Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Isn't that the case for PBS dependents already (as opposed to spouses of settled people, which is a completely different section of the Immigration rules)?
Keep in mind that what was announced today was just a broad-stroke policy announcement. The details are still to be fleshed out. The Rules as they will be in December will have more detail than what was announced today.
Can you link to the specific sources/reports that you are referencing?
The Home Office's logic is that immigrants should pay for/support the whole immigration system, including immigration enforcement (Border Force), etc, not just their own applications.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/r ... -to-the-uk
Is this stated policy? Link please. If it is, then this is definitely open to a lawsuit.
I am extrapolating, but the Home Office funding of the 2015 Spending review is predicated on a "fully self-funded borders and immigration system".
I am intrigued. What would be the grounds for the lawsuit?An inspection of the policies and practices of the Home Office’s Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Systems relating to charging and fees wrote:3.8 - As to honesty and rigorous transparency, the published BICS strategy for achieving self-funding included efficiency savings, through technology and automation, but stated that it planned that the bulk of the income would come from immigration and nationality fees.
3.12 - In 2016, the Home Office set out its intention to increase its fees for “growth routes” (which it identified as visit, work and study visa applications) by 2% each year for 4 years, equivalent to a compound increase of 8% by 2019-20, while for most “non-growth routes” (“settlement, nationality and other/family leave to remain”) the increase would be higher and be front-loaded: 25/18/0/0%, equivalent to a 47.5% compound increase over the 4 years.
You may be being wildly overestimating this aspect of the issue. This is not the United States, where everybody sues everybody on their rights (weirdly enough, that was a joke in a book on computer networking by a European (Dutch) professor).
Not really. Indeed till the late 1990s/early 2000s, most applications (including ILR, to the best of my knowledge) were free or charged very nominally.
Such claims have been made, taken all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Again, this is not the United States. British courts (certainly English courts) are much more restrained and deferential to the law as written by Parliament.
I suspect it's also much easier politically to fiddle with the rules in a category that predominantly affects people outside the UK looking to come in rather than categories that directly impact both people already in the UK as well as their settled or British citizen sponsors.
It seems a bit of an exaggeration to suggest the British citizen is forced to pay twice, they act as a financial backstop so that the government is not responsible for the cost of the non-British partner. Where the non-British partner then uses leave to remain to obtain UK employment, their income can be used in future applications to meet the financial requirement. British citizen sponsors are not required to pay anything unless their non-British partners are unable to, and even then it is an entirely voluntary process. To me this doesn't seem particularly different than any other British family: partners are financially responsible for each other and their dependants.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Double jeopardy is a matter of criminal law. It has nothing to do with immigration law or any aspect of civil law. Just because you pay income tax does not excuse you from other taxes, such as VAT or estate tax, for instance.mmicky5050 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:45 amthe law of double jeopardy originated from common English Law. Yes, Americans have adopted it to its extreme but its still part and parcel of English law. So, it’s not too far fetched to assume the tax funding the HO and the exorbitant fees are a form of penalty and thus constitute double jeopardy
Firstly it is Article 8 of the ECHR, not of the Human Rights Act.mmicky5050 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:59 amAlso, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects family life. This has been used on many occasions to successfully sue councils. So according to this you have a right to maintain your stable relationship. The case of fees is different from that of minimum income threshold which one can argue is for greater public good. How are higher fees facilitating greater public good?
I disagree. The application and IHS fees offer exceptional value for money and should not be viewed as a penalty but an investment in opportunity and future prosperity. If one wants an optional service from the government, it's not too far fetched to ask them to pay for that service.
It facilitates access to the UK without compromising the existing standard of living of those in the UK. If the government were to provide a cost-free immigration system, it would require funding either from increased taxes/fees from those in the UK or cuts to services. So either everyone pays for the few that want to bring in partners from other countries, or those who want that option have to pay a fee for that option.
Also, the government, since about 2010, has taken a user-pays approach (as opposed to funding from general taxation) towards public sector funding. For instance, you can see that in the fare increases in public transport, where the government is reducing the public (general tax-payer funded)subsidies towards public transport and increasing the fares of those who actually use the service.geoeng wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:27 amIt facilitates access to the UK without compromising the existing standard of living of those in the UK. If the government were to provide a cost-free immigration system, it would require funding either from increased taxes/fees from those in the UK or cuts to services. So either everyone pays for the few that want to bring in partners from other countries, or those who want that option have to pay a fee for that option.