manny1980

After a month or so later, the independent committee that the Govt. asked to review the minimum salary requirements has finally proposed the following:

A minimum salary of between £18,600 and £25,700 before tax should be introduced for UK residents sponsoring a partner or dependent for citizenship, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) recommended today.

The MAC was asked to identify a salary that would prevent any sponsor, their spouse or their dependents from becoming a burden on the state.

The MAC was asked by the government to consider what the minimum income threshold should be for a British resident sponsoring a spouse, partner or dependent for settlement in the UK under the family route. This was part of the government's review of the family migration routes.

Presently the threshold is an annual income of £5,500 after tax, excluding housing costs. This is equivalent to £13,700 before tax and including housing costs.

The thresholds are based on the income levels at which a family is not entitled to state benefits or contributes at least as much to the public finances as it consumes in services.

A salary threshold of £18,600 would reduce settlement through the family route by 45 per cent, the MAC estimates. A minimum of £25,700 would reduce it by 63 per cent.

Chairman of the MAC, Professor David Metcalf CBE, said:

'The current threshold of £5,500 seems low considering the government's desire to ensure new migrants settling in the UK are not a burden on the state.

'Our recommendations are made on a purely economic basis and we recognise that family migration is not determined by economics alone. However our analysis suggests there is justification for raising the pay threshold.'

Article obtained from: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...0-family-route

Complete new rules proposed can be found in the following PDF file: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...df?view=Binary


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having glanced through this report on new income proposals, there were many questions that were left unanswered:
1) They failed to suggest scenario where a sponsor is accompanying the applicant from abroad. The salary requirement was proposed assuming sponsor is in the UK and applicant is overseas.

2) A sponsor or applicants savings, assets were not taken into account simply because it, in my understanding, was too complicated for these advisors to take into account in their model for income proposal.

3) Third party i.e. co-sponsor income support is also not taken into account.

4) No comment was made on situation where a couple has been married for 4 plus years.

Basically, the report of sweeping changes in income proposals is too vague in its description. It only focuses on income (i.e money coming) an excluding all other intervening variables.

Squirrel

Ridiculous. They are happily saying under the higher range of their proposed limit, 64% of applications would fail. So if you're a Brit on the minimum wage you're banned from marrying a foreigner? But a foreigner can come here illegally, commit a serious crime and then can't be deported because he has a 'right to a family life?'

Best advice if you don't earn much seems to be have your foreign spouse come here illegally, overstay, commit a serious crime, then when the UK Border Agency tries to deport them, a nice judge will come along and enshine in law their right to stay and enjoy a family life!

Who ever said honesty was the best policy?!

Mummy in the foothills

I was thinking along the same lines, they are stopping legal British citizens from bringing their wife and children home. Maybe they should start by stopping illegals and overstayers before going after British citizens.

BristolUK

Interesting that the figures mentioned would exclude the majority of Civil Servants.

Maybe their Unions could use the idea that these amounts are barely above benefit levels when negotiating salary levels.

SanDiegogirl

'The MAC was asked by the government to consider what the minimum income threshold should be for a British resident sponsoring a spouse, partner or dependent for settlement in the UK under the family route. This was part of the government's review of the family migration routes.'


IMHO the commission is not targeting British Citizens but British Residents sponsoring their spouses and families from coming to the UK when the British Resident has little in the way to support them.

Under EU (and other) regulations numerous nationalities can apply for their spouse and family to join them once one family member is resident in the UK.

'Presently the threshold is an annual income of £5,500 after tax, excluding housing costs. This is equivalent to £13,700 before tax and including housing costs'


How can anyone support a spouse, never mind a family on 5.5K UKP annually?

There have been a number of posts on this forum decrying the number of people allowed in (legally under EU and other spousal directives) who immediately go onto all sorts of benefits; housing, child benefits, JSA, etc etc.

Why the outcry against this proposed legislation? Seems to me it would make people think twice about upping sticks and moving to the UK when they have little or no resources to fund their own lives.

I'm often surprised at how many posts there are on this forum from people (and they are not all British citizens) who have the intention of moving to the UK, when they don't appear to have any funds/jobs/accommodation whatsoever.

Squirrel

We don't disagree with having a minimum requirement but setting it at £25K and smiling because 64% of applications would fail is quite frankly breath taking. I don't see anything about this applying only to UK residents, it applies equally to British citizens. Under these proposals I'd probably have been unable to make a life here with my DH, yet he has never claimed a penny in benefits and has worked almost continously since arriving and has paid tax. If they really want to reduce family migration they could copy the US system where people who are settled but not citizens have to wait a number of years for a visa number to come up. Or they could set the income level based on the official poverty level like in the US.

Another thing I find stupid is that they are making a big deal out of this. Less than 40,000 immigrants per year are brought in under the family route (the net immigration is probably much less) and I don't see why this needs cutting at all as it is insignificant compared to the hundreds of thousands with no connection to the UK who come here to work (both EU and outside EU citizens). Surely British citizens' right to bring a foreign spouse should take precidence over foreign workers being given visas? And why are parents allowed to come at all? Just because they are 'mainly financially dependant' on the person settled in the UK (which would be easy to fake just by not giving the bank statement for the parent's main account, or making it look like the UK person is paying money into the parent's account when really they are paying it all back via another account) doesn't mean the parent has to come at live here. If they need supporting it is easy enough to send money abroad these days, why do they have to come here and get access to the NHS at a time when they are getting old and likely to cost a lot? My husband has lived here for 13 years quite happily without his parents and a grown adult doesn't need his or her parents to be living near them, millions of people live far away from their parents. Only spouses/partners and their minor children need to be allowed, adults don't need their brothers/sisters/uncles/cousins to move here to join them.

The system as it is is a shambles, many polygamous men bring multiple wives to the UK under visas as nannies etc. Put a stop to that before going after genuine sole spouses. Why all this insurance against immigrants claiming benefits anyway, is it because the benefits/immigration system is totally incapable of just refusing to give benefits to those on visas which preclude them?

The whole project is laughable really. The first person who is refused under the draconian new income limit can simply go to the European court of Human Rights to say they have a right to a family life with their foreign spouse and the UK will be forced to drop the new rule. If you think that can't happen, it already did over the rule that was brought in that both parties had to be 21 or over to get the spouse visa (an idea to make forced marriages harder). A couple under that age took the UK to court, won their case on the grounds that it was discriminatory and theirs was quite clearly not a forced marriage, and now the rules have been changed back to an age limit of 18.

BristolUK

Because it prevents many British people from returning to their country unless they leave their spouse behind.

They are not exempting people in genuine long term marriages and there appears to be no flexibility for individual circumstances.

For example:

I married/moved to Canada in 2004. The equity on my UK home bought a home in Canada with no mortgage and a rental property. We've been living on a modest income but with no rent/mortgage to pay it's been enough for a family of four, including two teens.

What if, with the two kids older and moved on, I wanted to return to the UK with my wife? She's Canadian by the way.

The money from the sale of the property here would enable me to buy something suitable for the two of us in England and still leave plenty of money in the bank.

Our income would fall short of the figures mentioned but with no rent or mortgage and backed by the money banked - which incidentally would exclude us from the benefits system anyway - there would be no need to claim anything.

So these new rules would prevent me from returning to the UK with my wife.

I could always leave her behind I suppose.

handforddj

I moved to Canada from the UK in 2001 with work, married a Canadian and had one child. Been married for 7 years now and have always pined for home. We hope to move back to England next summer. All we will have is a lump sum from the sale of our house and assets. I was hoping we could just walk back in but from this thread it looks like we may have a few hoops to jump though.

Has anyone here moved back with a foreign wife and knows what do we have to do? Please don’t tell me I have to get a Job before we return. I was hoping we could go together as a family.

I find the documentation on this very vague on this

SanDiegogirl

The following is an article detailing a report carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7481927.stm

The figures they are quoting, taking into account some inflation since 2008, are not disimilar to what the MAC commission are now proposing.

If one takes the first figure of 18,600 before tax, taking an average figure of say, 28% tax, this leaves a day to day living level of around 13K UKP.

Sorry, but even if you have no mortgage, with all the other expenses of living in the UK, is just over 1K UKP per month a realistic amount to have for a relatively comfortable life in the UK whether or not you have children?

BristolUK

Absolutely it is. (it's a similar sum to what the four of us here were on)

It's just a little less than I was taking home in in 2004 when I was paying £400 on mortgage repayments.

Do you know how much people on JSA have to live excluding housing costs? £106 a week for a couple. Or £460 a calendar month.

Living on £1000 a month for two mortgage free? Piece of cake. Even without £50k in the bank.

BristolUK

Also, from the other thread on this, what about where the Brit has no or low income? She/He can go back alone and get full benefits...JSA/Income Support/Pension credit plus the Housing Allowance.

No problem.

What if the foreign spouse is the one with the resources? Those resources may mean that any benefits might be minimal or even zero.

Let them live in the UK as a couple and there is actually a lower cost to the public purse.

It's bizarre.

Jurls

Hi, I'm new to this forum but am I bit confused as to how this would affect me. I'm hoping someone could clarify that I'm not going mad when I'm reading this

My Australian husband and I are hoping to return to the UK in 3 years. I'm the only child of parents who aren't getting any younger and our predominant reason for returning would be to be close to them although my husband is keen to experience Europe as he hasn't been there yet.

My husband is the breadwinner in our household as I am currently a SAHM to our two children (British Citizens by Descent and who have British passports). We've always considered his earnings to be OUR family income, am I right in thinking they're looking at making changes where I would need to become the main breadwinner? As I've been out of the workforce for a few years I'm not likely to get a job that pays as much as his does. Ideally we'd be aiming for me to sponsor him but him to be the one earning!

If these proposed rules prevent me from sponsoring him, how would we return and in that case what about my parents?

SanDiegogirl

Well I think you have proved a point for me.

Most people would say that 406 per calendar month would provide a pretty miserable living standard (we are talking about a welfare benefit here to tide you over until you find a job - its not supposed to be an amount to give you a comfortable living)

That comes out to approx 5K UKP a year - the current rate for entering the UK as a spouse/dependent relative. Certainly not enough to support two people with a decent standard of living - without possible recourse to public funds. Which is what this new legislation is trying to eradicate.

formula

They don't have the money to support themselves or their spouse, that's just it. They immediately apply for income based welfare for their foreign spouse and any children they bring in. The UK taxpayer doesn't want to pay for foreign nationals anymore.

I believe the MAC report also stated that the proposed income is just for a foreign spouse and that their income will have to be higher for each child they want to bring in too.


Because they want/have got use to the idea, of other people paying for them when they move to the UK.

That's the idea. The government is looking at cutting it's massive welfare bill which is now higher (for the first time ever) than the amount of income tax they receive. They want people to pay for themselves, even if that means taking a second job.

The welfare reform bill is causing an outcry from those who live on welfare and welfare top-ups (a welfare payment called Tax Credits) as they are now going to have to work more hours too, to support their families under the new welfare bill. No more of one parent deciding not to work and just claiming welfare payments for that lost wage.

So those bringing in a foreign spouses will have to prove they can finance them and their children. Those in the UK claiming welfare, will have to work more to keep their family. The "sick" are now having regular medicals and only 6% of claiments have been found to be too sick to work so far. Those who don't find work, are now having to work for their welfare money by helping the community on enforced work programmes. Big cuts on ther amount of welfare a family can claim too. Residency is featuring in the welfare reform bill too. The party is over for those who live on welfare/hoped to live on welfare, and the welfare programme will return to the safety net it was intended to be.

Expect all the benefits being given to people at 60 (free bus passes, extra money for winter fuel etc) to be linked to the retirement age too at some point: soon to be 68.

I just read some posts from a guy who moved to UK from the US, to live with a UK woman who lives on welfare. He said his plan had been to get his ILR after 2 years and then claim welfare too. He was worried that any new rules might stop him from claiming welfare after 2 years. I wonder why the immigration rules are getting changed?

formula

They are not "stopping legal British citizens from bringing their wife and children home". What they are saying is, don't expect the UK taxpayers to continue to provide food, clothes and housing for your foreign spouse any more as you should be paying for that.

They will still have their healthcare; schooling for any children; welfare payments for any disabled children; paid for by the UK taxpayer.

Edit: just love the way the spellcheck doesn't recognise the word "healthcare"