Giantaxe

It's not "free healthcare" anyway, it's "free at the point of service". Resident retirees most likely will be paying UK taxes (both income and VAT plus excise taxes) so I can see no reason why they shouldn't have access to the NHS like other residents. This seems very different from stamping down on "NHS tourism", something I am in total agreement with.

BristolUK

Excellent point. Plus they'll have paid previously and not drawn/used the benefits/services while away.

Bluegrass Lass

I don't see a problem with this. Instead of getting rid of ILE completely, why don't they just say a foreign spouse has to reside in the UK for x number of years before being able to claim any benefits. Instead they'd rather penalize a couple that has already proven they are legit by having been married for at least 4years, by making them go through a probationary status yet again.


Good for her that she wants to work that many hours a week. However, a UKC shouldn't have to make themselves into a virtual slave working 80+ hours/week, in order to bring their spouse over. Just because someone puts in extra hours, doesn't mean it will be recognized by employers. Its been my experience working as an engineer in the US that it is expected to put that many hours, and you don't receive any extra benefits or salary because of it. Personally, I'm through slaving away for employers - I'm putting in my 40 and that's it. Obviously YMMV depending on what industry and career field a person is in.

Because my MIL is being treated for breast cancer. My husband wanted to be closer to his mother just in case the worst happens, and I had no problem with trying out living in the UK. This is the type of situation that arises all the time for expats, and they shouldn't be put between a rock and a hard place if they want to return to the UK, to live, with their spouses. They shouldn't have to decide between the possibility of leaving their spouse behind, right when they might need them the most, to be with another needy family member. That's the problems expats could face if they raise the income threshhold this high.

roaringmouse

I've noticed that no one yet has noticed something odd with the potential minimum income of the British citizen... as in, what happens if the non-British spouse is a big earner, but the British person is not (perhaps is a stay-at-home parent, or works part-time, or in lower paying job).

With what I've read so far, it could be possible that someone gets rejected a partner visa even though they might be a doctor, solicitor or airline pilot with transferrable skills to the UK, carrying a big salary in their line of work, because their British partner earns less than the minimum required due to being a stay-at-home parent, or in a lower paying job.

Bluegrass Lass

Good point. I've always earned a higher salary than my husband (the UKC). This situation doesn't allow the British spouse any other option but to work. He/she wouldn't be allowed to simply be a stay at home parent, and letting their non-Brit spouse be the wage-earner.

formula

I think you might be out of touch with the feelings of the majority of the UK tax payers. Compassion should be two way street and the UK taxpayer is fed up with it being it being a one way street. Did you read the various suggestions on the website that the government ran when they got into power, about what the British public wants to see changed/stopped? On the NHS tab, one of the many suggestions was that the NHS ran two lists: the first list for all those that had worked or lived all their life in the UK and then a second list for all those that hadn’t. Suggestions like that and many others on site under various tabs, were a bit extreme, but they showed the level of feeling from the public.

Yes, the NHS is paid for by the UK taxpayer. I didn’t see any suggestions from the government, that they were planning to stop a British passport holder from having access to the NHS if they return to live in the UK.

We still don’t know what is going to be law and what isn’t with the family settlement visa. With the other consultations for the various visas routes to the UK, not everything became law. IF it all goes through, then it might alter the backup plan of some. i.e those who would move back to the UK immediately if their foreign spouse got an expensive illness they needed to pay for; those that want to retire to the UK with their foreign spouse because they can get free healthcare in their old age. Instead, they might have to return earlier and work and pay their taxes in the UK (instead of paying their taxes to another country). From the UK taxpayers point of view, that’s a good thing.


On another note, the EU wants to fine the UK for making it difficult for EEA nationals to claim welfare as soon as they arrive in the UK. EU law says that EEA nationals must have the same access to welfare that returning Brits have. In the UK, their citizens can claim welfare as soon as they arrive. Some other EEA countries do not allow their returning citizens to have instant access to welfare and therefore under EU law, they do not have to give EEA citizens access to welfare as soon as they arrive in the country. I’m not sure how this government is going tackle the problem.

formula

High earners could use the Tier 2 (ICT) route to live in the UK.

formula

The government consultation said the new rules for family settlement visas, will be implemented from April 2012. If you are nearly ready to move back, then the new rules on foreign national partner maintenence support, won't affect you.

The family settlement visa seems to be the last of the consultations on all visa settlement routes to the UK. The first visa route curbed was on 23 December 2010, for those that wanted to settle in the UK using the Tier 1 (General) visa.

roaringmouse

Intra company transfer wouldn't work if there wasn't a UK branch of the company though, would it? Or alternatively, if the company does have a UK branch but is unable or unwilling to allow the person to move there.

roaringmouse

Big news just in today regarding partner visas, but not sure how many it would affect on these boards. A change the Labour government made (which the coalition government was intending on keeping) has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

It looks likely that the age increase for a spouse visa from 18 to 21 will need to be reversed. Have a read here about it. The UKBA apparently tend to be a bit slow in making changes when they lose appeals, however with a new bill regarding partner visas being presented in coming months to parliament, maybe this will be included.

formula

Will they have to bother fighting that? Under the new proposed rules, they will have to prove they can support their wife by earning 26k.

That age restriction for marriage that was put in by Labour to protect young British girls from forced marriages, which then allowed foreign nationals to get a UK passport. But then Labour went and removed the UK's Primary Purpose rule! It seems they allowed women to be forced into a marriage if they were nearly 21 or over!

It seems this government are talking about reinstating the Primary Purpose rule. They are also trying to make forced marriages, a criminal offence.

formula

High(ish) earners can usually find work in companies that have a UK office. Most of these offices give their staff a chance to work in other countries if they want to. Under the new rules, I believe I read that they would now have to be working for the company for at least 1 year before they could have this visa.

If the foreign national is the high earner of the couple, then this is a route to the UK. It's not a settlement route, but it would give the UK sponsor time to find employment to support their foreign national partner.

A foreign national who does a job on the UK shortages list, could enter that way too if their UK spouse can't support them.

roaringmouse

Unclear why you specify "wife".

In any case, whatever the new rules that do come into law there will likely be parts of it that will end up being scrutinised by the courts just like the age requirement has been. The minimum income of the British sponsor will most likely be one of those, and to be honest there are flaws in this approach, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread.
Which was a good thing to do, as it was unfair, ineffective, and had negative effects on genuine couples.

roaringmouse

Meaning splitting up a married couple for more than 1 year, or forcing the British partner out of the country which may not be practical.
It's ridiculous to suggest that the British partner HAS to be able to financially support their non-EEA partner when the visa applicant would be the main (or only) earner and is quite capable of supporting their family in the UK.
And if their job is not on the shortage list, yet attracts a large wage?

pennylessinindia

very sad indeed what a pity for those most vulnerable young people