Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
Feb 12th 2016, 7:08 am
#61
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Not in Paris
Posts: 18,192
Re: Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
The introduction of the financial requirement had nothing to do with preventing sham marriages. It's a combination of reducing the welfare bill, net migration figures and the Daily Mail headlines that usually accompany those two issues.
Last edited by BritInParis; Feb 12th 2016 at 8:06 am. Reason: Typo
Feb 12th 2016, 8:05 am
#62
MODERATOR
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 29,856
Re: Messy situation and desperate to come back to UK
while in the scope of what you said 6 months (which is the absolute least amount of time, one would be apart, this is imagining instant day one employment) isn't that egregious.
As a British citizen I or my family, should not have to tolerate such requirements; when this law was supposedly enacted simply to stop sham marriages; the vast majority of which where perpetuated by non British people.
Its a discriminatory law.
As a British citizen I or my family, should not have to tolerate such requirements; when this law was supposedly enacted simply to stop sham marriages; the vast majority of which where perpetuated by non British people.
Its a discriminatory law.
Feb 12th 2016, 4:35 pm
#63
Firetrak
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 577
Re: Messy situation and desperate to come back to UK
Very true and i'm looking into this, but obviously depends on finding a company that would offer me a job while overseas.
Feb 13th 2016, 10:20 am
#64
Was in Canada, now home.
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Devon
Posts: 3,388
Re: Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
The Economist was pessimistic about getting the financial requirement lifted.
Feb 14th 2016, 8:37 pm
#65
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,294
Re: Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
The financial requirement was set at just above the poverty limit for couples, which is set by the welfare payment Tax Credits. That poverty couple cap is set at a limit of 18k.
They talked about setting it at 26K which is the poverty level cap for a couple with one child, but lowered it to just the couple rate.
This was done to reduce the burden on taxpayers. That's "reduce" not "remove".
Last edited by formula; Feb 14th 2016 at 9:06 pm.
Feb 15th 2016, 8:48 am
#69
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,294
Re: Messy situation and desperate to come back to UK
MAC called for welfare to be changed after they revealed what benefits "foreign borns" were claiming and that is being done.
Now doctors are calling for the end of giving free treatment to those who move to the UK to use the NHS for free because they would have to pay in their own country.
One top cancer doctor has already called on that behaviour to be stopped and expressed their fury at having to use their cancer budget on these people and said they were destroying the NHS. They named the worst offenders as US citizens, Brits who paid lower taxes in another country and then returned to the UK and citizens of some EEA countries.
It would cut immigration numbers/save the NHS, if the doctors were listened to and the government wants to cut immigration numbers and save the NHS. They are vote winners.
Last edited by formula; Feb 15th 2016 at 9:11 am.
Feb 15th 2016, 10:16 pm
#70
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Not in Paris
Posts: 18,192
Re: Messy situation and desperate to come back to UK
MAC called for welfare to be changed after they revealed what benefits "foreign borns" were claiming and that is being done.
Now doctors are calling for the end of giving free treatment to those who move to the UK to use the NHS for free because they would have to pay in their own country.
One top cancer doctor has already called on that behaviour to be stopped and expressed their fury at having to use their cancer budget on these people and said they were destroying the NHS. They named the worst offenders as US citizens, Brits who paid lower taxes in another country and then returned to the UK and citizens of some EEA countries.
It would cut immigration numbers/save the NHS, if the doctors were listened to and the government wants to cut immigration numbers and save the NHS. They are vote winners.
Now doctors are calling for the end of giving free treatment to those who move to the UK to use the NHS for free because they would have to pay in their own country.
One top cancer doctor has already called on that behaviour to be stopped and expressed their fury at having to use their cancer budget on these people and said they were destroying the NHS. They named the worst offenders as US citizens, Brits who paid lower taxes in another country and then returned to the UK and citizens of some EEA countries.
It would cut immigration numbers/save the NHS, if the doctors were listened to and the government wants to cut immigration numbers and save the NHS. They are vote winners.
There will still be sick people who get on a plane with the sole purpose of presenting themselves at Hounslow A&E for free 'emergency' treatment but the IHS will never address any of the problems associated with health tourism as it applies only to those who have applied to live in the UK legally for more than six months. It simply penalises those who have followed the rules to generate political capital.
Feb 15th 2016, 10:28 pm
#71
Was in Canada, now home.
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Devon
Posts: 3,388
Re: Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
The UK has a minimum hourly rate. Lots of people who want to bring in a spouse from Pakistan are meeting the 18.6, even if they do more than one job. I'm not sure why you have singled out those of Pakistan descent as those who won't work? The people doing the most moaning about having to work to bring a foreign spouse to the UK, are some Brits (and their partners)!
The financial requirement was set at just above the poverty limit for couples, which is set by the welfare payment Tax Credits. That poverty couple cap is set at a limit of 18k.
They talked about setting it at 26K which is the poverty level cap for a couple with one child, but lowered it to just the couple rate.
This was done to reduce the burden on taxpayers. That's "reduce" not "remove".
The financial requirement was set at just above the poverty limit for couples, which is set by the welfare payment Tax Credits. That poverty couple cap is set at a limit of 18k.
They talked about setting it at 26K which is the poverty level cap for a couple with one child, but lowered it to just the couple rate.
This was done to reduce the burden on taxpayers. That's "reduce" not "remove".
The article states that nearly a fifth of those prevented from bringing spouses into the UK are Pakistanis, and then goes on to refer to the issue of integration as a motive for government in keeping the financial requirement.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Feb 15th 2016, 10:40 pm
#72
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Not in Paris
Posts: 18,192
Re: Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
I'm not 'singling out' anybody. I'm just referring to an article in The Economist. The Economist is not the Daily Mail, and is generally pro-immigration. If you want to read it yourself, it's the 30th January issue: "For richer, not for poorer".
The article states that nearly a fifth of those prevented from bringing spouses into the UK are Pakistanis, and then goes on to refer to the issue of integration as a motive for government in keeping the financial requirement.
Don't shoot the messenger.
The article states that nearly a fifth of those prevented from bringing spouses into the UK are Pakistanis, and then goes on to refer to the issue of integration as a motive for government in keeping the financial requirement.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Feb 16th 2016, 12:13 am
#73
Concierge
Joined: Jan 2013
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 21,138
Re: Messy situation and desperate to come back to UK
Oh, we can moan when it suits us. But we tend not to run around like chooks with our heads cut off, squawking about bloody foreigner freeloaders using our health system for freeeee, and hopping up on our perches every five minutes to deliver a party political broadcast (whilst undoubtedly laying an egg or three). 
Feb 16th 2016, 5:59 pm
#74
Firetrak
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 577
Re: Posts moved from UK Immigration forum
I'm not 'singling out' anybody. I'm just referring to an article in The Economist. The Economist is not the Daily Mail, and is generally pro-immigration. If you want to read it yourself, it's the 30th January issue: "For richer, not for poorer".
The article states that nearly a fifth of those prevented from bringing spouses into the UK are Pakistanis, and then goes on to refer to the issue of integration as a motive for government in keeping the financial requirement.
Don't shoot the messenger.
The article states that nearly a fifth of those prevented from bringing spouses into the UK are Pakistanis, and then goes on to refer to the issue of integration as a motive for government in keeping the financial requirement.
Don't shoot the messenger.
For richer, not for poorer | The Economist
