Hello everyone,
As I am sure many of you are aware the New rules will cause many thousands of families to break up as well as British people living away from the UK with non EU Spouses to be banned from their country unless they split up their family if they need to move back home.
Well MPs have put a commons Motion in place against the changes, however we need more MPs to sign up and wanted to ask everyone to write to their MP, simply follow this link
http://www.writetothem.com/
Here is my Letter to mp MP and if people wish to use this please do,
Dear MP,
I would like to ask you to join other MPs to oppose the inhumane restrictions on families and to add your name to the Early day motion 297, please see link below
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/297
Yours Faithfully,
Below I have listed more information on these changes, if you wish to read through them please do;
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.
Teresa May claims the current Maintenance requirement of £5,795 is not adequate to prevent burden on the UK taxpayer. However, no evidence has been provided, statistics or figures to support exactly how much welfare has been taken as a result of the increase in the UK sponsor’s benefits due to the presence of the Migrant spouse to even determine if it is proportionate to increase the Maintenance threshold to £18,600 in terms of protecting the Welfare of the UK Economy?
Teresa May has also not provided any evidence i.e. figures or statistics to support her statement that the UK national spouse who marries a non-EEA nationals gets increased benefit payments as a result of the marriage and which exact benefits they are?
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 who are a group of right wing Tories. 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!
• How can if be fair or propionate that that for example,any EU National ie a Greek national, working in London, may have his Cambodian wife, and her extended family join him on a EEA family permit. They become immediately eligible to benefits, there is no maintenance test, she may work or not, and there is no jeopardy at 30 and 60 months. His family may stay as long as he does. The Greek citizen can do this as of right. The British citizen’s spouse/family/fiance has to meet all of these requirements and the British Citizens Spouse/family/Fiance does not have any of these rights that the Greek Nationals spouse/fiance has?.
Thank you
Originally Posted by Dedworth
door in. 
... who can blame you, Andy? Sh
