Does anyone know when this "must be 21" rule comes into effect? 'cause me and my girlfriend (she's 18) are hoping to apply for her visa in october...
I personally feel sympathy for people living here illegally, there just people that didn't go legit that's all...
who knows when, its part of a 10 year plan.
read more here ..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1563905.ece
whats more worrying is from the kirkhope commision report on immigration from 2004, which looks like the gov has started taken notice of the recommendations, with rise to 21 for a spouse visa, english tests, and who knows what else is in the pipeline for those of us who marry no europeans.
from kirkhope report on immigration.
Minimum income requirements for sponsoring spouses The Commission believes that no one in receipt of state benefits should be able to sponsor an immigrant spouse. At present, sponsors have to demonstrate that they can support their spouse that such spouse will not become a burden on the taxpayer, but these rules tend to be very liberally interpreted, often simply being a requirement that sponsors cannot be living solely off state benefits. However, many sponsors are on low incomes and therefore also receive in-work benefits such as income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. If they are not fully able to support themselves, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to fully support their spouses without additional state aid. The UK is unusual in having such lax requirements.In Canada, the sponsoring spouse has to prove that they can support their husband or wife for at least ten years. The US and the Netherlands have minimum income requirements for the sponsoring spouse related to the level of their minimum wage; for example, sponsors must earn the equivalent of one and a half times minimum wage before being allowed to sponsor a spouse. Another approach, favoured by the Commission as a possible ‘stepping stone’ to one of the above alternatives is that anyone being supported by the taxpayer cannot demand the taxpayer also supports a spouse they want to bring into the country. If the sponsor insists that their spouse would support them – for example, a low-skilled UK resident suggesting that their high-skilled foreign spouse can support them – the spouse should be required to apply for a work permit on their own account. The British taxpayer should not have to support low-skilled migrants who cannot contribute to the British economy.
lookng at the report thou 139,000 people were given permenant settlement in 2003, that covers spouse,children,refugees,work related,etc. funny thou how over 450,000 people were allowed to enter the uk from europe in the past year. and oh my wife and stepson might be a burden to the tax payer, but the 450,000 will not be
show you can support your spouse for 10 years
where is the justice, equality, pitty there is not a strong political party to pull UK out of europe.
cheers baboyako
vegitarian is a dirty word in pinoyland
a vegitarian food i can eat in the philippines, maybe soon as tesco expands
Don't even go there!Originally Posted by joebloggs
where is the justice, equality, pitty there is not a strong political party to pull UK out of europe.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
