Stop tearing families apart based on earnings! Scrap minimum income requirement

[superal]

21 hours ago, theoldgit said:

I'm not sure that marrying a UK national was ever supposed to be "a way of entry into the UK", I'm also not sure that it was ever an automatic right, certainly not in recent times.

 

Likewise HMG's fallback position has always been that there's nothing to stop a UK national marrying a foreign national and living together in another country, Thailand for instance, that's where my wife and I have chosen to live.

So you left the UK to live in Thailand as a retiree ? Because if that is the case you are still under the control of the UK Gov; as they will freeze your state pension and cancel your rights to the NHS after a period of absence from the UK .  So all those years of N.I.C's and income taxes that you paid in have been reigned in to dilute your rightful benefits .

I do not want to drift off the topic but some might say that it is one rule for the haves and another for the have not's. Explanation --  18600 pounds minimum  income for a born & bred UK citizen of the UK to bring his Asian spouse  ( not children as that mounts up again ) into the UK to live .  Now then , a foreign   Mr Moneybags can make a substantial financial investment into the UK which will qualify him for citizenship .

Or is it a Mr Moneybags or merely a mass of money that is being circulated / passed from one to another applicant to gain UK entry  .

[theoldgit]

44 minutes ago, superal said:

So you left the UK to live in Thailand as a retiree ? Because if that is the case you are still under the control of the UK Gov; as they will freeze your state pension and cancel your rights to the NHS after a period of absence from the UK .  So all those years of N.I.C's and income taxes that you paid in have been reigned in to dilute your rightful benefits .

I do not want to drift off the topic but some might say that it is one rule for the haves and another for the have not's. Explanation --  18600 pounds minimum  income for a born & bred UK citizen of the UK to bring his Asian spouse  ( not children as that mounts up again ) into the UK to live .  Now then , a foreign   Mr Moneybags can make a substantial financial investment into the UK which will qualify him for citizenship .

Or is it a Mr Moneybags or merely a mass of money that is being circulated / passed from one to another applicant to gain UK entry  .

You're right you're drifting off the actual topic, but I'll answer anyway as it's probably relevent.
Yes I moved here in the full knowledge that when I reached 65 age my State Pension would be frozen, and whilst I did so out of choice that doesn't mean I think it's right.
The removal of NHS cover came years after I moved here, that's also wrong but something I took on the chin, though it could of course it could be the tipping point if I weigh up the pros and cons of returning in the future, and of course I do buy insurance when we travel to the UK, the same as we do for other parts of the world.
The fact remains that if I couldn't meet the income criteria to return to the UK with my wife, we could still live here as a married couple, so TM, who I despise, hasn't denied my right to marry the lady of my choice, and to be quite honest I believe that your choice of spouse shouldn't be determined by where you can live.

One other point you seem to be making is wrong, you seem to be saying that if my wife and I decided to have children then the income level required should we decide to settle in the UK would be higher, that's incorrect as my children would be British and entitled to entry into the UK, and all that goes with it, as a matter of right, the income requirement only rises if you wish to take non British children with you.
I do feel for those who can't meet the minimum income requirements, but in all honesty the bar hasn't been set that high, 7by7 has already explained how that figure is reached, and to be quite honest I'd rather be living here on a lower salary than struggling to live in the UK and having to rely on benefits.
I'm not one of your Mr Moneybags, I'm just an average guy who chooses to live here on my pension than in the UK.

[7by7]

19 hours ago, nontabury said:

Why should they have to pay visa fees? Especially if one of the family is British.

Why should the taxpayer cover the cost?

 

I, along with most people I know who have expressed an opinion, have no objection to paying a fee for a visa or LTR application; as long as that fee is designed to recover costs. We neither want nor expect something for nothing.

 

What we object to is the fees regime begun under Labour which makes a vast profit for the government from most of these fees.

 

19 hours ago, nontabury said:

Just this week the government has Relented,on the requirements that E.U citizens, ( neither of whom are British citizens) must pay £65 to remain in the country after Brexit

Whether any of the remaining 27, plus the EEA states and Switzerland, have said the same, I don't know. But I expect they will reciprocate, if they have not already done so.

 

Unless the government agrees to be bound to the four freedoms, then post Brexit EEA nationals moving to the UK will have to apply and pay for the relevant visa just as non EEA nationals do now; and, of course, British nationals who wish to move to a EEA member state will have to apply for the relevant visa and pay whatever fees that state imposes on non EEA nationals.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Why should the taxpayer cover the cost?

 

I, along with most people I know who have expressed an opinion, have no objection to paying a fee for a visa or LTR application; as long as that fee is designed to recover costs. We neither want nor expect something for nothing.

 

 

 

 

 So your quite happy for citizens of the E.u to receive something for nothing. Which of course would be paid for by the British taxpayers.

  

   While in the meantime British citizens will be required to pay a substantial amount to bring there families into the U.K. from countries such as Thailand.

 

   One of the added cost, incurred by the foreign wives of British citizens, is that they must pay for insurance, to cover any treatment from the NHS. Do immigrants from E.u countries also have to pay this cost?

 Also are you aware that those wives of British citizens, who have paid for this insurance cover, are then hit with an extra payment for N.I should they take up employment. In other words they are paying twice.

[magicroundabout]

Back to original post I've noticed the petition passed the 100,000 mark. 

I'm from Edinburgh as well so there has been a bit about in the local press. It transpires he takes less than 18,600 out the business as a wage hence the refusal. Therefore, think he may have a long road ahead. 

[7by7]

14 hours ago, nontabury said:

 So your quite happy for citizens of the E.u to receive something for nothing. Which of course would be paid for by the British taxpayers.

  

   While in the meantime British citizens will be required to pay a substantial amount to bring there families into the U.K. from countries such as Thailand.

 

The UK is still a member of the EU and so EEA and Swiss nationals can take advantage of the freedom of movement directive to live, work or study in the UK. What you are forgetting, or choosing to ignore, though is that British citizens do exactly the same in order to live, work or study in the other EEA countries and Switzerland.

 

Indeed, British citizens who have been exercising a treaty right in another EEA state whose non EEA or Swiss national, e.g. Thai, can use the directive to return to the UK with their family and pay nothing.

 

Of course, once Brexit happens it is highly unlikely that this will still be possible; which doubtless will please you greatly.

 

15 hours ago, nontabury said:

One of the added cost, incurred by the foreign wives of British citizens, is that they must pay for insurance, to cover any treatment from the NHS. Do immigrants from E.u countries also have to pay this cost?

 I am fully aware of the IHS surcharge and have been highly critical of it since it's introduction was first announced You have come very late to this particular party!

 

EEA and Swiss nationals living in the UK are not subject to the surcharge, for the same reason that British nationals living in other EEA countries or Switzerland are not subject to state health charges there.

 

If the UK had a treaty with, for example, Thailand similar to that which we, at least until Brexit, have with the EU which covered freedom of movement and reciprocal healthcare, then Thai nationals would not have to pay UK visa fees nor the IHS surcharge. But we don't.

 

15 hours ago, nontabury said:

Also are you aware that those wives of British citizens, who have paid for this insurance cover, are then hit with an extra payment for N.I should they take up employment. In other words they are paying twice.

Which is part of the argument I have used against the IHS surcharge for family migration since it was first announced. Another argument is that even if the foreign partner is not going to be working, the British partner is and paying income tax; even if not working then the level of savings or unearned income required to meet the financial requirement means they are still probably paying income tax.

 

Of course, both partners also pay VAT on almost everything they buy; not to mention other taxes, such as fuel duty if they have a car.

 

But, like abolishing the financial requirement, you will find that abolishing the IHS has little support among the general British population.

 

BTW; Almost all the money raised from NICs goes into paying contribution related benefits, such as the state pension. Only a tiny proportion goes to the NHS, which is mainly funded from general taxation.

 

 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, magicroundabout said:

Back to original post I've noticed the petition passed the 100,000 mark.

The Change.org one has; did so some time ago. Unfortunately the government will pay zero attention to it.

 

The Parliamentary one which may actually have an effect is still languishing at just above 100!

 

Of course, these Parliamentary petitions very rarely change anything; but at least if it gets up to 10,000 signatures the government will have to respond and if it gets to 100,000 the matter will have to be debated in the House.

 

Sign it now, get your friends and relatives to sign it. If you know anyone who has signed the Change.org petition, get them to sign this one too! 

[Celer et Audax]

[mention=237005]4MyEgo[/mention],
Valid point; but as I said in my first post in this topic, under the pre 2012 system
Now obviously the cost of living, especially housing costs, varies widely across the UK; as I`m sure it does in Australia. But even taking that into account, the UK government insists a couple where one partner is an immigrant needs an income considerably higher than that they say a wholly British couple can live on!

So same as Thailand then where you must lodge 400000 THB in a Thai bank or show a monthly income far in excess of what a lot of Thai families would have as a monthly income


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[theoldgit]

Post in breach of Forum Rules removed, whilst I sympathise with your reasons to gather support I can't ignore the breach of rules - sorry.

 

5) You will not use Thaivisa as a platform to gather support to effect changes on religious, political, or governmental issues.

[laislica]

On 1/20/2019 at 12:21 PM, 7by7 said:

They do apply to all non EEA nationals, and post Brexit will probably apply to EEA nationals as well; including those from both ex Commonwealth countries and existing Commonwealth countries.

 

Children and elderly relatives* don't have to meet the language requirement. Neither do nationals of an English speaking country, e.g. USA, Canada, Australia, Jamaica.

 

Apart from children and elderly relatives, all applicants for ILR have to pass the LitUK test.

 

*A settlement visa for an elderly relative is extremely difficult, and very expensive, to obtain; see Apply as an adult coming to be cared for by a relative

 

As for your Spanish experience; this was easy for you as you are a British citizen exercising a treaty right in another EEA state and she is your wife so she could, and from what you say did, apply under the EEA regulations.. It would have been the same had you been a Spaniard living in the UK. Had you been a Spaniard living in Spain then she would have had to satisfy the Spanish immigration rules; whatever they are.

 

Of course, that last paragraph will probably be redundant after Brexit; hope you both have PR in Spain and will be ok!

 

Yes, happily we both have permanent residency in Spain.

However, I feel that it is a human right for a person to marry who they wish from what ever country and have them live with them in the UK (their country of birth) so long as they have sufficient financing.

I would accept an annual visa which needed to be renewed year on year for say 5 years before permanent residency was granted.

This period would show that the marriage was not a sham.

What more could possibly be required?

 

You mention that the elderly may be exempt but very difficult and expensive to get the necessary permission.

I find this to be discriminating and far from just.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rasg]

10 hours ago, laislica said:

You mention that the elderly may be exempt but very difficult and expensive to get the necessary permission.

I find this to be discriminating and far from just.

It might be but the elderly are unlikely to be working or paying into the system and health wise they are also likely to need treatment that youngsters won't need. I understand your sentiments but I can see it from a government point of view too.

[laislica]

27 minutes ago, rasg said:

It might be but the elderly are unlikely to be working or paying into the system and health wise they are also likely to need treatment that youngsters won't need. I understand your sentiments but I can see it from a government point of view too.

However, should you marry a British woman who never worked a day in her life, she would get all the benefits, including pension/widows pension based on your NI contributions.....

 

Years ago, I heard that this was true for foreign wives too but it was culled  at some point.

 

I bet you think you have a right to a State Pension too?

After all, you and your employer paid into it through NI contributions?

Well the UK Government says that it is at their discretion as to whether you get a pension or not.

See how they changed the date at which you may be eligible to draw a pension?

 

You choose to live in an unscheduled territory and they freeze your pension - how do they have the right to do that?

You should be free to spend your pension where ever you choose, but you are not and have no choice in this matter.

No freedom!

 

I'm sorry to say that I am learning that we have no freedom, we are but canon fodder, well, unless you are very, very rich,

then there is a whole set of other, rather more favourable rules that appear to apply.

 

etc. etc.

 

Oh that we were rich.....

 

 

[GinBoy2]

This always an interesting topic to me. 

 

As a US citizen I had to prove, I either had an income of $24/year, or assets of 3x which I could liquidate, and sign an affidavit of support attesting that my wife would not be a burden on the State.

 

But that was only for two years, after which there is no support requirement, and she has basically all the same rights as any other American, and it's not like I had to put down some bond to guarantee that

 

I 'think' you Brits have a similar time limit rule, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

But that's very very different to situation of the Farang spouse of a Thai national, where you are basically committed to having dead money in a Thai bank account for ever, or whatever monthly income requirements they come up with.

Default on that either of those requirements, basically until you die, and  'you're out'

 

 

[darren1971]

3 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

This always an interesting topic to me. 

 

As a US citizen I had to prove, I either had an income of $24/year, or assets of 3x which I could liquidate, and sign an affidavit of support attesting that my wife would not be a burden on the State.

 

But that was only for two years, after which there is no support requirement, and she has basically all the same rights as any other American, and it's not like I had to put down some bond to guarantee that

 

I 'think' you Brits have a similar time limit rule, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

But that's very very different to situation of the Farang spouse of a Thai national, where you are basically committed to having dead money in a Thai bank account for ever, or whatever income requirement s they come up with.

Default on that either of those requirements, basically until you die, and  'you're out'

 

 

the approximately 500,000B spent getting your Thai wife settled in the UK is also 'dead money'.

 

Regardless you can't justify a bad system on the fact there are other bad systems.

[GinBoy2]

14 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

the approximately 500,000B spent getting your Thai wife settled in the UK is also 'dead money'.

 

Regardless you can't justify a bad system on the fact there are other bad systems.

Well if that it costs for you Brits, my $1000 (~฿30K) to get my wife her US green card was a bargain! 

[rasg]

15 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

Regardless you can't justify a bad system on the fact there are other bad systems.

No system is perfect. When my wife was questioning the visa fees a few weeks ago, she genuinely thought that we could move to Thailand and that would be it. Similar to most people in the UK who have no idea of the costs or the hoops we have to jump through, she had no idea that me moving to Thailand with her would not be simple.

[darren1971]

17 minutes ago, rasg said:

No system is perfect. When my wife was questioning the visa fees a few weeks ago, she genuinely thought that we could move to Thailand and that would be it. Similar to most people in the UK who have no idea of the costs or the hoops we have to jump through, she had no idea that me moving to Thailand with her would not be simple.

Why is she even considering it when already settled in this country with the perfect systems?

[rasg]

We are considering it in a few years time. Or possibly 6 months here and 6 months in Thailand. I was merely pointing out that Thailand is not easy for a farang to settle in Thailand in the way that she thinks it might be despite being married. Most countries have rules. Some more onerous than others. 

[darren1971]

9 hours ago, rasg said:

We are considering it in a few years time. Or possibly 6 months here and 6 months in Thailand. I was merely pointing out that Thailand is not easy for a farang to settle in Thailand in the way that she thinks it might be despite being married. Most countries have rules. Some more onerous than others. 

Thailand have a crap immigration so it's perfectly fine for us to have one - that is your argument? no wonder the country is going to the dogs. Let's hope our kids grow up to be better than this generation

[rasg]

Not what I was saying at all. I've said this before but if you spent the same amount of time and energy just getting on with your girlfriend's visas instead of whining about the system, maybe you would have submitted her settlement visa correctly?

 

Nobody said the system is perfect. A lot of it sucks but it's the system we have.

[theoldgit]

Flame removed, please cut it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[darren1971]

Judging by the Home Office, it’s now Tory policy to ruin Britain

Nesrine Malik

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/30/home-office-tory-policy-ruin-scandal-british-economy

[GinBoy2]

19 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

What are you playing at now bomber?

On the Brexit threads,you show yourself to be an out and out remainer.

With an opinion that believes the majority of Brits are scrougers and that while we should allow uncontrolled immigration from the E.u. We should restrict immigration from elsewhere including British citizens returning to the U.K with their families, if they cannot meet the financial requirements. 

 You should look up Skype children, and you will find that approximately 15,000 British children are separated from one of their parents, because of the governments policy of restricting their entry, due to them being unable to prove sufficient earnings.

So I'm American, so don't  get mad at me if I don't get the nuances of UK immigration.

 

But separate your children from a spouse.

 

Surely your child, assuming you are the biological father are British citizens at birth, then they have automatic rights of residency in the UK?

 

Your spouse as a foreign national, that's where the problem arises.

 

My son was an American at birth when he was born in Singapore, and he went off to college in the US as an American passport holder,

 

I only had to guarantee my income for his Mother to get her US permanent residency.

 

Can't be much different for the UK can it?

 

I'm a bit conflicted about this. 

 

You can argue endlessly about whether immigrants should claim any benefits, which is less likely in the US than from what I read in the UK,.

 

But if was a Brit I wouldn't want it, if you haven't contributed to the system.

 

But for most people we want to make our own way in the world, so that conflication about looking at some 'refugee' and a Thai spouse, who if you can't support her, may seem equally unfair to your neighbors if she ends up receiving some kind of benefits.

 

Whether of not the figure attached to that guarantee of support is the correct number, as an American, I can't say.

 

But the principle of it I sort of agree with.

 

Your politicians need to figure out the disparity of what you dish out to illegal immigrants and spouses wanting to lawfully enter the country.

 

So just my 2 cents worth of observation

[darren1971]

3 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

So I'm American, so don't  get mad at me if I don't get the nuances of UK immigration.

 

But separate your children from a spouse.

 

Surely your child, assuming you are the biological father are British citizens at birth, then they have automatic rights of residency in the UK?

 

Your spouse as a foreign national, that's where the problem arises.

 

My son was an American at birth when he was born in Singapore, and he went off to college in the US as an American passport holder,

 

I only had to guarantee my income for his Mother to get her US permanent residency.

 

Can't be much different for the UK can it?

 

I'm a bit conflicted about this. 

 

You can argue endlessly about whether immigrants should claim any benefits, which is less likely in the US than from what I read in the UK,.

 

But if was a Brit I wouldn't want it, if you haven't contributed to the system.

 

But for most people we want to make our own way in the world, so that conflication about looking at some 'refugee' and a Thai spouse, who if you can't support her, may seem equally unfair to your neighbors if she ends up receiving some kind of benefits.

 

Whether of not the figure attached to that guarantee of support is the correct number, as an American, I can't say.

 

But the principle of it I sort of agree with.

 

Your politicians need to figure out the disparity of what you dish out to illegal immigrants and spouses wanting to lawfully enter the country.

 

So just my 2 cents worth of observation

The data on immigrants and benefits is quite clear, they contribute more in taxes than they claim in benefits, so that argument is already mute. My Thai wife will not be entitled to any benefits for at least 5 years regardless of the fact she may have been working and contributing during that period, she will be entitled to use the National health service during that time but will have already paid £2400 whether she uses it or not. 

 

 

[laislica]

4 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

The data on immigrants and benefits is quite clear, they contribute more in taxes than they claim in benefits, so that argument is already mute. My Thai wife will not be entitled to any benefits for at least 5 years regardless of the fact she may have been working and contributing during that period, she will be entitled to use the National health service during that time but will have already paid £2400 whether she uses it or not. 

 

 

My point is that the UK Government discriminate against our Thai wives.

Why should they not get the same benefits that a Brit wife gets - based on Nat Ins contributions of the husband?

 

However, lucky us, I retired to Spain and was able to transfer my State Resources to Spain.

Therefore I got full NHS cover in Spain.

Then many years later, I married a Thai and brought her to Spain in 2013.

I was able to get her NHS cover as well but no other benefit.

 

My ex g/f (Brit) got a state pension on the basis of my NIC....

She was divorced and didn't want to use her ex husbands NIC's to make her claim.

She had been self employed and did not get stamps towards a state pension.

I actually topped up her State account and she got a full pension.

When she was younger she did have a few years of employment where she made NIC's but not enough for a full pension.....

Not fair or what?

 

What difference Brexit may make remains to be seen.

 

 

 

 

[GinBoy2]

1 hour ago, laislica said:

My point is that the UK Government discriminate against our Thai wives.

Why should they not get the same benefits that a Brit wife gets - based on Nat Ins contributions of the husband?

Don't think I've heard that one before.

 

Should I die tomorrow my Thai wife would be entitled to survivor benefits based on my contributions to US social security at retirement.

 

I used to think we had a terrible system, you guys are making me rethink that position!

[UKresonant]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 3:15 AM, GinBoy2 said:

Well if that it costs for you Brits, my $1000 (~฿30K) to get my wife her US green card was a bargain! 

Wow that is a bargain, my wife spent more than that maintaining her UK visitor visa ( 10 year til' 2024) and she's only managed to use it once. Just cannot spare the time off work to go to do that VFS thing and have enough time to go to the UK (can't get enough time to go anyway).

[UKresonant]

4 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

Don't think I've heard that one before.

 

Should I die tomorrow my Thai wife would be entitled to survivor benefits based on my contributions to US social security at retirement.

 

I used to think we had a terrible system, you guys are making me rethink that position!

Yes, it is badly thought out rules, with more badly thought out rules piled on top, to try and fix the original mess. I think no one now gets inherited allowance from the UK state pension, ongoing from 2015. The welfare system in the UK is pretty hopeless now, still trading on its past image perhaps...along with many other things! Sometimes I think a lot of the discrimination angle in the UK comes from a lack of competence.

 

Luckily all my other pensions would look after the wife, if I pop my clogs.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, darren1971 said:

The data on immigrants and benefits is quite clear, they contribute more in taxes than they claim in benefits, so that argument is already mute.

If referring to the data you provided before, that is data on EEA migrants, so not relevant here. If you have equivalent data for non EEA national family migrants, I'd be very interested to see it.

 

9 hours ago, darren1971 said:

My Thai wife will not be entitled to any benefits for at least 5 years regardless of the fact she may have been working and contributing during that period,

Not completely correct.

 

Your wife is banned from certain income based public funds until she has ILR. But she is fully able to claim and receive any and all contribution based public funds for which she has paid the required NICs and meets the other requirements in the same way as you are. For example contribution based JSA, SSP etc.

 

In addition, whilst she is not able to claim child benefit for any children she may have living here with you, you are; even if they are your step children. Also, she is not entitled to working tax credit as an individual, but if you can claim then not only can she be included in your claim as your partner; the WTC rules say that she must be!

 

See the Home Office document Public Funds for more.

 

9 hours ago, darren1971 said:

she will be entitled to use the National health service during that time but will have already paid £2400 whether she uses it or not. 

I am torn on the IHS. On the one hand, it is considerably cheaper than private health insurance, from which, like the IHS, you don't get your premiums back if you never claim.

 

On the other hand, it is funded from taxation, and the sponsors of immigrant family members do pay tax; as do the family members themselves even if they do not work via VAT etc.

 

I think a fairer method would be to refund part or all of the IHS through the immigrant family member's tax code should they start work during the period; as many do.

 

I also think that children should be exempt from the charge; British children don't pay for their NHS treatment, why should the foreign step children of a British citizen resident in the UK?

[GinBoy2]

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I also think that children should be exempt from the charge; British children don't pay for their NHS treatment, why should the foreign step children of a British citizen resident in the UK?

I can't comment on most of your post, but on this one, our old friend Mobi in one of his blogs said that he was in the process of adopting his step daughter now they all live back in the UK, just to ensure her full UK rights.

 

So I guess there is a process