"In relation to the increase in the maintenance threshold, the foregoing case studies provide facesOriginally Posted by joebloggs
to the nameless 67% MAC refers to in its report.
They show how pregnancy, low or average pay,
accidents, disability, recent entry to the labour market as a graduate, circumstances of victims of
human rights abuses and low currency exchange rates all potentially result in applicants failing the
proposed maintenance requirements.
The case studies also highlight how problematic the proposed implementation of these measures is.
Through exclusion of consideration of third party support, future employment prospects of couples,
savings and employment of the immigrant spouse, even more hurdles are placed in the way of
applicants. Why on any logical count should these be excluded from consideration when calculating
whether maintenance levels are met?
As for the attachment requirement, the two case studies demonstrate the difficulties that those fleeing
from human rights abuses are likely to encounter, and how those settled in the UK for over a decade
may well in future be prevented from reuniting with their spouses / partners.
Helen’s and Adenike’s stories of violence and abuse should remind MPs how probationary periods
disempower their victims, and double lock them into cycles of violence and mental abuse.
All of these case studies should also raise a question as to how far manifesto commitments to
promote and protect family life would in practice be realized in the event of the implementation of
such proposals. They should also lead to a question about the extent to which such proposals fall
below international consensus (as reflected by international and regional human rights instruments)
on basic minimum standards that should be accorded to couples and families."
