Brexit better for non-EU migrants

[ryuzaki]

I would be extremely chary about espousing the views expressed by ryuzaki in the past few posts, because they validate the Brexit point of view pretty exactly. As I understand it, he is offering the EU as a system of governance which is an alternative to the one in Westminster. if you do not like a UK law, appeal to the EU to create a parallel law that overrides it. That is pretty much the crux of the Brexit side of the debate, that we can not legislate for ourselves because a federal EU can currently override us by creating a parallel system.

I take your point here, but actually I voted for my MEPs and the democratic EU created those rules. I don't want to give up those democratically won rights.

It is in fact the UK that is highly undemocratic, which is why I look to the EU to keep our politicians in check. Without getting into too much detail, our first-past-the-post system and House of Lords are both deeply anti-democratic and unfair. The EU's PR system is much better and my vote has some value there (my UK general election votes have always been discarded and I've never had any representation at all), plus the EU regularly consults its constituents and actually listens to their concerns over those of large corporate interests.

Handing power to unelected officials and our national government that doesn't even have the support of 1/3rd of the population is madness and will severely degrade our democratic rights and sovereignty. I wish to retain the power I have to shape my own destiny, by remaining in the EU and asking for positive changes.

[ryuzaki]

You need to lose the 'EU citizens help the UK' attitude. We don't, not unless we are doing a job on their skills shortages. I understand why we all want to live in the UK, but mass migrtion does not help a country.

That is ignoring all the other benefits of immigration beyond merely filling in skills shortages. For example, I probably have three or four more years before health issues force me to stop working full time and become somewhat dependent on benefits for the next 40 to 50 years of my life, if my fiancee can't join me.

Long story short I need some support to keep working, and that support will go away in a few years and needs replacing. Immigration of my fiancee is the best, cheapest solution to this.

[secret.simon]

You need to lose the 'EU citizens help the UK' attitude. We don't, not unless we are doing a job on their skills shortages. I understand why we all want to live in the UK, but mass migrtion does not help a country.

That is ignoring all the other benefits of immigration beyond merely filling in skills shortages. For example, I probably have three or four more years before health issues force me to stop working full time and become somewhat dependent on benefits for the next 40 to 50 years of my life, if my fiancee can't join me.

Long story short I need some support to keep working, and that support will go away in a few years and needs replacing. Immigration of my fiancee is the best, cheapest solution to this.

Remember that EEA immigration will not cease if we exit the EU. EU citizens will just have to apply on the same basis as British citizens when it comes to applying for jobs and bringing their spouses and fiancées in. It won't be a matter of right, it will be a matter of applying, meeting requirements and being granted the requisite visa. It is a matter of bearing the same burden and being equal to others.

[Richard W]

I really, really doubt that. Consider the groups wishing to immigrate:

- Workers with in-demand skills, like nurses and doctors, engineers, staff from international companies invested in the UK etc.
- Fee paying students
- Refugees and others applying for asylum
- Family members

Why are students included in this list? Surely, in theory, they are now just long term visitors, and the net influx of students should be zero.

[ryuzaki]

Why are students included in this list? Surely, in theory, they are now just long term visitors, and the net influx of students should be zero.

Anyone staying over 6 months is counted. They are supposed to go home, sure, but they have more than a temporary visa. Don't ask me, that's just how it's counted.

[ryuzaki]

Remember that EEA immigration will not cease if we exit the EU. EU citizens will just have to apply on the same basis as British citizens when it comes to applying for jobs and bringing their spouses and fiancées in. It won't be a matter of right, it will be a matter of applying, meeting requirements and being granted the requisite visa. It is a matter of bearing the same burden and being equal to others.

Sure, but the local system is extremely unfair and undemocratic, so many of us look to the much better EU democracy for a reasonable immigration policy while trying to change things locally. That was my point, I don't want to see our democratic power reduced or stripped away in favour of the inferior UK system.

[Richard W]

Sure, but the local system is extremely unfair and undemocratic, so many of us look to the much better EU democracy for a reasonable immigration policy while trying to change things locally. That was my point, I don't want to see our democratic power reduced or stripped away in favour of the inferior UK system.

Don't forget that the primary intention of the Free Movement Directive is to allow families to move around the EU. The ability to use it to bring spouses in from outside the EU is to be severely curtailed in the next year, if the UK remains in the EU. It's current wording is a hangover from a more liberal era of immigration - it goes back to 1968, perhaps even earlier.

[Casa]

Sure, but the local system is extremely unfair and undemocratic, so many of us look to the much better EU democracy for a reasonable immigration policy while trying to change things locally. That was my point, I don't want to see our democratic power reduced or stripped away in favour of the inferior UK system.

Don't forget that the primary intention of the Free Movement Directive is to allow families to move around the EU. The ability to use it to bring spouses in from outside the EU is to be severely curtailed in the next year, if the UK remains in the EU. It's current wording is a hangover from a more liberal era of immigration - it goes back to 1968, perhaps even earlier.

For anyone who may be confused or alarmed by this, the reference of curtailment is to the Surinder Singh route, not to spouse settlement visas through the UK Immigration Rules.

[Richard W]

For anyone who may be confused or alarmed by this, the reference of curtailment is to the Surinder Singh route, not to spouse settlement visas through the UK Immigration Rules.

The curtailment for spouses from outside the EEA is on the EEA route, for Britons and non-Britons alike. 'Curtailment' should just mean that that everyone has to qualify through the UK Immigration Rules. I suspect though, that EEA sponsors will not have to be settled in the UK.

[Richard W]

The curtailment for spouses from outside the EEA is on the EEA route, for Britons and non-Britons alike. 'Curtailment' should just mean that that everyone has to qualify through the UK Immigration Rules. I suspect though, that EEA sponsors will not have to be settled in the UK.

It *may* still be possible to enter the EEA through another country and then move on to the UK via Surinder Singh, but one will first have to meet that other country's domestic laws.

The literal wording of Cameron's deal says that this will not be possible for spouses who did not come to the EEA before the marriage. The problem is that "third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen" will be excluded from free movement rights, and that sounds like a permanent exclusion. I am hopeful that this will not be the case, because this part of the deal seems to primarily be a reversal of Metock. However, at present the best one can do is to improve the intelligence of the guesswork.

[ryuzaki]

It *may* still be possible to enter the EEA through another country and then move on to the UK via Surinder Singh, but one will first have to meet that other country's domestic laws.

The literal wording of Cameron's deal says that this will not be possible for spouses who did not come to the EEA before the marriage. The problem is that "third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen" will be excluded from free movement rights, and that sounds like a permanent exclusion. I am hopeful that this will not be the case, because this part of the deal seems to primarily be a reversal of Metock. However, at present the best one can do is to improve the intelligence of the guesswork.

I can only imagine that the wording will be revised before being implemented, because it makes little sense... It seems to randomly discriminate against people who are already married outside the EEA. I guess they were trying to allow for people who meet non-EEA nationals in the EU and want to marry, but it seems like it would be used by people moving to an EEA state that has marriage visas, i.e. allows people to come with the intention of marrying as the UK does.

In any case, it looks like UK nationals will be forced to go to an EEA country with better immigration laws than the UK, get their fiancee to immigrate, marry and then return to the UK. People who made the mistake of getting married already are screwed, unless they can perhaps get a divorce or annulment and then re-marry later.

In other words, it's another half baked attempt to increase the misery for everyone. Hopefully the EU will resist and re-word the agreement to maintain freedom of movement, because having to deal with local immigration rules that may randomly discriminate against you or your partner is likely to prevent people exercising that right. I've had to pass up work because of the current uncertainly already.

[sp84]

In any case, it looks like UK nationals will be forced to go to an EEA country with better immigration laws than the UK, get their fiancee to immigrate, marry and then return to the UK. People who made the mistake of getting married already are screwed, unless they can perhaps get a divorce or annulment and then re-marry later.

Could I just ask for clarification regarding the third party nationals? - I am Irish and my wife is an American. We married in the USA in 2012 and lived there for 4 years - until earlier this month when we arrived in the UK using an EEA Family Permit. It is valid from June 1st - Dec 1st 2016. I am trying to wrap my head around how potential changes will affect my own situation! Even though I have only been in the UK a short time, I have prepared my wife's Residence Card application (on the basis of me being self sufficient) - and hope to get it in the post tomorrow! I did read a slightly confusing blog that stated:

Most crucially, the proposals will disenfranchise non-EU family members without “lawful status” in the host state prior to marriage, or those residing overseas who married an EU national after they have already moved to the host state. To all these people, national UK immigration rules will apply. EU citizens moving to the UK, however, will be able to still bring with them, to accompany initially OR to join, those family members who they have had before the move. This, in a view of the government, will take care of the biggest avenue of abuse of EU law that they see - the use of SS

So does this mean that my wife and I should be able to continue along the normal path - that is Residence Card etc ... or for choice of a better word, and we (and others like us) ... snookered !?!?

[Casa]

The blog is referring to the Surinder Singh (SS) route, which from your post doesn't apply to you.

[sp84]

The blog is referring to the Surinder Singh (SS) route, which from your post doesn't apply to you.

yea that's what I thought, however the wording is slightly confusing regarding when the couple were married. A previous poster mentioned about it being better for people to divorce !

My fears all revolve around tomorrow and the days just after - it is almost a psychological deadline for myself, in which I feel I HAVE to apply for the Residence Card by then. There is also mass confusion as to how applications currently being processed will be dealt with - seeing as the application process takes many months.

Even though I just got here - surely the UK has to honour the rules on which I entered the country, regardless of future changes?

[secret.simon]

the UK has to honour the rules

No, it does not have to, but it most likely will.

"Has to" implies a legal obligation, which will depend on the negotiations following a Brexit, if there were one.

But the UK likely will take account of a moral obligation (which does not amount to a "has to") and will likely do the honourable thing.

[secret.simon]

Returning to the topic of this thread, the UK and the EU blog of King's College, London has an interesting post on "how do Britain’s ethnic minorities view the EU referendum?". Given that most of the BAME (Black And Minority Ethnicity) population of the UK are first, second or at the most third generation migrants in the UK, I think it almost amounts to a survey of the non-EEA migrants in the UK.

It does suggest (my interpretation) that among BAME voters, the more affluent are more likely to vote "Leave". The largest Leave BAME population is among Indian and Pakistani voters, with the equivalent among other BAME communities being much lower.

Having said that, even among Indian and Pakistani voters, the Remain vote is more than half. BAME voters are likely to vote in a landslide for Remain, provided they vote. They are one of the groups that are least likely to vote.

There is also a post on Should I stay or should I go? Strategies of EU citizens living in the UK in the context of the EU referendum from the University of Southampton, worth reading.

Finally, I will urge everybody on these forums who is registered to vote in the referendum to cast your vote tomorrow. This referendum is too close to call and given the consequences, does not afford us the luxury of sitting on the fence.

[Richard W]

So does this mean that my wife and I should be able to continue along the normal path - that is Residence Card etc ... or for choice of a better word, and we (and others like us) ... snookered !?!?

The precedents are good for you. 2012 saw two significant changes - dual nationals lost their EEA privileges (McCarthy) and domestic spouse settlement was made significantly more difficult. Those who applied to start the use of the old rules before the changes came into force have been allowed to continue with them. It will take months for the new rules (probably via a directive) to come into force in the EU, even if the new directive may then be transposed extremely rapidly.

[sp84]

The precedents are good for you. 2012 saw two significant changes - dual nationals lost their EEA privileges (McCarthy) and domestic spouse settlement was made significantly more difficult. Those who applied to start the use of the old rules before the changes came into force have been allowed to continue with them. It will take months for the new rules (probably via a directive) to come into force in the EU, even if the new directive may then be transposed extremely rapidly.

Thanks a lot Richard and Simon! Funny you mentioned the spouse settlement changes of 2012. I was going to mention that in my last post. A lady that I worked with in 2012, managed to bring her spouse to the UK in the nick of time under the old regulations - that was the example that I was going to reference for my current situation (except that I am using the EEA route of course). That is - like in 2012, there would have been many people in transition while the changes were brought it.

I am still nervous and plan on sending my wife's residence card application off tomorrow - once I do that though I suppose the rest of out of my control.

With reference to your other point Simon about voting tomorrow - absolutely!

[sunny_sunny]

Just voted Remain.

[Momi]

Things are changed over night. Cameron made it clear that he is not gonna touch article 50. In few months time there will be a new prime minister and new cab i net. There are good chances that they will chose an anti EU migrant person because they can handle it better than others and all anti EU persons are pro non-EU.
It can be good for non EU migrants but to be honest it's too early to say something.