I got a letter back from Chris Row today regarding the changes. I wrote to him to disagree with the changes. I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on his arguments and if his arguments had any holes?
Does anyone know how I delete a file I have uploaded on this post???
I am trying to delete the first attachment ie the "1" of the 4th one.
The reason T May has put the threshold up to £18,600 is because the human rights Act states
(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Theresa May is saying that if a Sponsor does not make £18,600 or more then the sponsors spouse/fiance could affect the economic well-being of the UK and as you can see in the Human rights act a Public body (ie the UK Government) CAN interfere with the right to a family life.
Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.
agree, and may i add it should also be the minimum wageOriginally Posted by bigmarco
The perfect answer.
State pension as well me thinks
its still 3 times more than some couples on income how can i compete with this amount i get about £1200 a month after tax i be better off jumping in front of a bus become disabled if i dont die lol then i wouldent need to worry over the income of £18600before this with my ex i was ok on my wage and we had 2 kids so cant see why this amount its nuts
Yes....... they do it because they can. It is just another attack on the regular hard working people of the country, who for whatever reason have found love on distant shores. Unfortunately, 'we' are probably such a minority that, as in the words of the Borg Queen, 'resistance is futile'
If you want your dreams to come true ...... first you have to wake up
You're not supposed to find obvious holes in May's ideas..... and where does the £18,600 come from? This is not much money in London, and it as hell of a lot for someone in Newcastle
This will at some point go to court and the government will lose, and as with Labour's '21' rule the UKBA will then have to go through all the back cases!!
Keith - Administrator
Like I have said before If they wont let my wife and kid come here. Give me my state pension that I have paid into for 37 years and I will go and live with her there.
I must have missed something but who is Chris Row ?
I guessed he was a Mp ded but I dont know either.
Link http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/eve...ng-integration refers.
It relates specifically to a Protest Meeting to be convened in Committee Room 1, at the House of Lords between the hours of 18.30 and 20.00 on the evening of the date on which the new Rules become effective.
Bit like "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted",but still ...
... I propose a hearty vote of thanksto "yellowcloud", the forum member who first alerted us to it!
... see appropriate thread entitled: 'Protest and Meeting in Parliament against new Rules - please support'.
So, folks ...... it's up to each and every one of US to do OUR bit!
Yes. It will be interesting to see if they can get away with these double standards. They seem to want it both ways.
The meeting wont make any difference. The changes will be made. My plan is to get supporting lettter from my mp. Legal advice from a immigration lawyer. Before I put my application in. Of coarse it will be refused. Then the fight starts.
I guessed he was a Mp ded but I dont know either.
However, I imaginehe's the dishonorable Member of Parliament for the OP's constituency. And his reply would seem to belie his *surname ... in that, it would suggest he's hardly prepared to "kick up
a *Row" on behalf of his constituent.
Nail on head how can you have one amount.You're not supposed to find obvious holes in May's ideas
This will at some point go to court and the government will lose, and as with Labour's '21' rule the UKBA will then have to go through all the back cases!!
I do in practise agree you should have some sensible rules in place to stop both the country or either party being affected.
So yes you should prove you can support your other half and also demonstrate if possible they should have skills and experience they can use in the UK if they so chose to work.
The Applicant who wants to come to the UK should be of a certain Age so they can both deal with the situation and make a informed decision i feel also.
But what you might need to survive in London in a certain area is going to be way way different to what a person in other areas will need.
But is this where it gets complicated as to use this method you would need to bring back regional pay differences officially (London Weighting seemed to go around 2000 from most places i noticed) and also benefit differences.
To bring in regional variations is a massive step which would have huge knock on implications. So it looks like they are stuck with a stupid wage which down in London might make some sense although i know of families i am guessing do not earn this in the area but would not for elsewhere.
Oh lord why did you make so many clothes and shoe shops
It's all a load of nonsensical bolox that either has been worked out on the back of a fag packet by a drunk MP or arrived at using the govt's own fake statistics.
I'll say it again and AGAIN.
The only fair measure of 'affordability' is DISPOSABLE income...as widely used for donkeys years by the consumer credit industry.
Having signed up 100s of people for finance over the past 35 years, I know this.
Bear in mind it was when this accepted principle began to be ignored that the whole banking industry went twits up.
I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer.It's all a load of nonsensical bolox that either has been worked out on the back of a fag packet by a drunk MP or arrived at using the govt's own fake statistics.
I'll say it again and AGAIN.
The only fair measure of 'affordability' is DISPOSABLE income...as widely used for donkeys years by the consumer credit industry.
Having signed up 100s of people for finance over the past 35 years, I know this.
Bear in mind it was when this accepted principle began to be ignored that the whole banking industry went twits up.
By using a flat rate it makes it easy for them. But, like I pointed out the other day, Dave Cameron advocates regionalising benefits levels. So if they can regionalise benefit levels then they can regionalise earnings thresholds instead of a flat 18600.
Danny Alexander on regionalising benefit.
"It was the non-announcement of the week. Excised from the prime minister's speech, but lurking in the background; should people in different parts of the country be paid different levels of benefits?
The media was briefed that it would be in the speech, but when it was delivered the sentence referring to regional levels of benefit had gone.
But of course by then the issue was running.
And although it was not in the speech, Employment Minister Chris Grayling fuelled the fire by saying it was "entirely sensible" to debate whether benefit levels should be set on a regional rather than national basis.
Benefits bill
The argument is that people on benefits in regions like the north east are more likely to stay on them because wages are lower than in the south.
Of course, any change could also help to cut the benefits bill too.
It is now becoming clear, though, why the PM decided not to mention it.
Liberal Democrats were briefing that they had blocked it, and now Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has come out openly to say it's not something that will happen under the coalition.
"In terms of regionalising benefits, for me as a Liberal Democrat, it's just a non-starter”
Danny Alexander MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
And he also made it clear that the idea of regional public sector pay rates (or local market-facing pay as he referred to it) is also a distant and unlikely prospect.
In a visit to Teesside he said: "There is absolutely no prospect of the government introducing regional benefits.
"We have been looking at local market-facing pay in the public sector. That is an issue which we have referred to the individual pay review bodies to consider.
"But they would have to be come up with some pretty overwhelming evidence for us to move in that direction.
"In terms of regionalising benefits, for me as a Liberal Democrat, it's just a non-starter.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18646934
I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer.for the hundreds of LOWER PAID it affects.
And as for any additional, governmental administrative costs - in the highly unlikely event of it ever basing its calculations on Regional Income/Benefit levels - well ...
After all,it was the Government that dreamt up the whole
- and unfairly discriminatory - measure in the first place ...
Exactly, but will they see it like that?And as for any additional, governmental administrative costs - in the highly unlikely event of it ever basing its calculations on Regional Income/Benefit levels - well ...
After all,
Example a person in london doing exactly the same job as me in the NHS and on the same band of pay gets £2000 a year more than me. Why?
... therefore it should equally be the Government's responsibility to take care of the problem IT createdAfter all,- WTHOUT, of course, recouping the extra outlay through futher visa fee increases.
God knows ... applicants already fork outMORE than enough.
Its supposed to cover the extra expense of living in London. Thats okay, but what about those other areas that are expensive to live in? For example Aberdeen. London isn't the only place where the costs of living are high.
Come on Arthur its the same as a speed camera. (A MONEY MAKING EXERCISE) How long does it take to save for a visa fee? And how long does it take to stamp refused on the application? Your money is in their hands either way.
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!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
