We must all sign this petition

[rusty]

It's the 'one fits all' aspect of this that is so grossly unfair, and is DISCRIMINATORY .

Unfortunately, this statement applies on many aspects of our lives, not just this subject.

We are in a minority by having foreign partners, the majority of people, mostly uneducated about this subject, will only see what is in the newspapers and think that all the problems are caused by immigration, therefore, you will never get mass support to stop this change happening.

If you look at some of the other e-petitions you will see that 135,739 want to stop the population increasing to 70 million, 10,130 want to stop mass migration and 1,354 want to stop all immigration into the UK.

As it has been mentioned before, that the government do not have a great success rate when bringing in some new changes and it has been quoted that the Institute for Public Policy Research warned that if the Government accepted the proposals and went ahead with the policy, ‘it is likely to be challenged in the courts’.

[Iani]

Someone from Taiwan once said, don't listen to what the (Mainland) Chinese government says - watch what they do.
In public they are all guns blazing about Taiwan, military exercises, threats of invasion etc.
In reality, but they don't shout about it, they've opened more direct air routes, opened trade agreements, sent them pandas etc.

The conclusion is that China doesn't really hate Taiwan, but either secretly wants the status quo, or wants peaceful reunion.

Same applies to this government. David Cameron might pretend to be a tory, but is really a liberal. It's not the first time - Edward Heath was the same, and Tony Blair was almost the same, except he at least was honest about being a closet tory.

David Cameron, one thing he is not, is someone's fool. Take this proposal, in public you can imagine he will be for it, as cutting down immigration is something the public likes. In private I would guess he would be thinking it's a good idea, but probably the wrong answer to the problem. In reality - well, as I said before, governments are not stupid. I have experience of local government (Don't ask - really, just don't ask!) and just about every time, if your local council makes an unpopular decision, it's because they're between a rock and a hard place. That housing development - if they turn it down, it will go to appeal, the council will lose, it will be taxpayers money.

If there is a good chance this immigration change would go to court, and the decision would go against the government, then they just won't implement it...........yet.

I am not a lawyer, but even I can see holes you could drive a coach, horses, and a team bus full of cheerleaders through on this one.

About the only thing it has going for it, is that it will be mildly popular with some voters, who see abuses of the current system, by...we all know who.

Even this, many of the anti immigration voters won't have even thought of this idea, as they get it from the media and hear more of the so called bogus asylum seekers.

Putting aside every bit of personal interest I may have in if this law is passed or not - looking at this logically, it just doesn't seem like something the government could make stick.

As I said though, be interesting to see what happens if they do.

[DeltaRomeo]

I probably won't make any friends saying this...but
I disagree and cannot sign the petition.
Looking at this objectively and not personally - something has to be done about the ever increasing population of the UK, the increasing cost to funded education, health & benefits and impact on infrastructure such as lack of housing.

The petition states "This policy would privilege wealthy applicants, while discriminating against low-income/unemployed UK citizens. These proposals set out to challenge Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by making wealth a priority over love and the respect for family life."
Yes, it could be argued that way.. and be manipulated and abused all too easily.It could also be argued that we all have a human right to live wherever we like.
So What would a reasonable alternative be? I don't think it is the intention to discriminate in favour of the wealthy or higher than average earner, but simply to try and effect their ruling that "Settlement applicants must demonstrate they meet all of the immigration rules including that they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds".
I cannot see an alternative workable solution.
To play devil's advocate: I would also say let's face it, a salary of £25,700 (the higher proposed wage limit) for a family household is not a high income and by no means guarantees an immigrant will not make a claim on some kind of state funded provision.
I also agree with Graham, it is discriminatory, one size fits all. Having said that... any policy that is brought in will discriminate against some group.
I really do appreciate the proposals are causing worry and concern to members and hope that if brought in they do not impact on your own circumstances too greatly. I too am hoping that my partner will get a visit visa within the next couple of months and if that goes well, later a fiancee or spousal visa. But I still feel that some kind of restriction needs to be effected.
Personally, I think that MAC (Migration Advisory Committee) looks in the wrong direction and something has to be done about the numbers of eastern EU migrants. However non EU applications are an easier target.
A couple of interesting documents I have come across are:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14668726

"and that's why this plentiful of supply of cheap and mobile Eastern European labour is a headache for ministers. Their continued arrival, combined with the current falls in the numbers of all people emigrating, mean the government has to look elsewhere to hit the net migration target".

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...ions_aug11.pdf an excerpt of which is:
NINo (National Insirance Number) registrations to adult overseas nationals entering the UK, top 20 countries for 2010/11

Rank* Country Total (thousands) % Difference to 2009/10
1▲ Poland 81.18 16%
2▼ India 74.41 -1%
3▲ Pakistan 41.24 80%
4▼ Republic of Lithuania 40.84 74%
5▼ Republic of Latvia 27.26 18%
6▲ Spain 24.37 85%
7▲ France 22.55 37%
8▲ Italy 22.10 53%
9▼ Romania 22.00 24%
10▼ Nigeria 17.84 10%
11▲ China Peoples Republic 17.12 42%
12▲ Republic of Ireland 16.13 56%
13▼ Australia 15.85 18%
14▲ Hungary 15.65 36%
15▲ Sri Lanka 14.18 80%
16▼ Bulgaria 13.94 11%
17▲ Portugal 13.88 41%
18▼ Bangladesh 13.84 -35%
19▼ Germany 13.24 25%
20▼ Slovak Republic 11.67 -12%