I Got A Letter Back From Chris Row Today Regarding The Changes.

[yellowcloud]

I got a letter back from Chris Row today regarding the changes. I wrote to him to disagree with the changes. I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on his arguments and if his arguments had any holes?

Does anyone know how I delete a file I have uploaded on this post???

I am trying to delete the first attachment ie the "1" of the 4th one.

[yellowcloud]

The reason T May has put the threshold up to £18,600 is because the human rights Act states

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Theresa May is saying that if a Sponsor does not make £18,600 or more then the sponsors spouse/fiance could affect the economic well-being of the UK and as you can see in the Human rights act a Public body (ie the UK Government) CAN interfere with the right to a family life.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

[bigmarco]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

[imagine]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

agree, and may i add it should also be the minimum wage :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[lastlid]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

The perfect answer.

[malchard888]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

State pension as well me thinks

[hawk]

its still 3 times more than some couples on income how can i compete with this amount i get about £1200 a month after tax i be better off jumping in front of a bus become disabled if i dont die lol then i wouldent need to worry over the income of £18600:xxaction-smiley-047:censored: before this with my ex i was ok on my wage and we had 2 kids so cant see why this amount its nuts

[Steve.r]

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Yes....... they do it because they can. It is just another attack on the regular hard working people of the country, who for whatever reason have found love on distant shores. Unfortunately, 'we' are probably such a minority that, as in the words of the Borg Queen, 'resistance is futile'

[KeithD]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

You're not supposed to find obvious holes in May's ideas :icon_lol: ..... and where does the £18,600 come from? This is not much money in London, and it as hell of a lot for someone in Newcastle :doh

This will at some point go to court and the government will lose, and as with Labour's '21' rule the UKBA will then have to go through all the back cases!!

[andy222]

Like I have said before If they wont let my wife and kid come here. Give me my state pension that I have paid into for 37 years and I will go and live with her there.

[Dedworth]

I must have missed something but who is Chris Row ?

[andy222]

I guessed he was a Mp ded but I dont know either.:doh

[Arthur Little]

Link http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/eve...ng-integration refers.

It relates specifically to a Protest Meeting to be convened in Committee Room 1, at the House of Lords between the hours of 18.30 and 20.00 on the evening of the date on which the new Rules become effective.

Bit like "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", :222: but still ...

... I propose a hearty vote of thanks :appl: to "yellowcloud", the forum member who first alerted us to it!

[Arthur Little]

It relates specifically to a Protest Meeting to be convened in Committee Room 1, at the House of Lords between the hours of 18.30 and 20.00 on the evening of the date on which the new Rules become effective.

:yeahthat: ... see appropriate thread entitled: 'Protest and Meeting in Parliament against new Rules - please support'. ;)

So, folks ... :anerikke: ... it's up to each and every one of US to do OUR bit!

[lastlid]

Yes. It will be interesting to see if they can get away with these double standards. They seem to want it both ways. :NoNo:

[andy222]

The meeting wont make any difference. The changes will be made. My plan is to get supporting lettter from my mp. Legal advice from a immigration lawyer. Before I put my application in. Of coarse it will be refused. Then the fight starts.:xxgrinning--00xx3: Oh I might add in the supporting letter that if the visa is refused I intend to appeal. Whether that will cut any ice I dont know.

[Arthur Little]

I must have missed something but who is Chris Row ?

:anerikke: ... never heard of the bloke either, tbh.


I guessed he was a Mp ded but I dont know either.:doh

:yeahthat: ... but your guesses are as good as mine, guys. :anerikke:

However, I imagine :rolleyes: he's the dishonorable Member of Parliament for the OP's constituency. And his reply would seem to belie his *surname ... in that, it would suggest he's hardly prepared to "kick up :football21: a *Row" on behalf of his constituent. :doh

[somebody]

You're not supposed to find obvious holes in May's ideas :icon_lol: ..... and where does the £18,600 come from? This is not much money in London, and it as hell of a lot for someone in Newcastle :doh

This will at some point go to court and the government will lose, and as with Labour's '21' rule the UKBA will then have to go through all the back cases!!

Nail on head how can you have one amount.

I do in practise agree you should have some sensible rules in place to stop both the country or either party being affected.

So yes you should prove you can support your other half and also demonstrate if possible they should have skills and experience they can use in the UK if they so chose to work.
The Applicant who wants to come to the UK should be of a certain Age so they can both deal with the situation and make a informed decision i feel also.

But what you might need to survive in London in a certain area is going to be way way different to what a person in other areas will need.

But is this where it gets complicated as to use this method you would need to bring back regional pay differences officially (London Weighting seemed to go around 2000 from most places i noticed) and also benefit differences.

To bring in regional variations is a massive step which would have huge knock on implications. So it looks like they are stuck with a stupid wage which down in London might make some sense although i know of families i am guessing do not earn this in the area but would not for elsewhere.

[grahamw48]

It's all a load of nonsensical bolox that either has been worked out on the back of a fag packet by a drunk MP or arrived at using the govt's own fake statistics.

I'll say it again and AGAIN.

The only fair measure of 'affordability' is DISPOSABLE income...as widely used for donkeys years by the consumer credit industry.
Having signed up 100s of people for finance over the past 35 years, I know this. :ReadIt:

Bear in mind it was when this accepted principle began to be ignored that the whole banking industry went twits up. :NoNo:

[lastlid]

It's all a load of nonsensical bolox that either has been worked out on the back of a fag packet by a drunk MP or arrived at using the govt's own fake statistics.

I'll say it again and AGAIN.

The only fair measure of 'affordability' is DISPOSABLE income...as widely used for donkeys years by the consumer credit industry.
Having signed up 100s of people for finance over the past 35 years, I know this. :ReadIt:

Bear in mind it was when this accepted principle began to be ignored that the whole banking industry went twits up. :NoNo:

I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer. :Erm:

[lastlid]

By using a flat rate it makes it easy for them. But, like I pointed out the other day, Dave Cameron advocates regionalising benefits levels. So if they can regionalise benefit levels then they can regionalise earnings thresholds instead of a flat 18600.

[lastlid]

Danny Alexander on regionalising benefit.

"It was the non-announcement of the week. Excised from the prime minister's speech, but lurking in the background; should people in different parts of the country be paid different levels of benefits?

The media was briefed that it would be in the speech, but when it was delivered the sentence referring to regional levels of benefit had gone.

But of course by then the issue was running.

And although it was not in the speech, Employment Minister Chris Grayling fuelled the fire by saying it was "entirely sensible" to debate whether benefit levels should be set on a regional rather than national basis.

Benefits bill
The argument is that people on benefits in regions like the north east are more likely to stay on them because wages are lower than in the south.

Of course, any change could also help to cut the benefits bill too.

It is now becoming clear, though, why the PM decided not to mention it.

Liberal Democrats were briefing that they had blocked it, and now Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has come out openly to say it's not something that will happen under the coalition.

"In terms of regionalising benefits, for me as a Liberal Democrat, it's just a non-starter”

Danny Alexander MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
And he also made it clear that the idea of regional public sector pay rates (or local market-facing pay as he referred to it) is also a distant and unlikely prospect.

In a visit to Teesside he said: "There is absolutely no prospect of the government introducing regional benefits.

"We have been looking at local market-facing pay in the public sector. That is an issue which we have referred to the individual pay review bodies to consider.

"But they would have to be come up with some pretty overwhelming evidence for us to move in that direction.

"In terms of regionalising benefits, for me as a Liberal Democrat, it's just a non-starter.""


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18646934

[Arthur Little]

I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer. :Erm:

:yeahthat: ... but the way it's going to be from the date the New Rules become effective, :rolleyes: it'll surely prove an even BIGGER HEADACHE :23_111_9[1]: for the hundreds of LOWER PAID it affects. :doh

[Arthur Little]

And as for any additional, governmental administrative costs - in the highly unlikely event of it ever basing its calculations on Regional Income/Benefit levels - well ... :anerikke: ... TOUGH!

After all, :cwm24: it was the Government that dreamt up the whole :crazy: - and unfairly discriminatory - measure in the first place ...

[lastlid]

And as for any additional, governmental administrative costs - in the highly unlikely event of it ever basing its calculations on Regional Income/Benefit levels - well ... :anerikke: ... TOUGH!

After all, :cwm24: it was the Government that dreamt up the whole :crazy: - and unfairly discriminatory - measure in the first place ...

Exactly, but will they see it like that?

[andy222]

Example a person in london doing exactly the same job as me in the NHS and on the same band of pay gets £2000 a year more than me. Why?

[Arthur Little]

After all, :cwm24: it was the Government that dreamt up the whole :crazy: - and unfairly discriminatory - measure in the first place ...

... therefore it should equally be the Government's responsibility to take care of the problem IT created :23_116_6[1]: - WTHOUT, of course, recouping the extra outlay through futher visa fee increases.

God knows ... applicants already fork out :REGamblMoney01HL1: MORE than enough.

[lastlid]

Example a person in london doing exactly the same job as me in the NHS and on the same band of pay gets £2000 a year more than me. Why?
Its supposed to cover the extra expense of living in London. Thats okay, but what about those other areas that are expensive to live in? For example Aberdeen. London isn't the only place where the costs of living are high.

[andy222]

Come on Arthur its the same as a speed camera. (A MONEY MAKING EXERCISE) How long does it take to save for a visa fee? And how long does it take to stamp refused on the application? Your money is in their hands either way.

[yellowcloud]

I have been studying this alot lately and have few questions if anyone can answer I would be grateful.

Ms. May is correct in quoting the wording of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It is a qualified rather than an absolute right. However, measures that qualify should be proportionate, i.e. there is a need to justify that in effect the economic well-being of the country is being protected by these restrictions and that the means to do it are not disproportionate. This will be one for the courts. We will have to wait and see if any cases come forward.

In relation to the Human Rights Act (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

So May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every single case, that every applicants whose spouse earns less than 18,600 will affect the economic well-being of the UK and it is proportionate for every case. But in law they cannot Judges can not say that. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment? Is this true?

The only ways to achieve what May wants are to do away with an independent judiciary. Do you mean to get rid of Judges altogether?

What I don’t understand is that two separate things May wants or can do?
Do away with an Independent Judiciary, ie get rid of Judges altogether? or
Dictate and tell Judges how to interpretate Article 8 ie that any sponsor's spouse who does not earn 18,600 would effect the economic well-being of the UK, which she can do because there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think?




The 18,600 threshold was calculated by a group of economists called the Migration Advisory Committee. This is the income level at which a British family would not receive any public funds in the form of income-related benefits (including tax credits).

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?
In a letter I was sent by Chris Row, he claims that the sponsor’s housing benefit or other Benefits may increase due to the presence of his sponsored spouse. But it is not possible for this to happen, more so even if it was possible would it not be easier to just change the law making it not possible for a sponsors housing benefit or other benefits to increase due to the presence of his spouse who is not eligible for Public Funds’ rather than make a minimum threshold of 18,000?

Many people with disabilities do not receive DLA and there is the whole scandal of the re-assessments going on at the moment.

This is another major hole in the new rules in that not every disadvantaged or disabled person receives DLA, as DLA is only for specific problems which a disabled person has. Not only that but someone who receives DLA for instance may lose it one week and the next week his spouse applies for ILR and how can this person be expected to go from being disabled and unable to work to receiving 18,600 per year immediately potentially? Hence his family spit apart, potentially his/her spouse being arrested by border control, split apart from her/his children after living here for 5 years and being put in a detention centre back to a country they have not lived in for 5 years!

[lastlid]

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?


This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.

[yellowcloud]

Yes, what I didnt understand was why the Home office were saying the reason they have put up the threshold to 18,600 is because the sponsors housing benefit can increase if his/her Non EU Spouse joins him!!! But thats untrue from what I know???:doh

You can see that in the letter I posted by Chris Brown who claims that to be the case, which is quite simply wrong.

[Arthur Little]

Its supposed to cover the extra expense of living in London.

Yes :rolleyes: ... commonly known as 'London Weighting Allowance'.

[andy222]

Its supposed to cover the extra expense of living in London. Thats okay, but what about those other areas that are expensive to live in? For example Aberdeen. London isn't the only place where the costs of living are high.

Its exactly what we are saying. How can they work that figure out?

[yellowcloud]

opps

[Arthur Little]

Come on Arthur its the same as a speed camera. (A MONEY MAKING EXERCISE)

ABSOLUTELY ... :iagree: ... the main difference being that, if you're caught exceeding the speed limit, you are fined for breaking the law by causing danger to other road users. Whereas ... NO laws are being broken when a *British taxpayer legally applies to bring his/her [I]"lawfully-wedded spouse" to the land where he/she was born - yet *that person (who has lived there all his/he life) is then penalised by the home Government for claiming a basic human right and doing f:censored: all out of line in the process. Now THAT IS [very] wrong! :cwm23:

[lastlid]

Its exactly what we are saying. How can they work that figure out?

Exactly what I have been saying ad infinitum on the forum for the last few weeks. It will be very difficult to work out fairly across the length and breadth of the country. But it ideally ought to be done to attempt to make it fairer than a single sum i.e. 18600 . I dont think they will be :action-smiley-081:'d to do it. So they will try and do what is easiest to administer and not what would be best for the sponsors.

But, Dave Cameron wants to set up regional benefits instead of fixed rate benefits. So maybe they think that they can regionalise to some degree. Hard to do though.

[lastlid]

My previous employer tried to dish out travelling expenses bonuses based on distance from Aberdeen. The further you lived away, the more you got. That sounds okay in principal. In practice it worked poorly as it was cheaper to fly from London to Aberdeen than, say, Manchester to Aberdeen. Or if you lived far from an airport you were at a disadvantage compared to some one who lived near and thus more expensive to travel. Distance from Aberdeen was the criteria used but it was too simplistic and didnt do what it should have done.

That was just a simple example.

Fairly regionalising benefits and regionalising minimum thresholds for sponsors of visas would be fraught with soooo many complications.......

[andy222]

Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.:xxgrinning--00xx3:. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.

[lastlid]

Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.:xxgrinning--00xx3:. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.

Yes. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach. Like asking everyone to wear size 9 shoes, regardless of foot size.

[gWaPito]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

Why not indeed :rolleyes:...I guess its something to do with giving the unemployed an insentive to do something about there situation.

Bearing in mind the 18, 600 is gross so, taking out tax and ni it wont be far off the unemployment benefit amount. Also you need add the saving the unemployed have like non payment of council tax and social housing rent to name but two.

Yeah, excellent idea about setting unemployment benefits same as minimum wage :rolleyes:.....an even bigger insentive to sit on one's thumb all day :rolleyes:

[yellowcloud]

I don't think it is that they are saying that any less than 18,600 is not enough to live on, but are saying that any less than 18,600 a spouse can claim benefits in some form as 18,600 is the threshold.

[gWaPito]

I don't think it is that they are saying that any less than 18,600 is not enough to live on, but are saying that any less than 18,600 a spouse can claim benefits in some form as 18,600 is the threshold.

:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[lastlid]

What I and some are saying is that the government shouldnt really have it both ways.

[Arthur Little]

.....an even bigger insensitive to sit on one's thumb all day :rolleyes:

:Erm: ... presumably you mean incentive? There's certainly plenty of insensitivity doing the rounds - on the Government's part! :doh

[yellowcloud]

I don't think it is that they are saying that any less than 18,600 is not enough to live on, but are saying that any less than 18,600 a spouse can claim benefits in some form as 18,600 is the threshold.

BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

[lastlid]

BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

You are right. I think Joe said this about 10 times the other day.

[Arthur Little]

:Erm: ... presumably you mean incentive?

:icon_sorry:, mate ... no offence intended! :NoNo:

[yellowcloud]

You are right. I think Joe said this about 10 times the other day.

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

[imagine]

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

very good point:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[lastlid]

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

You are right. Start drawing up a list. Thats another one to add to the one mentioned by Andy earlier....

3 big ones so far...

[yellowcloud]

So in layman's terms what are the 3 big ones so far?


1
2
3

[Iani]

Edit - lost my temper there with this blasted government - sorry :(

[lastlid]

1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives.


Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.:xxgrinning--00xx3:. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.


Yes. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach. Like asking everyone to wear size 9 shoes, regardless of foot size.



2 There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.


BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

3 Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors.


What I and some are saying is that the government shouldnt really have it both ways.

4 Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.


This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

[lastlid]

.

[lastlid]

Why not indeed :rolleyes:...I guess its something to do with giving the unemployed an insensitive to do something about there situation.

Bearing in mind the 18, 600 is gross so, taking out tax and ni it wont be far off the unemployment benefit amount. Also you need add the saving the unemployed have like non payment of council tax and social housing rent to name but two.

Yeah, excellent idea about setting unemployment benefits same as minimum wage :rolleyes:.....an even bigger insentive to sit on one's thumb all day :rolleyes:

You are 'avin a larf. :icon_lol: You just pointed out that the money is gross and would be less than £18600 as one would have to deduct tax. Of course and then that individual would be paying tax and national insurance. Hardly sponging off the state.

[yellowcloud]

What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?

And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?

[gWaPito]

You are 'avin a larf. :icon_lol: You just pointed out that the money is gross and would be less than £18600 as one would have to deduct tax. Of course and then that individual would be paying tax and national insurance. Hardly sponging off the state.

Correct lastlid :icon_lol:...just going through my rabble rousing routine...:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[andy222]

Make a list out guys I will send it to my mp.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[lastlid]

What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?

And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?

She sounds like she wants to give it a good go....

[lastlid]

Make a list out guys I will send it to my mp.:xxgrinning--00xx3: There seems to be a strong no comment posting, regarding the list, Andy. Not sure why. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree?

[joebloggs]

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?




This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.

nor can you claim 'more of' a benefit if one partner has no recourse to public funds.

all this is about is the gov appearing to do something about controlling immigration

[lastlid]

Fair point that :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[yellowcloud]

Andy, I am preparing to write a list to send to my MP, so far this is what I have got.


Here I outline a few points in relation to the Immigration changes.

• 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach.

• There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.

FACT - the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR and it is a fact that the presence of a UK Citizens Sponsored spouse CAN not increase the sponsors housing benefit nor any other benefits, if anything if the Immigrant Spouse does work the sponsors housing benefit will decrease and look at the statistics the vast majority of immigrant spouses go straight into the working environment hence also contributing to the UK Economy.

• Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors. What I and some are saying is that the government shouldn’t really have it both ways.

• Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.

• Ms. May is correct in quoting the wording of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It is a qualified rather than an absolute right. However, measures that qualify should be proportionate, i.e. there is a need to justify that in effect the economic well-being of the country is being protected by these restrictions and that the means to do it are not disproportionate and quite clearly the restrictions that a sponsor must earn 18,600 are not only disproportionate but also made in error as a UKs Sponsors Immigrant spouse is not entitled to any public funds, the UK Citizens Immigrant spouses presence CAN NOT increase ANY public funds for the UK Citizen regardless of that the minimum income threshold is set at hence the economic well-being of the country is not affected.

In relation to the Human Rights Act which states (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every single case, that every applicants whose spouse earns less than 18,600 will affect the economic well-being of the UK and it is proportionate for every case. But in law they cannot Judges can not say that. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment! By May dictating to Judges is explicitly abrogating the independence of the judiciary. Not so long ago the UK Govt was attacking Mugabe regime for doubling up as judges, are they acting any different from the Mugabe/ Gadaffi Regimes?


The 18,600 threshold was calculated by a group of economists called the Migration Advisory Committee. This is the income level at which a British family would not receive any public funds in the form of income-related benefits (including tax credits).

A British Citizens Migrant Spouse has No Recourse to Public funds and CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether the UK Sponsor is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to any additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouses presence either, therefore there being NO burden on the UK Tax payer whatsoever. Hence making there no need for a Minimum earning threshold of 18,600.

• Under New Rules a British Citizen who receives DLA is not required to meet the new minimum earning threshold however many people with disabilities do not receive DLA.

This is another major hole in the new rules in that not every disadvantaged or disabled person receives DLA, as DLA is only for specific problems which a disabled person has. Not only that but someone who receives DLA for instance may lose it one week and the next week his spouse applies for ILR and how can this person be expected to go from being disabled and unable to work to receiving 18,600 per year immediately potentially? Hence his family spit apart, potentially his/her spouse being arrested by border control, split apart from her/his children after living here for 5 years and being put in a detention centre back to a country they have not lived in for 5 years!

[grahamw48]

Very good work sir. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

How many EU workers/immigrants are likely to need the services of a translator at PUBLIC EXPENSE ?

How many Filipinas are likely to need such a service ?

What are the comparable crime figures for different sets of immigrants ? :NoNo:

The government needs to start dealing with REALITY, rather than discriminating in such a nonsensical and arbitrary way. :angry:

[lastlid]

Andy, I am preparing to write a list to send to my MP, so far this is what I have got.


Here I outline a few points in relation to the Immigration changes.

• 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach.

• There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.

FACT - the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR and it is a fact that the presence of a UK Citizens Sponsored spouse CAN not increase the sponsors housing benefit nor any other benefits, if anything if the Immigrant Spouse does work the sponsors housing benefit will decrease and look at the statistics the vast majority of immigrant spouses go straight into the working environment hence also contributing to the UK Economy.

• Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors. What I and some are saying is that the government shouldn’t really have it both ways.

• Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.

• Ms. May is correct in quoting the wording of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It is a qualified rather than an absolute right. However, measures that qualify should be proportionate, i.e. there is a need to justify that in effect the economic well-being of the country is being protected by these restrictions and that the means to do it are not disproportionate and quite clearly the restrictions that a sponsor must earn 18,600 are not only disproportionate but also made in error as a UKs Sponsors Immigrant spouse is not entitled to any public funds, the UK Citizens Immigrant spouses presence CAN NOT increase ANY public funds for the UK Citizen regardless of that the minimum income threshold is set at hence the economic well-being of the country is not affected.

In relation to the Human Rights Act which states (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every single case, that every applicants whose spouse earns less than 18,600 will affect the economic well-being of the UK and it is proportionate for every case. But in law they cannot Judges can not say that. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment! By May dictating to Judges is explicitly abrogating the independence of the judiciary. Not so long ago the UK Govt was attacking Mugabe regime for doubling up as judges, are they acting any different from the Mugabe/ Gadaffi Regimes?


The 18,600 threshold was calculated by a group of economists called the Migration Advisory Committee. This is the income level at which a British family would not receive any public funds in the form of income-related benefits (including tax credits).

A British Citizens Migrant Spouse has No Recourse to Public funds and CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether the UK Sponsor is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to any additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouses presence either, therefore there being NO burden on the UK Tax payer whatsoever. Hence making there no need for a Minimum earning threshold of 18,600.

• Under New Rules a British Citizen who receives DLA is not required to meet the new minimum earning threshold however many people with disabilities do not receive DLA.

This is another major hole in the new rules in that not every disadvantaged or disabled person receives DLA, as DLA is only for specific problems which a disabled person has. Not only that but someone who receives DLA for instance may lose it one week and the next week his spouse applies for ILR and how can this person be expected to go from being disabled and unable to work to receiving 18,600 per year immediately potentially? Hence his family spit apart, potentially his/her spouse being arrested by border control, split apart from her/his children after living here for 5 years and being put in a detention centre back to a country they have not lived in for 5 years!

:xxgrinning--00xx3: Hopefully you might get some further input before you send it.....

Basically, even at the lower level of £18600, it is still too high.

[joebloggs]

:xxgrinning--00xx3:

you've missed one of the most important points out, how can if be fair that a non British European living in the UK for only a few months can bring their Non European spouse, child and family members using a EEA Family permit and these changes and restrictions do not effect them, a non British European living in the UK has a virtual legal right to bring them to the UK, while a British Citizen doesn't. how can this be just or fair ?.

[lastlid]

Another fair point from Joe.

Anyway, good luck with the letter. I am fortunate that my wife is here and we aren't affected by these new rules, but I don't like them one bit so I sympathise. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[joebloggs]

another point is, if you have kids born in the phils or UK, and you dont earn the £18.6k to bring your spouse here , common sense would tell you to get the kids to the UK and claim tax credits for them, maybe even the child care element of Tax creds and child benefit.
but if your spouse was here, you couldn't claim more of those benefits - so why not let her here ??? , but what is possible is that you wouldn't need to claim the childcare element (could be several £100's a month) as your spouse would be looking after the kids or even working and paying tax, and then if she was working you could be earning more than the tax credits cut off and not be able to claim tax creds saving the tax payer even more money :doh

[yellowcloud]

Another fair point from Joe.

Yes, I am also going to include that in the letter too about other EEA Nationals able to bring in their spouses to the UK and a British Citizen can not.

Joe, I sent you a PM email not sure if you got it?

[lastlid]

Very good work sir. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

How many EU workers/immigrants are likely to need the services of a translator at PUBLIC EXPENSE ?

How many Filipinas are likely to need such a service ?

What are the comparable crime figures for different sets of immigrants ? :NoNo:

The government needs to start dealing with REALITY, rather than discriminating in such a nonsensical and arbitrary way. :angry:

Exactly. All points that should be considered but evidently aren't.

[andy222]

I dont think we will get anywhere. The points that have been made are correct but this government wont budge on this. I will let you know if I get a reply from my mp. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Terpe]

Very good work sir. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

How many EU workers/immigrants are likely to need the services of a translator at PUBLIC EXPENSE ?

How many Filipinas are likely to need such a service ?

What are the comparable crime figures for different sets of immigrants ? :NoNo:

The government needs to start dealing with REALITY, rather than discriminating in such a nonsensical and arbitrary way. :angry:

I just caught this post Graham. Very good points indeed :xxgrinning--00xx3:
Thank you.

[grahamw48]

oops....must have been one of my more rational moments Peter. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

It does seem to me though, that in focusing on the 'cost to the public purse' aspect of family migration, the government are revealing a basic weakness in their argument as regards Filipino Spouses, as they are actually amongst the LEAST likely of immigrants to be a financial drain on the state.

I would like to see that proved otherwise in a court.

[lastlid]

oops....must have been one of my more rational moments Peter. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

It does seem to me though, that in focusing on the 'cost to the public purse' aspect of family migration, the government are revealing a basic weakness in their argument as regards Filipino Spouses, as they are actually amongst the LEAST likely of immigrants to be a financial drain on the state.

I would like to see that proved otherwise in a court.

I think it is realised here on the Isle of Man, hence so may Filipinos here as a fraction of the total population. Marks and Sparks and Tesco here obviously realise it too. It is not just a coincidence that filipinos are here in such large numbers and so few from other no EU countries.

Basically, the UK government cant be :action-smiley-081:'d to be discerning.

[yellowcloud]

Hmm thats interesting, if we don't get the Fiance Visa maybe we can use the EEA Route and live in the Isle of Man? OR is the Isle of Man part of the UK?

[Dedworth]

oops....must have been one of my more rational moments Peter. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

It does seem to me though, that in focusing on the 'cost to the public purse' aspect of family migration, the government are revealing a basic weakness in their argument as regards Filipino Spouses, as they are actually amongst the LEAST likely of immigrants to be a financial drain on the state.

I would like to see that proved otherwise in a court.

:gp: My "common sense post of the week" nomination

[lastlid]

Hmm thats interesting, if we don't get the Fiance Visa maybe we can use the EEA Route and live in the Isle of Man? OR is the Isle of Man part of the UK?

Not an easy one to answer, I am afraid. However, for the purposes of visa application it is part of the UK. But strictly speaking it isn't part of the UK, but part of the British Isles - slight difference. As far as I can make out, it isn't part of the EU but does have ties and agreements with it........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man

Notice the subtle difference in the passport cover.

[joebloggs]

Hmm thats interesting, if we don't get the Fiance Visa maybe we can use the EEA Route and live in the Isle of Man? OR is the Isle of Man part of the UK?

no i dont think so, IOM issues British passports :D, either go to Southern Ireland, south of France or Spain (the last 2 for the weather) :rolleyes:

interesting about Asylum seekers

Asylum
What is the situation on the Isle of Man in respect of asylum claims?
The Isle of Man’s legislation does not include provision for asylum claims or support for asylum seekers. The Isle of Man (and the Channel Islands) benefit from an arrangement with the United Kingdom Government whereby it will accept the return of asylum seekers in cases where the individual concerned, having arrived here via the UK, would have had opportunity to claim asylum in the UK. For anyone entering from any other port of entry, the Immigration Service, under present arrangements, works with the UK to achieve a satisfactory outcome

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immigrationintheisleofmanpub.pdf

[lastlid]

no i dont think so, IOM issues British passports :D, either go to Southern Ireland, south of France or Spain (the last 2 for the weather) :rolleyes:

interesting about Asylum seekers

Asylum
What is the situation on the Isle of Man in respect of asylum claims?
The Isle of Man’s legislation does not include provision for asylum claims or support for asylum seekers. The Isle of Man (and the Channel Islands) benefit from an arrangement with the United Kingdom Government whereby it will accept the return of asylum seekers in cases where the individual concerned, having arrived here via the UK, would have had opportunity to claim asylum in the UK. For anyone entering from any other port of entry, the Immigration Service, under present arrangements, works with the UK to achieve a satisfactory outcome

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immigrationintheisleofmanpub.pdf


Also note the words European Union on the passport cover. Yet the IOM isnt part of the EU. No mention of UK.

6554

[joebloggs]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have Associate Member status. The dependencies of other member states presumably have similar arrangements.

http://www.conformance.co.uk/info/eea.php

[joebloggs]

Who are the overseas workers, where do they come from?
The issue of National Insurance (NI) numbers gives some indication of all the nationalities working on the Isle of Man. During 2005/06 NI numbers were issued to people from Poland (271) India (155) South Africa (148) and the Philippines (76). No other country of origin had more than 50 NI numbers issued over that period.

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immigrationintheisleofmanpub.pdf

[lastlid]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have Associate Member status. The dependencies of other member states presumably have similar arrangements.

http://www.conformance.co.uk/info/eea.php



But heres a slightly different slant on it, from the Manx Government's own website......

"The Isle of Man has a special relationship with the European Union, set out in Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom's Treaty of Accession. The text of Protocol 3 is reproduced below. Under this special relationship the Island is neither a Member State nor an associate member of the European Union. It is also worth emphasising that, although the Island's relationship with the EU is through the UK, the Isle of Man is an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown and is not part of the UK".
http://www.gov.im/cso/externalrelations/eu.xml

Like I said. Complicated.

"I am a foreign national. What are the requirements if I want to come and live on the Isle of Man?
The admission of foreign nationals is regulated by the Isle of Man Immigration Rules. The Rules lay down the requirements for the entry and stay of foreign nationals in the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Rules, whilst not identical to the United Kingdom (UK) Rules, are based on the UK Rules and are very similar. However, they are not identical and there are some provisions in the UK Rules that do not apply here and some in the Isle of Man Rules that do not apply in the UK. There are also, as in the UK, provisions in the Rules that apply only to Commonwealth citizens. It is important that people interested in emigrating to the Isle of Man check to see what the requirements are as it may be that an entry clearance is required. Without the necessary entry clearance the passenger may be refused entry to the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man".

[lastlid]

Who are the overseas workers, where do they come from?
The issue of National Insurance (NI) numbers gives some indication of all the nationalities working on the Isle of Man. During 2005/06 NI numbers were issued to people from Poland (271) India (155) South Africa (148) and the Philippines (76). No other country of origin had more than 50 NI numbers issued over that period.

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/immigrationintheisleofmanpub.pdf


Interesting stats but they don't match the blend that I see on the streets in 2012. It is really hard to find anyone from the Indian subcontinent here. Struggle to find an Indian restaurant. :icon_lol:

I think that I have seen 1 person of West Indian origin. And hardly any more of African origin. If there are folk from South Africa then they are not indigenous African in origin.

The blend of ethnicities here are nothing like most places in England. There are no hidden, or otherwise, enclaves or ghettos. And it takes very little effort to cover all of the island and I really don't see very many Indians, barely a handful or two. Some are indeed in the medical profession.

I wouldn't disagree with the stats on the Poles. But they aren't non EU. In any case we aren't talking "Roman" here in the sense that Dedworth refers to. There aren't loads of rampant "Romas" begging on the streets or claiming benefit. The Poles are mainly in the hotel sector and dentistry etc.

Also, they are old stats.

Bottom line is that there aren't any immigration related problems here. Virtually none, unless you count those that come across on the ferry.

[joebloggs]

yes old stats, i think the IOM has very limited say on Immigrations law, I'm sure its Immigration law is made by Parliament.

[lastlid]

yes old stats, i think the IOM has very limited say on Immigrations law, I'm sure its Immigration law is made by Parliament.

But some of its Immigration law is a little different.

Anyhow, having said that Joe, how does one account for such a uniquely large percentage of Filipinos here? There must be some discretion being utilised here. :Erm: Maybe the discretion is exercised by the employers in the first place? Many that I have come across have arrived here on work visas originally.

[joebloggs]

from those stats 76 Filipino's got nino's in 2005/06 when many people could get work permits - you just needed a sponsor , but with the recent restrictions i bet the number is low to zero in the last year or so.

[lastlid]

from those stats 76 Filipino's got nino's in 2005/06 when many people could get work permits - you just needed a sponsor , but with the recent restrictions i bet the number is low to zero in the last year or so.

But theres still a load of Filipinos here. Every other checkout in Tesco for a starters. Actually, you might be right as I noticed less over the last few months.