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!
