Spouse minimum income rules survey

[peppekalle]

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2014/02/ ... es-survey/

[SAMISPOUSAL]

why is no one making any comment on this.

is there still a hold on decisions on some applications on this matter ?

so does that mean some longer delay for those affected ?
those affected please let us know your experiences.

what are the chances of Lowering the threshold from £ 18 600 ? I think H O appealed against the high court
findings of this amount being unfairly high.

[Wanderer]

I think it should be raised!

I've no idea how anyone can visit and get to know a foreign bride on 18k a year, what about all the flights, holidays, visits, via costs?

What happens is people marry people they don't know and end up divorced - just look at the statistics, and the tales of woe on this site. I earned and always earned far more than the 18k but I'm still skint from all the flights and flights home and visa costs, hahaha!

I think the minimum salary should be raised to about £35k, more if the petitioner has kids and liabilities....

[Seneca]

I think it should be raised!

I've no idea how anyone can visit and get to know a foreign bride on 18k a year, what about all the flights, holidays, visits, via costs?

What happens is people marry people they don't know and end up divorced - just look at the statistics, and the tales of woe on this site. I earned and always earned far more than the 18k but I'm still skint from all the flights and flights home and visa costs, hahaha!

I think the minimum salary should be raised to about £35k, more if the petitioner has kids and liabilities....

35K? you kind rule out all young people to fall in love with foreigners. It is difficult for most people under 25 to be earned this sort of money. It kind of saying love should be strictly based on income? Surely that can not be right, no?

[Wanderer]

I think it should be raised!

I've no idea how anyone can visit and get to know a foreign bride on 18k a year, what about all the flights, holidays, visits, via costs?

What happens is people marry people they don't know and end up divorced - just look at the statistics, and the tales of woe on this site. I earned and always earned far more than the 18k but I'm still skint from all the flights and flights home and visa costs, hahaha!

I think the minimum salary should be raised to about £35k, more if the petitioner has kids and liabilities....

35K? you kind rule out all young people to fall in love with foreigners. It is difficult for most people under 25 to be earned this sort of money. It kind of saying love should be strictly based on income? Surely that can not be right, no?

I understand really, but it costs money, local, fine, but as soon as it becomes international you need money, that's a given. You must see that.

So if that's you to earn you earn, take two/three jobs, make it happen, not plead poverty and say it's unfair, HRA art 8 etc, it's bollocks, and let's face it, most of these under-25 romances end up in divorce, stats prove that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against it - just it's the cost, you cannot know someone internationally well enough to marry on 18k a year, it's not possible and £18k is nothing really. So wait.

[Mike_B]

Before moving there for a couple of years I managed to visit my then girlfriend in Mexico several times per year for a few years whilst earning an income of around 15K. I found it very manageable despite the long distances travelled. It's just a question of prioritising your money.

[Wanderer]

Before moving there for a couple of years I managed to visit my then girlfriend in Mexico several times per year for a few years whilst earning an income of around 15K. I found it very manageable despite the long distances travelled. It's just a question of prioritising your money.

If you did kudos!

Presume you lived at home, then!

[Mike_B]

Was living with friends so everything was split a few ways, if you sacrifice a few luxuries you'll be surprised at how much disposable income you end up with after the necessary bills are paid.

Things are a lot more comfortable now we're both living here and both have an income, and although between the two of us we earn more than £18,600, I am confident we would have money to spare based on my own income of £16,000. This is with us renting a flat for the two of us also.

[MPH80]

I have sympathy for both sides in this debate.

I don't want to bar anyone from love - but it is important that there is some sort of minimum income threshold.

Take my case - my wife is from Peru. Flights there - booked now - for may would be £570 (according to the ITA matrix thing) ... now on 18,600 - that's about 50% of the take home income in any given month. Do three trips a year - and before food, additional travel costs (taxis etc), doing things with partner - you've lost 11% of your take home income.

By no means impossible - but that number rises to 14% at 15,000 and 16% at 12,000.

Love DOES has a cost and the ability of someone who is on less than a reasonable wage to support someone without resorting to the state is heavily compromised if that person who comes is unable to find work (or chooses not to).

Whether it's fair for there to be an arbitrary number on it or not is for the court to decide (and let's be clear - they made the statement that the government IS allowed to set a minimum).

http://immigrantmagazine.co.uk/uk-visa- ... igh-court/

The ruling was quite clear - the income threshold by itself is not a problem - but the combination of the requirements is and that's what the government is challenging.

The simple truth of the matter is that public opinion in the UK is anti-immigration right now - fuelled quite happily by the daily mail and other right wing organisations - and such petitions, surveys etc will not have any effect in the short or even medium term. The ONLY way to remove this burden is via the court and they've already found that the rules themselves are not a breach of article 8.

I still am convinced the best way to quash a lot of the rules is on the grounds of sexism. The rule on not being able to use the applicant's foreign income (which would remove a lot of the issues) is heavily sexist given the prevalence of women who are far less likely to be working in a foreign country thanks to child care and thus the rules (IMHO) discriminate against british women who are living abroad and wish to return.

M.

[Seneca]

I understand really, but it costs money, local, fine, but as soon as it becomes international you need money, that's a given. You must see that.

So if that's you to earn you earn, take two/three jobs, make it happen, not plead poverty and say it's unfair, HRA art 8 etc, it's bollocks, and let's face it, most of these under-25 romances end up in divorce, stats prove that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against it - just it's the cost, you cannot know someone internationally well enough to marry on 18k a year, it's not possible and £18k is nothing really. So wait.

On purely equality point of view young people and poor should have same rights as well off citizens. What do you think, should love (choosing partner) should be available to all citizens regardless of their income or should be conditional on their ability to earn certain level of income?

[Seneca]

I have sympathy for both sides in this debate.

I don't want to bar anyone from love - but it is important that there is some sort of minimum income threshold.

Take my case - my wife is from Peru. Flights there - booked now - for may would be £570 (according to the ITA matrix thing) ... now on 18,600 - that's about 50% of the take home income in any given month. Do three trips a year - and before food, additional travel costs (taxis etc), doing things with partner - you've lost 11% of your take home income.

By no means impossible - but that number rises to 14% at 15,000 and 16% at 12,000.

Love DOES has a cost and the ability of someone who is on less than a reasonable wage to support someone without resorting to the state is heavily compromised if that person who comes is unable to find work (or chooses not to).

Whether it's fair for there to be an arbitrary number on it or not is for the court to decide (and let's be clear - they made the statement that the government IS allowed to set a minimum).

http://immigrantmagazine.co.uk/uk-visa- ... igh-court/

The ruling was quite clear - the income threshold by itself is not a problem - but the combination of the requirements is and that's what the government is challenging.

The simple truth of the matter is that public opinion in the UK is anti-immigration right now - fuelled quite happily by the daily mail and other right wing organisations - and such petitions, surveys etc will not have any effect in the short or even medium term. The ONLY way to remove this burden is via the court and they've already found that the rules themselves are not a breach of article 8.

I still am convinced the best way to quash a lot of the rules is on the grounds of sexism. The rule on not being able to use the applicant's foreign income (which would remove a lot of the issues) is heavily sexist given the prevalence of women who are far less likely to be working in a foreign country thanks to child care and thus the rules (IMHO) discriminate against british women who are living abroad and wish to return.

M.

I agree with a lot of what you said. Couples of points;-

1. Government on this important issue should lead public opinion (show leadership) and set the agenda instead of follow the like of daily mail, daily express etc.

2. Most marriage (about 50%) in UK will end in divorce in 10 years across all age group and income why single out young peoples and poor?

3. Observation: all marriage if they have to last regardless of nationality will need a lot of sacrifice. British marry British have as much to divorce rate even higher than British marry foreigners. But i agree with you they should not be burden to the country. But how do you define burden. A mother looking after fews children can be just as productive as a father who earn £20,000 a year.

[MPH80]

I agree with a lot of what you said. Couples of points;-

1. Government on this important issue should lead public opinion (show leadership) and set the agenda instead of follow the like of daily mail, daily express etc.

Except that public opinion IS that immigration is too high:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... mmigration

Moving onto the issue of immigration, 76% of people support David Cameron’s stated aim of reducing immigration to the “tens of thousands”

2. Most marriage (about 50%) in UK will end in divorce in 10 years across all age group and income why single out young peoples and poor?

Well - ok - let's deal with this.

Firstly - the number is 1/3rd within 15 years.

Secondly - the number of young people who get divorced runs at TWICE the national average: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... vorce.html. (indeed - from the ONS themselves: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/div ... vorce.html - "53% had divorced by their 30th anniversary if they were less than 20 when they married")

Thirdly - research would suggest that being in a lower economic class results in a higher risk of divorce: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/papers/change8.pdf (that's one example paper - I found several on a search - n.b. the raw table misses a point when considering the divorce rate by education in that the number of people obtaining o-levels increased dramatically through the 70s and 80s thanks to the comprehensive system so you have to factor that in when looking at percentages)

But finally - this misses the point. A minimum income doesn't really help in the question of divorce. The minimum income is there to provide the state with reassurance that the person bringing their spouse/children that they won't need to fall back to the state for support. The point Wanderer attempted to make is that there is a cost associated with falling in love properly in the first place and that it was harder to achieve if your income fell below that threshold.

3. Observation: all marriage if they have to last regardless of nationality will need a lot of sacrifice. British marry British have as much to divorce rate even higher than British marry foreigners. But i agree with you they should not be burden to the country. But how do you define burden. A mother looking after fews children can be just as productive as a father who earn £20,000 a year.

Ok I don't disagree with the first statement.

But I'd like to see your evidence on the 'british to foreigner divorce rate being lower than british to british'. I've not seen any statistics on that. Nor could I find any on a google. I always like to see evidence of assertions like that.

You're right that, in the long run, the single mother raising children might have a better economic impact than the father, but in the short term the reverse is true.

[Casa]

On a slight tangent....interestingly, we've had posts recently from those who would have been refused under UK rules, entering under Surinder Singh having relocated to an EU state temporarily, in order to take this route. They're now asking how soon they can claim Public Funds as they're unable to support themselves financially as they're unemployed and have no savings.