New announcements from IND

There are quite a few important announcements in a new statement from IND issued today. Click here to read.

Included are proposals to increase the minimum age for a spouse visa (and I suspect a fiancé(e) visa, Civil Partner visa etc) from 18 to 21, and to make the same increase for the sponsor of such an applicant.

There is also something about sponsoring family visitors.

John wrote:There are quite a few important announcements in a new statement from IND issued today. Click here to read.

Included are proposals to increase the minimum age for a spouse visa (and I suspect a fiancé(e) visa, Civil Partner visa etc) from 18 to 21, and to make the same increase for the sponsor of such an applicant.

There is also something about sponsoring family visitors.

"Tightening marriage visas by increasing the minimum age of sponsors and the person sponsored to 21. This will ensure individuals have an opportunity to establish a degree of independent adult life, including taking advantage of higher education, and to have had the advantage of more opportunities to integrate. This will form part of a wider Government consultation on measures designed to help combat forced marriage."

My wife is just 21. She is from a poor country and has had all the education her parents could afford. She is not stupid; Far from it. This is nonsense. She is already past the age when most people in her country are married! To suggest she doesn't know what she is doing at her age is ludicrous. I agonised over it when we first met. We, as a couple, have discussed all the options and pitfalls. No way is it forced - by economics or otherwise. (She politely told me if it was about money she could do better - and she'd be right!)

Another example. My nephew is abroad, and intends marrying his g/f. He is 22, she 19. Both working. Both speak english. He cannot come home now?

"The introduction of an English language test before entry for spouses will ensure that everyone who comes here for a permanent reason has the skills to participate both socially and economically."

So, where is my wife to study for an English Language test? How long will it take for her to be proficient in, presumably, a written test? Students at a college where I used to go take nine months to become proficient with classes every day!

She can communicate in English. We couldn't have got this far if she didn't! She will learn far more of the subtlety of the language when she gets here and starts speaking to friends family and (later) work on a daily basis. She can participate already in her current hotel/waitress job as many foreign people do.

For pity's sake - don't make it more difficult than it already is!

What utter nonsense. They need to live in the real world.

(Btw, I have absolutely no objection to being held legally responsible for her as her sponsor. This would help sort out sham marriages and focus the mind on people who don't think things through.)

DavidJ.

On another Board it has been suggested that there will be a challenge to this new provision under Human Rights legislation. That would not surprise me at all.

John wrote:On another Board it has been suggested that there will be a challenge to this new provision under Human Rights legislation. That would not surprise me at all.

There is a fairly fundamental principle at stake here - should immigration law be determined by elected Members of Parliament, or unlected judges (worse still, unelected foreign judges).

My suspicion is that if the Government allows itself to be dictated to by an unelected judiciary, it may well be replaced by an alternative Government with a more robust outlook.

JAJ, I don't think that is the issue at all. The issue is that whilst UK law permits those who are 18 or over to get married, without parental consent, due to this new proposed visa change, some will be denied the right to live with their spouse, indeed their spouse that UK law permits them to have.

In other words, two laws laid down by the UK parliament seem to be in conflict .... clearly an issue that needs to be resolved.

JAJ wrote: There is a fairly fundamental principle at stake here - should immigration law be determined by elected Members of Parliament, or unlected judges (worse still, unelected foreign judges).

My suspicion is that if the Government allows itself to be dictated to by an unelected judiciary, it may well be replaced by an alternative Government with a more robust outlook.

Actually, that is an issue of our times, in the Anglo-Saxon countries at least, that extends far beyond questions of immigration policy. I believe it is something that will be addressed, one way or the other, by society in due course, but not necessarily very soon.

Without the judiciary we would not have the necessary brake that society needs on a government that has clearly lost its moral compass.

It has to be accepted that even if a majority of people approve of a law, it does not make that law morally right or correct. There are a number of cases in the past few years where the government has enacted legislation that runs contrary to public decency and basic human rights, nevermind running contrary to the actual Human Rights Act itself. The judiciary has quite rightly stepped in and overruled the government.

As far as immigration laws are concerned, it seems that without the brake of the judiciary immigration laws would be even more draconian than they are at the moment. It took a hight court judge to stop people from being deported to their deaths in Zimbabwe at a time when elected members of parliament were in denial that there was anything wrong in Zimbabwe.

If anything we need more judicial oversight in lawmaking, not less.

Dawie wrote:Without the judiciary we would not have the necessary brake that society needs on a government that has clearly lost its moral compass.
<SNIP>
If anything we need more judicial oversight in lawmaking, not less.

Absolutely. People need to understand that we need a fully independant judiciary. The government, any government, would love to do away with it.

I shudder when I see those judges quoted out of context. If people bothered to look at the whole case behind the headlines, and the point of law being discussed, they would have much more confidence in judges.

Sadly, we are moving into a soundbite/headline/doublethink culture. Orwell anyone?

I never thought I would say this about my home country. The government should be ashamed of itself. Sadly politicians are too busy currying favour with big business to secure their personal future.

DavidJ.

John wrote:JAJ, I don't think that is the issue at all. The issue is that whilst UK law permits those who are 18 or over to get married, without parental consent, due to this new proposed visa change, some will be denied the right to live with their spouse, indeed their spouse that UK law permits them to have.

In other words, two laws laid down by the UK parliament seem to be in conflict .... clearly an issue that needs to be resolved.

There is of course nothing preventing the marriage from taking place and being recognised as valid. (although there is a valid question as to whether the marriage age in general should be raised to 21).

What's really at stake is whether marriage should give rise to an automatic entitlement to a migration outcome.

There are a variety of restrictions already in place on spouse migration, which do not impact genuine applicants to a great deal. This is simply an additional control to reflect community concern over forced marriages. More controls may come in future, such as in cases where visa applicants are a cause for concern on criminal, public health or national security grounds.

DavidJ wrote: Absolutely. People need to understand that we need a fully independant judiciary. The government, any government, would love to do away with it.

The judiciary has a legitimate role to fulfil in interpreting the law, and resolving gaps and inconsistencies in the law, but this must be done in a context of understanding the concerns of the community at large.

Those members of the judiciary who fail to understand this, or worse still, attempt to legislate from the bench, are putting the whole concept of an independent judiciary in danger.

An increasingly political jury will simply provoke a reaction from a government (especially one of an opposing persuasion) both to restrict judicial independence, and appoint more partisan judges in the first place.

As things stand, there is a perception (true or otherwise) that the judiciary have an agenda that opposes the principle of protecting United Kingdom borders.