Originally Posted by grahamw48
KHAN ?no he's a decent guy, he's helped people out on this forum and many, many others
KHAN ?
graham remember ' The Primary Purpose rule'one of the first things Jack Straw scrapped when he became Home Secretary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/po...05/straw.shtml
The Government has scrapped one of Britain's toughest immigration laws. The Primary Purpose rule, which has barred entry into the UK for thousands of people married to British citizens, has been dropped.
Home Secretary Jack Straw said it was being ended because "it is arbitrary, unfair and ineffective and has penalised genuine cases, divided families and unnecessarily increased the administrative burden on the immigration system."
The move was described as "hugely welcome" by Claude Moraes of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, who said it would be beneficial, both practically and symbolically.
Previously, the Primary Purpose rule required foreign nationals married to British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not to obtain British residency.
If those wishing to take up residency in the UK could not prove this to the satisfaction of immigration officers, they were denied entry into the United Kingdom. The change in the law is expected to place the burden of proof on immigration officials rather than those applying for residency.
In abolishing the rule, Labour is honouring one of its election manifesto commitments. The abolition of the rule will bring immediate benefits to more than 1,000 couples who were barred from the UK on the basis of the rule in 1996 alone.
Mr Straw said he was determined to build an immigration and asylum system that was "fairer, faster and firmer". He stressed that the other rules on married partners applying to enter Britain - such as those saying the marriage must not be one of convenience and not place a financial burden on the state - would remain.
Mr Straw said the rules would be amended from Wednesday and added, "Entry clearance officers are being instructed not to refuse entry clearance applications where the refusal depends solely on the primary purpose rule."
Mr Straw's announcement came in a written reply to a question from Keith Vaz, the Labour MP for Leicester East, who was quick to welcome the change.
Mr Vaz said, "This is an historic decision. Jack Straw should be congratulated on this move. Thousands of people separated under this cruel and malicious rule will now be treated with the respect they deserve. Today's announcement is the first step towards restoring justice to Britain's immigration policy."
I hadn't read that report at the time Joe.
'Seeking economic advantage' was traditionally the biggest hurdle, and one that still seems to be used.
Actually 1996 was an important year for me and the visa system, because that was the year me and the ex applied (successfully) to bring her 2 children to the UK, though I had actually been working in Hong Kong for about 3 years at that time, with the rest of the family living in the Phils. I later brought them all to Hong Kong while the visa application for the kids was being sorted.
The ex had obtained her own settlement visa back in 1991 of course.
At the time of applying for the dependants visas I had neither job, home nor income in the UK.
Didn't take me long to have all those in place on paper though.
also from Khan, maybe some hope..
Any legislation has to be 'compatible' with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. If it's incompatible, that legislation can be struck out by the courts. The HRA provides a national remedy to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed by the UK eons ago. Previously, if someone wished to assert that their 'human rights' had been infringed, then remedy would have to have been sought through the European Court for Human Rights - so costly as to generally not be worth it.
Should a sponsor's minimum income proposal be introduced to the Immigration Rules, it could be perceived as a disproportionate interference in the right to a private and family life (Article 8), as well as discriminatory, and thereby 'incompatible' with the HRA. After all, it is 'not fair' that one person can have their foreign spouse settle simply because they earn x amount, whereas the bloke next door can't because he falls shy of an arbitrary threshold.
but i think the tories have been talking about scrapping the HRA or changing it
sad to read about mercedes with the contract, job, taking her phone ect, im so sorry to hear this,
i hope its easy enough to do if she needs out,
i can only imagine how you must feel,
Some interesting points there Joe, and definitely applicable I'd have thought.
Although there are certain elements of the HRA I'd be happy to see the back of, the Tories are part of a coalition and I don't see them having an easy time with something as major as the HRA....especially when the hand-wringers in the Liberal and Labour parties get their feathers ruffled over it.
Thanks Stewart.
I just feel frustrated, because there's basically sod all I can do about it.
Time will tell, but I'll help how ever I can to prevent her having to put up with the situation any longer than she needs to.
i've always voted labour - i must be in one of labours safest seats, but i think you should have a legal right to bring your wife and step kids to the UK, money shouldn't come in to it,
we all remember what tony went thru, he struggled but got her here in the end, i bet his wife is working and not claiming public funds, but if that minimum limit is set, many will have no chance, and that's wrong.
This is a very worrying,sad & desperate situation many genuine couples will find themselves in me included if this also apllies to those spouses already here in the uk & who are about to apply for ilr.....i pray there will be a satisfactory outcome for all of us.
AN HAPPY WIFE IS A HAPPY LIFE
... "May" be better setting an example by clamping down on those illegal curry houses she opened in her constituency.
WOW. Its all been kicking off while I have been away. Its been a bit like a sleeping dragon, this. I was wondering when it would rear its ugly head again. ( Ooops I wasnt talking about Theresa May ) ......
From the telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...direction.html
"As we report today, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, plans to change the law to make it harder for new immigrants to bring in members of their families. At present, immigrants need to be able to show that they will have a minimum income in Britain of £13,700 to be given permission to bring in a spouse, partner or dependant. Under the new proposals, that sum will increase to £25,700. Anyone hoping to bring in three or more children would have to demonstrate that they have a minimum income of £62,600. She also hopes to reintroduce some form of investigation that would allow the authorities to distinguish sham marriages from genuine ones – although that proposal may well fall foul of the judges, who ruled that previous attempts to investigate the basis of a marriage were “discriminatory” and so illegal"
Thanks Stewart.
I just feel frustrated, because there's basically sod all I can do about it.
Time will tell, but I'll help how ever I can to prevent her having to put up with the situation any longer than she needs to.
Presumably she doesn't have access to the internet Graham? I was in contact with a Filipina nanny in China and she used to have to "sneak" about a bit and go on the internet when her employers were out of the house or late at night. It seemed to work to a degree.
She appears to have very limited access, via a phone....perhaps one that she's managed to hide away, but of course probably unable to top it up if she's being kept a virtual prisoner.
Seems to be some confusion there...but what can we expect from the halfwits who report on these things ?
Yes. Well spotted. Just the odd word or two makes a lot of difference to the meaning of the report.Seems to be some confusion there...but what can we expect from the halfwits who report on these things.
Sorry to hear this Graham - no doubt you will be genning up on things - I've just come across thisPoor Mercedes seems to be having a crap time in Singapore...being treated as a bloody slave, just as I had anticipated.
They confiscated her mobile phone, no days off, and the poor little thing has to lift around this heavy old woman.
Only had about 3 brief Facebook messages since she's been gone there.
http://barangaysingapore.com/employm...re-labor-laws/
Good find there Dedworth
Hope it will help you Graham
It must be frustrating not being able to talk to each other and gauge how things are.
Interesting Guardian article.....
"Theresa May's immigration plan is a one-size-fits-none fix
As a US-born citizen married to a UK national, I don't see how my income is correlated to my ability to fit in here"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ts-immigration
Thnks for posting lastlid
A very interesting & informative read
AN HAPPY WIFE IS A HAPPY LIFE
Yes. Seems to sum things up quite well. Interesting for the likes of yoursleves and ourselves, what she says about ILR.Thnks for posting lastlid
A very interesting & informative read
Yes it seems the 2 to 5yr rule will definatley be implemented......Remains to be seen if this will affect those already here on spouse & fiance visas will there be a transitional period for the likes of us & yourselfs who knows we wait with baited breath
AN HAPPY WIFE IS A HAPPY LIFE
Just had a very hard conversation with my g/f about this. Without going into specifics, there is absolutely no chance I could increase my income to over that amount in the current climate.
So should we finish, on the basis we could never be together? I can't move abroad because I have children from a previous marriage.
Don't want to go all melodramatic and all that, but I just feel like everything I have to look forward to has gone
time goes very quickly, so just hold on about breaking up with your girlfriend, your children will grow up and you will be alone, myself and emma was talking for a few years before i even went out to the phils, we all have to deside what is best for ourselves and our future partners, dont let this goverment deside for you, where theres a will theres away
Join the club mate.
I wonder if this cash for access has anything to do with it? Makes you wonder.
wait and see what happens, its not going to be easy for May, there will definitely be court cases, and the gov record is pretty poor at winning them
There has been some leakage of what? Pretty much what was already published.
Before anyone starts making life changing decisions much better to wait a while until the government actually comes out officially with the proposed new immigration rules.
For all we know there may be a number of 'if's' and 'but's', 'get out of jail free' clauses so to speak.
At this time we just don't know the full story.
I know it's easy for those of us here in UK with our loved ones, but it doesn't make sense to finalise any decisions based on what we don't know.
Yes. Hopefully, if / when the newer Spousal route measures are brought in, they are brought in a diluted fashion. That could still happen yet.
I fully agree ....................ties in with Steves post (Doom & Gloom) http://filipinaroses.com/showthread....doom-and-gloom
There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)
Posting Permissions
