Originally Posted by lastlid
I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer.... but the way it's going to be from the date the New Rules become effective,
it'll surely prove an even BIGGER HEADACHE
for the hundreds of LOWER PAID it affects.
... therefore it should equally be the Government's responsibility to take care of the problem IT createdAfter all,it was the Government that dreamt up the whole
- and unfairly discriminatory - measure in the first place ...
- WTHOUT, of course, recouping the extra outlay through futher visa fee increases.
God knows ... applicants already fork outMORE than enough.
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!
This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.
nor can you claim 'more of' a benefit if one partner has no recourse to public funds.
all this is about is the gov appearing to do something about controlling immigration
Fair point that
Andy, I am preparing to write a list to send to my MP, so far this is what I have got.
Here I outline a few points in relation to the Immigration changes.
• 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach.
• There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.
FACT - the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR and it is a fact that the presence of a UK Citizens Sponsored spouse CAN not increase the sponsors housing benefit nor any other benefits, if anything if the Immigrant Spouse does work the sponsors housing benefit will decrease and look at the statistics the vast majority of immigrant spouses go straight into the working environment hence also contributing to the UK Economy.
• Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors. What I and some are saying is that the government shouldn’t really have it both ways.
• Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.
• 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 and quite clearly the restrictions that a sponsor must earn 18,600 are not only disproportionate but also made in error as a UKs Sponsors Immigrant spouse is not entitled to any public funds, the UK Citizens Immigrant spouses presence CAN NOT increase ANY public funds for the UK Citizen regardless of that the minimum income threshold is set at hence the economic well-being of the country is not affected.
In relation to the Human Rights Act which states (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?
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! By May dictating to Judges is explicitly abrogating the independence of the judiciary. Not so long ago the UK Govt was attacking Mugabe regime for doubling up as judges, are they acting any different from the Mugabe/ Gadaffi Regimes?
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).
A British Citizens Migrant Spouse has No Recourse to Public funds and CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether the UK Sponsor is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to any additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouses presence either, therefore there being NO burden on the UK Tax payer whatsoever. Hence making there no need for a Minimum earning threshold of 18,600.
• Under New Rules a British Citizen who receives DLA is not required to meet the new minimum earning threshold however many people with disabilities do not receive DLA.
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!
What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?
And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?
She sounds like she wants to give it a good go....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
