roaringmouse

I've only very quickly flicked through the file in the first post, not really read much. However with the financial scenarios guide towards the end I noticed something strange with "scenario 6" (page 54):
Basically put: if you (British spouse/partner) are currently overseas and have a job offer that meets the financial requirements, if you haven't met the income requirements for the last 6 months you fail the test.

That's ridiculous! You'll have a job that meets the minimum income test once in the UK. Why does the previous 6 months matter, surely it's once you're in the UK that should count!! Or once the spouse has arrived in the UK if the British spouse is already in the UK.

brissybee

Exactly. It's the six months that's the biter.

If we sold our house we could probably rustle up the required cash on hand, but under these new rules I think we'd have to have the cash just sit there doing zip for six months before we could apply. Stupid.

Nicola1

Does anyone know how this will affect us? I'm the British Citizen and have 2 kids who are eligible for passports (this is currently being applied for).

My South African husband is the breadwinner.
My husband's father is Croatian
Croatia is due to enter the EU in July 2013
My husband has applied for a Croatian passport (he is already a citizen)

Do you think being a South African resident Croatian (soon to be EU member) passport holder will assist with the Spouse Visa being less complicated or faster to obtain? We have to apply in the interim in any event, so that would be as a Sponsored Spouse correct?

Edited to add that we've been married almost 6 years and are planning to move back next year.

Bomjeito

Am I to understand the following:

"The minimum probationary period for settlement for a non-EEA spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner will be five years, to test the genuineness of the relationship.
•
We will abolish immediate settlement on arrival in the UK for the non-EEA spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner where a couple have been living together for at least four years overseas. It is not fair that some migrant partners, who may never have been to the UK before or made any tax or National Insurance contribution, should get immediate settlement and full access to the welfare system."

Does this mean 5 years married INSIDE the UK? Even if we've been married 5 years plus already outside the USA?

The US is going to hate this rule, as visas are normally reciprocal.

So my UK husband and kids (born in US but of UK father) are okay but I now have to wait 5 years AFTER entering the UK for permanent settlement?

Grrr.... I should have went for citizenship years ago. I hate this!

Bluegrass Lass

From what I understand, yes, it means 5yrs inside the UK.

They are doing away with ILE for those that have been married for 4yrs, living outside the UK, because giving immediate ILR/ILE gives immediate access to public funds for a spouse that has possibly never lived in the UK and contributed to it.

I guess I understand their reasoning to some degree, but I think it would be better if they simply said ILE doesn't give the spouse immediate access to public funds for a set period of time after entry. If you've already been married for 5yrs or more outside the UK, isn't that already a test of 'genuineness?'

I do find this whole test for genuineness rather laughable. There are plenty of genuine marriages that fail before 5yrs!

Jeraly

I'm just trying to find more info on this - I've just told my family that we wont' be moving back for the forseeable future and my mum is now going crazy trying to find info that says we can.

The only thing I can see is this:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si.../16-fam-appeal

Which states that the changes were for appeals for visitors or something, but the PDF document here:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...oi-fam-mig.pdf

is what I've been referencing for the changes - my mum is saying that the rules in this document are only expected to come into effect and is just a statement of intent.

I've kind of resigned myself to staying here a while longer and while it might sound a bit weird, I just want to find something set in stone to show her that will put an end to her trying to find ways for me to move back asap - I don't want to spend the rest of my time here stressing out about finding ways to move back and rush everything with the chance that we might be pouring money into a situation where we will ultimately get denied anyway.

Does anyone know more about this or can anyone point me in the direction of something to fend off my mother?!

WEBlue

The first link you posted has nothing to do with your situation if you're a UK/US married couple looking to move back to the UK. That link references visit visas for non-EEA relatives of non-settled immigrant residents living in the UK, whereas I assume your spouse is a full UK citizen.

So tell your Mum to forget that one. The second link you posted is the important one, and it shows the changes that are actually in effect as of 9 July 2012. Yes, it is a statement of intent . . . but according to the UKBA website these are the rules now. Until UKBA post differently, these are the rules thy'll use when considering applications.

If Parliament (and/or the High Court) doesn't accept some parts of the new rules, UKBA will be forced to change their criteria and they're required to announce that on their "Latest News" page. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-updates/

(But if your mum is mis-reading UKBA "Latest News" page, maybe tell her to stick to looking at a reputable national newspaper site in the 'family immigration' category. The UKBA site can be difficult to understand sometimes.)

Jeraly

Thanks so much I know it sounds horrible, but I've kind of come to terms with being here for a while and I'm getting the impression that whatever hoops we have to jump through now will be the same if not easier down the line when/if they revise the laws again

Editha

If Croatia enters the EU, then your husband will be a citizen of the EU. However, you should not rely on that giving him a right to reside in the UK immediately. When other eastern European countries entered the EU, most Western European countries continued to restrict entry of migrants from those countries for a few years. The UK was one of the exceptions, which created a lot of resentment in the UK. It is very unlikely that the UK will do the same thing again, so you could expect a gap of maybe 6 or 7 years between Croatia's entry into the EU and free immigration.

So, given that Croatia is not a member of the EU yet, the EU route is not much help to you, and you will have to use the sponsored spouse route.

Editha

I found this on the EU site:

The link is here: http://www.eubusiness.com/europe/croatia/accession-1

celine_uk

this is sad really, even more so for long term couples but i think its the UK Governmenss only way of tightening immigration control, they cant do anything about EU citizens so - this is it really -

Editha

Since some of us seem determined to contrast the perceived advantage of EU nationals over non-EU spouses of British citizens, I think one or two facts should be acknowledged about the restrictions placed on EU nationals emigrating to Britain.

If your wish is to come to to the UK to retire and you are on a low income, you don't have an advantage as an EU national. To get permanent residence after retirementyou have to have worked in the UK for at least a year before reaching retirement age, and lived in the UK for at least three years before retirement age. If an EU citizen doesn't qualify as a permanent resident, s/he must have enough money to live on and pay for comprehensive medical insurance.

Even if an EU national is of working age, there are significant restrictions on what benefits they can claim. A British citizen, on the other hand, can start claiming welfare benefits as soon as they arrive back in the UK.

rebeccajo

Editha - I agree with you in principal.

However, the fact remains that the Coalition cannot restrict EU migration in any way that helps them with their election pledge of cutting migration to the "tens of thousands". Therefore, they go after every other category of migrant to hit the target. Elimination of Tier 1 worker and tightening of every other Tier; more restrictions for students; more rules for non-EU family members.

Every practitioner's blog you read or any practitioner you might talk to will tell you the same thing - EU migration can't be halted so the targets are non-EU persons.

I think people who are citizens of the UK have good reason to wonder what the government is up to with all these changes. The particular family changes of which this thread is the topic might cut migration by 20K at best. Students don't all stay permanently; neither do skilled migrant workers. What the general public sees is the Coalition making moves which they (the public) don't believe will solve "the problem". Is the public misinformed if it perceives these changes will do more harm to the Family Rights of UK citizens than cut migration?

Editha

I agree that the Tory pledge on immigration is meaningless, given our membership of the EU. However, this particular piece of legislation was more specific in its aim -- to cut down the number of immigrants who become dependent on the welfare system. Given the Great British Public's, Daily Malice fueled, obsession with "welfare scroungers", it's likely to be very popular, regardless of whether it actually reduces immigration numbers overall.

That is also why the Labour Party is unlikely to oppose it, so nobody should get their hopes up on that score.

A number of contributors to the Ex-Pat Forum threads on this topic have made the assumption that the hidden aim of the rule change is racist -- that is to cut down specifically on immigrants from Pakistan. I don't think that is correct, and to be fair to the Conservative Party, I think it has moved on from that kind of politics.

The second largest group of returning British citizens with dependent foreign spouses are from the USA. You only have to read this forum regularly to understand that a significant proportion of them are, in fact, returning for the benefits of living in a welfare state.

What I'm trying to say is, that I don't think it is at all likely that Theresa May is going to change tack when she realises that white "ex-pats" are affected (she and Damien Green are certainly aware of that already), nor is it likely that the British public is going to give a damn.

Personally, I'm opposed to there being one law for the rich and one for the poor, so although I'm not affected personally by this legislation, I did protest to my MP. It seems to me that the best leverage is to point out that the legislation is a) unfair -- the Tories are not completely insensitive to the accusation that they are the party of the privileged, and b) likely to exclude people with skills Britain needs, even if they are low paid, e.g paramedics.

rebeccajo

What strikes me as unfair about the rules is that in a society ordered around social safety nets, the use of those very benefits can be used against people for a political aim. Fed by the Daily Mail or not.

I don't know where I saw the data so I'm sorry I can't put up a link, but I recall seeing a graph where the US was either the 5th or 7th (sorry again for my vagueness) feeder country for family migration. Japan, India and Pakistan all were ahead of the US.

I personally don't think it's a race issue as much as it is a class issue.

And I would never expect Theresa May to turn her tack. I think the courts will have to do that. I have little hope these rules will change for a very long time, if at all.