am sure it will get moved if necessary.

New consultation document that may bring changes to rules to move back to the UK. May be worth putting in your 2p worth or in my case my 1Rs worth.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...ily-migration/

JAJ

Some significant changes included:

- the 2 year probationary period on spouse visas goes up to 5 years;

- abolition of the short-cut route to settlement for those married for 4+ years outside the UK;

- By extension, since you need settlement to apply for citizenship, the 3 year wait for citizenship will become generally 5 years under the new rules.

Proposed implementation date is April 2012. I will point out that they have probably made up their mind already on most of the issues in the consultation paper but there may still be scope for discussion on some of the details.

pennylessinindia

I am always a believer in making a comment so at least I feel I have done my bit.
Seems really tough to do away with the 4 year route and up to 5 years the other way

Bluegrass Lass

Just reading up on this after reading a similar announcement on UK-Yankee forums. There are definitely some big changes in there. I'm still reading the consultation, but I wasn't sure if I should comment on it or not. I guess it couldn't hurt if I did. I don't understand why they are so focused on doing away with ILE. Apparently they tried the same thing back in 2007.

JAJ

You should understand that all this goes back to 1997 when the Labour Party, for political and ideological reasons, decided to allow immigration to the UK to increase to unsustainable levels.

Most of the safeguards that had been put in place by previous governments, both Labour and Conservative, were casually tossed away.

Now the United Kingdom government is trying to scale back immigration somewhat but the process is going to be much more painful than what it would have been had the pre-1997 systems been left in place.

roaringmouse

I wonder if citizenship will be amended in due course, removing the lower residence requirement for spouses of British citizens - and if this will affect those already on ILR before any such change.

No one can answer that, but possibly something to consider as UKBA does tend to change rules in a way that affects not only new applicants, but those already in the country who applied and obtained visas under earlier conditions.

JAJ

Expect both things to happen, although the timing may not necessarily be 2012 as a different process is required to change the nationality legislation.

formula

I assume the first is to do with cutting down the unsustainable welfare bill. Massive changes are happening across the board to lower the UKs welfare bill that now (for the first time ever) exceeds income tax revenue. It seems this section are expected to take cuts too. It won't be a problem for those that have a true relationship and are willing to work.

For the second: from reading many posts on immigration boards, it is not uncommon for non-EUs to marry a Brit; get to the UK; do the minimum years marriage to get ILR; then "suddenly" meet and marry a person from their home country and bring them to the UK. Back door immigration for the low skilled. Again, these changes will not be a problem for those that have a true relationship and are willing to work.

formula

This just about sums it all up.

Substitute the word "immigration" for "welfare payments" and you have what is happening to the welfare system too.

Panhandle

As long as they dont stop Uk citizens from bringing in their foreign wive's, Im all for these changes, Infact the longer the better, a sham marriage can easily exist for 2 years, but 5 years would be difficult, as the sponser, 5 years would surely give you enough time to tell if he/she married you for Visa or Love.

Squirrel

What made me laugh was them asking if they should make people more closely scrutinised before being allowed to marry in the UK. What is the Fiance/e visa then?

And the Denmark thing with 'demonstrating an attachment to the UK.' Lots of spouses, especially from English speaking countries, move to the UK because the UK spouse wants to live there or cannot move to the US/Canada etc for various reasons like children etc. They do not necessarily even want to live in the UK! My DH would prefer to live in the US! How would he be supposed to demonstrate an attachment.

Also about saying making spouses pay tax - what about stay at home mums? Are foreign spouses not to be allowed to do what British mums can do? If their husband is working and they are not claiming benefits why should they be punished for not being British.

And how would someone's embassy be able to confirm they are single? I always thought that was a stupid requirement for Caribbean etc weddings.

pennylessinindia

Yes but if you have been married years outside the UK this will not count and you will be treated as if you are newly married surely that does not seem quite right?

Squirrel

And British women bringing their husbands! I'd hate to go back to the bad old days when foreign husbands could not get a visa.

formula

From reading some of the other forums like UK-Yankee: this extended time to getting a UK passport seems to upset those who were just staying in the UK until they got a UK passport, as they then wanted to go straight back home to the US. It seems they want the UK passport as an insurance in case they needed welfare or healthcare!

formula

Or can't go to the US because they failed the medical; or have been charged with a crime but were found innocent; have any sort of criminal record ever in their life, no matter how minor; have had mental health problems; have had immigration problems before such as overstaying. None of which, the UK are proposing! It's still a lot easier to get a UK passport than a US one, even with all these changes and it's still a lot fairer than the US system.

From what has been said, I think the idea is to reduce the burden on the UK tax payer, when a Brit brings in a foreign wife who doesn't want to work. If they work, they will pay into the system they enjoy the benefits of; if they don't work, then they are a burden to the tax payer.