I Got A Letter Back From Chris Row Today Regarding The Changes.

[lastlid]

[*] 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives.

Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.

Yes. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach. Like asking everyone to wear size 9 shoes, regardless of foot size.

[*]2 There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.

BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

[*]3 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 shouldnt really have it both ways.

[*] 4 Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?