Foreign spouse income limit for immigration at court

The Supreme Court is to rule on whether an income barrier stopping thousands of British citizens from bringing a foreign spouse to the UK is lawful.
As of 2012, Britons must earn more than £18,600 before a husband or wife from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) can settle in the UK.
Critics claim 15,000 children have been separated from parents because of it.
If the government loses, thousands of couples who currently live outside the UK could move to Britain.

In a series of test cases, affected couples argued that the rules breached their right to family life.
Two of the claimants, Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, are British citizens who have partners who are Pakistani nationals.
The third claimant is a Lebanese refugee who cannot find suitable work in the UK despite his postgraduate qualifications. He says his similarly-qualified wife has high earning potential and speaks fluent English.
The final case concerns another recognised refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo whose wife has been barred from settling.
'Never met son'
One person affected by the rule is Laura Clarke, from Rugby, Warwickshire, who was working in Ethiopia when she met her partner, but is living in England, where she has given birth to their son.
She told the BBC he cannot come to the UK because she does not meet the financial requirements.
"He also cannot come to visit us because he's been refused a visit visa, on the grounds that he hasn't travelled before and because he has family ties here, he's considered high risk," she said.
"I feel sorry for my son who has not met his father."
Children raise threshold
The rule was introduced by the former coalition government to stop foreign spouses becoming reliant on taxpayers.
The minimum income threshold, which also affects people settled in the UK as refugees, rises to £22,400 if the couple have a child who does not have British citizenship - and then by an additional £2,400 for each subsequent child.
These thresholds replaced a previous, more general requirement to show the Home Office that the incoming partner would not be a drain on public resources and that the couple or family could adequately support themselves.
The current rules do not take into account the earnings of the overseas partner - even if they have higher qualifications, or are likely to be employed in higher-paid work than their British spouse.
The minimum income threshold does not apply to spouses from within the EEA.
'Victims are children'
Saira Grant, from the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants, said the financial figures put an "artificial barrier" on family life, when more than 41% of people in the country did not earn more than £18,600.
"The amount it's set at is really concerning. More importantly, it's what the impact is. Families are being torn apart. These immigration rules are impacting British citizens. The unintended victims seem to be children."
Governments must comply with their legal duty to safeguard children, she said.
Incomes 'Unobtainable'
In 2013, the High Court ruled in the couples' favour saying that the rules were "onerous and unjustified" - and the judge urged the home secretary to rewrite them.
That decision was overturned at the Court of Appeal, leading to the challenge reaching the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court rules against the government, it could lead to the minimum income threshold being lowered or, potentially, require Parliament to reconsider the entire law.
When the government introduced the measures, it said they aimed to reduce the burden on taxpayers, promote integration and prevent and tackle abuse of the family migration route.

Income rules for foreign spouses upheld

Income rules stopping thousands of British citizens bringing their foreign spouse to UK are lawful - Supreme Court
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Income rules for foreign spouses upheld - BBC News

link please....

Ta.

And Hopefully when Brexit happens, this will be back at the immigration courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

"I feel sorry for my son who has not met his father."

---

In breach of human rights. period.

Teakdoor don't need links and it has a link.and if the Mods let me edit I could possibly modify.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crackerjack101

link please....

Ta.

---

Teakdoor lounge.

This is what pisses off a lot of people, as in whole families of Romanians or Bulgarians can just come to the UK with no visa, no job, no money in the bank etc. but spouses of UK citizens from outside the EU have all these requirements put on them and many people for whatever reason are unable to fulfil them. The system is totally unfair as it stands at the moment and I do genuinely feel for Brits trying to bring their Thai or Flipper wives to the UK who get knocked back for this stupid rule amongst others while East Europeans are flee to flood in with no requirements.

Quote:

---

Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, are British citizens who have partners who are Pakistani nationals.

---

No heed to import inbred relatives from Islamabad, whats wrong with a nice blonde haired teen Brit girl from a care home in Rotherham or Bradford.

Income rules for foreign spouses upheld

Income rules which stop thousands of British citizens bringing their foreign spouse to the UK are lawful "in principle" the Supreme Court has ruled.
Judges rejected an appeal by families who argued that the rules breached their human right to a family life.
As of 2012, Britons must earn more than £18,600 before a husband or wife from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) can settle in the UK.
Judges criticised this threshold as "defective" and a cause of "hardship".
The seven justices sitting on the case found those rules did not take sufficient account of the welfare of the children involved, or of alternative sources of income.
Visa rules creating 'price on love'
The rule was introduced by the former coalition government to stop foreign spouses becoming reliant on taxpayers.
The minimum income threshold, which also affects people settled in the UK as refugees, rises to £22,400 if the couple have a child who does not have British citizenship - and then by an additional £2,400 for each subsequent child.
The markers replaced a previous, more general requirement to show the Home Office that the incoming partner would not be a drain on public resources and that the couple or family could adequately support themselves.
They do not take into account the earnings of the overseas partner - even if they have higher qualifications, or are likely to be employed in higher-paid work than their British spouse.
And the threshold does not apply to spouses from within the EEA.

Income rules for foreign spouses upheld - BBC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

"I feel sorry for my son who has not met his father."

---

In breach of human rights. period.

---

Do you pay taxes there and therefore have to support them, when less that 18,600 is not enough for a family of 6! .

Where does it say in any human rights charter that spouses have to be supported by the government.

I know you like to wind people up so I'm being polite.

Median household income is 25,400. Min wage in UK is 7.20 and hour. 18,600 p.a. is about 8.80 so you have to be earning slightly over minimum.

Probably means if you are on welfare. No thank you.

Two of the claimants, Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, are British citizens who have partners who are Pakistani nationals.

Arranged marriage overseas. They could have applied for a fiancee visa before they got married? Sorry sir you cannot marry a 12 -year old?

The third claimant is a Lebanese refugee who cannot find suitable work in the UK despite his postgraduate qualifications. He says his similarly-qualified wife has high earning potential and speaks fluent English.

They key is suitable. Not any work. All he needs is any job, so move out of the big city and look. His wife is she is clever and has a valuable profession can apply on here own. I know of guys who are UK nationals who work all kinds of jobs like construction to earn enough money for flying lessons so they could eventually become airline pilots. Life is hard but it is possible to rise from the depths with some hard work. Especially if you have a post-graduate degree.

The final case concerns another recognised refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo whose wife has been barred from settling.
'Never met son'

Then he should get a real job or apply to join the army or stay and make sacrifices for his son.

One person affected by the rule is Laura Clarke, from Rugby, Warwickshire, who was working in Ethiopia when she met her partner, but is living in England, where she has given birth to their son. She told the BBC he cannot come to the UK because she does not meet the financial requirements.

She should have taken precautions and applied for a fiancee visa before she "decided" to get pregnant. There is a procedure in place for that. Maybe she got turned down and decided to play the "I have a baby" card but it hasn't worked. She went home to give birth so the kid could have a passport. That's OK did the correct thing but ...

If potential residents want to live in UK/Canada/Aus or wherever there are procedures in place. If you have something they need or some potential they will take you.

Vocal doubt willy pays Taxes in the UK, he's an Aussie.

Income rules which stop thousands of British citizens bringing their foreign spouse to the UK are lawful "in principle" the Supreme Court has ruled.
Judges rejected an appeal by families who argued that the rules breached their human right to a family life.
As of 2012, Britons must earn more than £18,600 before a husband or wife from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) can settle in the UK.



Income rules for foreign spouses upheld - BBC News

Just live and 'work' in the EU for a few months and it's in with no 18k needed

...for the next few months perhaps.

(shouldn't this thread be merged?)

https://teakdoor.com/the-teakdoor-lou...ion-court.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thai3

Just live and 'work' in the EU for a few months and it's in with no 18k needed

---

Not if you're a British citizen. You can't claim treaty rights in your own country. It's one of those sovereignty things Brexiters lied about not having.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

And Hopefully when Brexit happens, this will be back at the immigration courts.

---

This has nothing to with Brexit, the UK has full control of non-EEA migration to the UK. Also, there's no such thing as an Immigration Court.

https://teakdoor.com/thailand-and-asi...n-spouses.html

The principle is sound - that if you want to move a thing or person from one location to another, that you check ahead that the destination location can accommodate the thing or person moving from the source - that shouldn't be hard.

What complicates it is people going ahead and marrying anyway, and then throwing themselves on the mercy and goodwill of the system (and the media), and if you think about it, it's essentially emotional blackmail, not a human rights issue.

If anything, the person who has breached the child's rights is the parent from the rich country creating a situation where there a child is deprived of its rights. I think in most cases, the child would be deemed to be better off with it's mother, but throw in the difference in developed status, and rather than saying the child should be with the parent from the more developed country, we skip a step and say that the child should be both with it's mother and in the more developed country, and the mother (and it's statistically usually a mother) is then admitted without the same stringent thresholds applied to non mothers - which also seems unfair.
At no point is the parent from the developed country expected to leave to join their child in the country it lives in, and here we get to the nub of it - as an economic issue where people are effectively using a loophole to bypass normal immigration standards.

It's a difficult one, but having thought about it, and having met people who have been let in when they would never be on their own merits (e.g.: women who have children by a father of their country of origin, and want to bring them into the UK and apparently hoping to bypass normal adoption and citizenship rules to get their kids converted into British citizens), I think there's a fair way of handling it.

You have to completely separate parenthood and relationship from the citizenship process.

The process for becoming a citizen should be harsh but fair, as with Australia, and being married to a native or having kids by them should have no bearing on it.
You can still grant ILR and spouse/parent visas that allow them to work - just remove the lapsing thing, and just say as long as you have a spouse or a child under 21 (or whatever), you can be in the UK with them.

BUT... if you want to get citizenship, you need to pass exactly the same test as someone who might do so via a work visa sort of route... so passing a national language test, getting suitable quals, work experience, and no crimes etc...
Marriage to a native would give you advantages to do that anyway, so I can't see how it's controversial.

Same goes for refugees... a refugee is a refugee, and if they want to apply for citizenship and all that goes with that it should be no different from anyone else.
Frankly, no refugee coming to the UK is a refugee, because the UK is surrounded by safe countries, and there is no justification for refugees leaving the first safe country, and in fact, it is far fairer and most cost-effective to help refugees nearer to where they come from, because the costs are so much cheaper, and they are not put at further risk of death or exploitation by human traffickers.

Returning to the income thing, ...you may as well shoot your muck all over the immigration form and say, that's my application, sir. What then, I go back and pump out some more kids, and I have greater hardship or a potential harem? I mean who would support the idea of me getting housing benefit and visas for that?
It's kinds of selfish... the kids suffer, and that's what the whole argument relies on... emotional blackmail.
As for the figure, it can seem a bit arbitrary, but it's similar to the idea of you need to have 20% deposit and not buy a house that's more than 4 times your income, or it won't be viable... ultimately the UK parent does have the choice to go to the country where the child is, if that's their concern. The idea that you say to people - you can go around and shag the whole world, and bring all the kids you make here, is just not viable. Perhaps they should make an "international Child Support Agency", and make people sign a disclaimer at the airport or as part of their visa application before they go abroad, saying any babies you make could result in you being pursued by HMRC! :D

You can't just keep piling people into the country and expect no impact.
Those of us honkies bringing over hot yellow chicks are not the majority, stats show that immigrants bringing yet more immigrants are the largest contingent, and this creates a new problem of what is effectively ethnic cleansing by changing the composition of the indigenous population (didn't the Japanese try this in Korea about a century ago?!) - whereas a native marrying a foreigner in is by definition integration.
It's the effective ethnic cleansing side of things that has ruined it for everyone else who just met a fit foreign bird and wanted to bring her over to get something more interesting than offered by the local flabby gobby demanding women.
Perhaps then, a rule needed is that every person bringing someone in, needs to have been born here; or their parents, or grandparents.

This might be described as "waycist" etc..., but the economic impact of all these extra people flooding in over the last 20 years is harming the economy for everyone... the quality of life has fallen, housing is unaffordable, proper jobs harder to get, public services buckling under the strain, so you have to get a grip on this, before it breaks - it's the responsible thing to do.

You cannot allow people to use emotional blackmail to game the system.
We don't negotiate with terrorists, and we shouldn't negotiate with people who can't control their genitals or plan ahead; and refugees need to be helped in the first safe country near where they have fled from and be clear that they are behaving like refugees and not like economic illegal immigrants, and be supported appropriately.

I think in order for the folk here to understand the ruling, one needs to translate it into terms they might more readily understand and which may be commensurate with their indifferent education and marginal intelligence.

Essentially, the Supreme Court has determined that the Home Office in setting the financial criteria for meeting the requirements whereby applicants might qualify for settlement sponsored by those settled in the UK has acted lawfully but are a bunch of mean-minded heartless cvunts.

No real surprise there. The UK settlement visa fees are the most extortionately high in the developed world and the most difficult to meet.

Really, what May has been saying is that British citizenship is of no consequence in sponsoring foreigners and everyone is to be fucked over.

May is of course a barren, childless, desiccated husk of a woman currently harbouring cancer in her redundant womb and with luck should be dead in a year.

Fuck her and all who sail in her.

It truly is shameless that a so-called civilised developed country should fuck families over simply because a Home Secretary responsible for the rules was a ghastly harridan with a shrivelled belly devoid of the means to reproduce.

Ah well, the English always were cvunts except the bitch May's was a cul-de-sac leading to a fucking hormonal desert.

Yes Correct I meant to write Supreme.

The UK has an agreement with the EU, the UK does a case by case Basis.

The EU have been formulating another treaty regarding immigration.

These are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009) and include common rules on:
Entry and residence conditions for migrants;
Procedures for issuing long-term visas and residence permits;
The rights of migrants living legally in an EU country;
Tackling irregular immigration and unauthorised residence;
The fight against human trafficking;
Agreements on the readmission of citizens returning to their own countries;
Incentives and support for EU countries to promote the integration of migrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

And Hopefully when Brexit happens, this will be back at the immigration courts.

---

This has nothing to with Brexit, the UK has full control of non-EEA migration to the UK. Also, there's no such thing as an Immigration Court.

---

Just watching it now on BBC.

Bint says ya gota earn 23 K pounds to bring ya " take away " into Pomgolia.

That's not much is it. ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

And Hopefully when Brexit happens, this will be back at the immigration courts.

---

When will Brexit happen, officially and legally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

Yes Correct I meant to write Supreme.

The UK has an agreement with the EU, the UK does a case by case Basis.

The EU have been formulating another treaty regarding immigration.

These are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009) and include common rules on:
Entry and residence conditions for migrants;
Procedures for issuing long-term visas and residence permits;
The rights of migrants living legally in an EU country;
Tackling irregular immigration and unauthorised residence;
The fight against human trafficking;
Agreements on the readmission of citizens returning to their own countries;
Incentives and support for EU countries to promote the integration of migrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

And Hopefully when Brexit happens, this will be back at the immigration courts.

---

This has nothing to with Brexit, the UK has full control of non-EEA migration to the UK. Also, there's no such thing as an Immigration Court.

---

---

And none of your copypasta is relevant to today's case.

Just apply for a fiancee visa before getting married, if they won't give it. There must be a reason!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Just apply for a fiancee visa before getting married, if they won't give it. There must be a reason!

---

How would that help in this case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry57

Just watching it now on BBC.

Bint says ya gota earn 23 K pounds to bring ya " take away " into Pomgolia.

That's not much is it. ?

---

Terry, you don't even know about your own country's immigration practice and procedure on settlement in differing categories so what on earth makes you think you have a grasp of the UK's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buriramboy

This is what pisses off a lot of people, as in whole families of Romanians or Bulgarians can just come to the UK with no visa, no job, no money in the bank etc. but spouses of UK citizens from outside the EU have all these requirements put on them and many people for whatever reason are unable to fulfil them. The system is totally unfair as it stands at the moment and I do genuinely feel for Brits trying to bring their Thai or Flipper wives to the UK who get knocked back for this stupid rule amongst others while East Europeans are flee to flood in with no requirements.

---

The problem you dumb lay fuckers have is that you are too fucking retarded to understand the significance of anything more complex than finding your own arseholes.

All EU countries require their nationals to meet the requirements of their country's immigration rules. A national cannot exercise treaty rights in their own country of citizenship unless they have acquired them elsewhere intra EU.

I daresay the Spanish feel much the same way about English untermensch as spastic fuckers like you do about East Europeans which is fucking rich given you aren't worth the fluff out of the average Bulgarian's navel, you silly twat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The problem you dumb lay fuckers have is that you are too fucking retarded to understand the significance of anything more complex than finding your own arseholes.

spastic fuckers like you

you silly twat.

---

This coming from you is hilarious. You are the epitome of all those things and less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

All EU countries require their nationals to meet the requirements of their country's immigration rules. A national cannot exercise treaty rights in their own country of citizenship unless they have acquired them elsewhere intra EU.

---

Except the UK goes one step further and does not recognise an EU citizen card from any EU country except the UK. That means my wife, a third national, who is a German resident with an EU card can travel anywhere in the EU (not just Schengen) but not the UK without a separate visa. There is no longer a marriage visa per se, instead it is a visa to join your partner in the UK. BUT I am not resident in the UK so can't apply....Lucky to still have a few relatives to visit...

Could be fun if Brexit means UK Nationals must return fro Europe....used to be able to quote an EU HR Law but I think Cameroon closed that loophole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Just apply for a fiancee visa before getting married, if they won't give it. There must be a reason!

---

How would that help in this case?

---

It won't it says before. I'm not trying to help anyone in the quoted cases, I cannot and in truth probably wouldn't. I thought that someone else reading this forum sometime in the future might need to know there is such a thing as a fiancee visa.

-----

I suppose the new? law may effect guys on here? Mum dies, want to go back to UK and live in family home?

I doubt it but possible.

In the meantime any EU scumbag with kids can turn up and get a council house, all paid for, opposing this madness last June was not 'bigotry'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfPTm5ZOkxE

I knew UK will be going down the drain when Canadians gave you our best asset - Mark Carney.

I mean, didn't you guys just sell some prime Bangkok British land for peanuts approx. 1/10th of the Dhammajayo temple value which is located somewhere in the swamp?

A disgraceful law btw.

Yep. America > UK when it comes to family Immigration laws.

Some of you pukes need to look at your own shithouse before poking at everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taxexile

Quote:

---

Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, are British citizens who have partners who are Pakistani nationals.

---

No heed to import inbred relatives from Islamabad, whats wrong with a nice blonde haired teen Brit girl from a care home in Rotherham or Bradford.

---

Because fat, white, delinquent, promiscuous, foul-mouthed, pox-ridden, drunken, slap-tatted, drug-addled stupid English northern trash simply don't make good housewives or decent mothers. Their only purpose is to serve as a fuck-bag for the bottom feeding trash of northern society with its pecking order founded on second generation Paki/Brit scumbags or white street trash from dystopian estates festering in moral turpitude and a fear of gainful employment not associated with prostitution or illicit drug distribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thai3

In the meantime any EU scumbag with kids can turn up and get a council house, all paid for, opposing this madness last June was not 'bigotry'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfPTm5ZOkxE

---

Ja, ja, der Juden ist taking alles der arbeit und our money und our life blood!

You fucking little prick.

care to put that in English sausage man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

"I feel sorry for my son who has not met his father."

---

In breach of human rights. period.

---

Do you pay taxes there and therefore have to support them, when less that 18,600 is not enough for a family of 6! .

Where does it say in any human rights charter that spouses have to be supported by the government.

I know you like to wind people up so I'm being polite.

Median household income is 25,400. Min wage in UK is 7.20 and hour. 18,600 p.a. is about 8.80 so you have to be earning slightly over minimum.

Probably means if you are on welfare. No thank you.

Two of the claimants, Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, are British citizens who have partners who are Pakistani nationals.

Arranged marriage overseas. They could have applied for a fiancee visa before they got married? Sorry sir you cannot marry a 12 -year old?

The third claimant is a Lebanese refugee who cannot find suitable work in the UK despite his postgraduate qualifications. He says his similarly-qualified wife has high earning potential and speaks fluent English.

They key is suitable. Not any work. All he needs is any job, so move out of the big city and look. His wife is she is clever and has a valuable profession can apply on here own. I know of guys who are UK nationals who work all kinds of jobs like construction to earn enough money for flying lessons so they could eventually become airline pilots. Life is hard but it is possible to rise from the depths with some hard work. Especially if you have a post-graduate degree.

The final case concerns another recognised refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo whose wife has been barred from settling.
'Never met son'

Then he should get a real job or apply to join the army or stay and make sacrifices for his son.

One person affected by the rule is Laura Clarke, from Rugby, Warwickshire, who was working in Ethiopia when she met her partner, but is living in England, where she has given birth to their son. She told the BBC he cannot come to the UK because she does not meet the financial requirements.

She should have taken precautions and applied for a fiancee visa before she "decided" to get pregnant. There is a procedure in place for that. Maybe she got turned down and decided to play the "I have a baby" card but it hasn't worked. She went home to give birth so the kid could have a passport. That's OK did the correct thing but ...

If potential residents want to live in UK/Canada/Aus or wherever there are procedures in place. If you have something they need or some potential they will take you.

---

Fixed that for you as i am sure there are others like myself who couldnt see the blue on blue text !

Sorry, but Vocal Neal still remains a fucking idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thai3

In the meantime any EU scumbag with kids can turn up and get a council house, all paid for, opposing this madness last June was not 'bigotry'

---

Deport them, open and shut case. They should not have even been allowed on a plane to the UK... putting children at risk... but there's the fundamental problem with the EU, and particularly with the accession countries... they don't give a fuck about the damage it does, as long as they can get an arse full of cock round the back in a wine bar in Strasbourg, and all the expenses they want that will never be checked through, and all the backhanders for all the worker-exploiting outfits in the UK... the EU has turned parts of the economy into a sweatshop, undercutting locals with cheap labour and proclaiming "oh they do the jobs we don't want to", whilst slashing wages down to the lowest they can get away with, that no local can live on, whilst landlords pack 3-bed family homes full of migrant workers, pushing not just the wages down but the cost of housing up... a double whammy.
The only people who are surprised by the Brexit result, are the people who are so busy suckling from the tit of the EU that they never even see the blighting effects it's having outside their safe middle-class "progressive" enclaves - will they put up a family in their summer house? I doubt it... they want them at arms length with all the northern peasants, so they can employ them as servants on the minimum wage so they can go on hols to Tuscany. So full of shit.

...and the dirty little Labour-voting, Guardian-reading, BBC-loving, crypto-racist, crypto-fascist coprophagous pricks have the temerity to invoke Godwin's Law against those who resist... Fock off to Venezuela if you want a socialist paradise...

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2017/02/1502.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thai3

In the meantime any EU scumbag with kids can turn up and get a council house, all paid for, opposing this madness last June was not 'bigotry'

---

Deport them, open and shut case.

---

As none of that bullshit is actually true anybody who voted for brexit based on this fiction may not be a bigot but they're certainly a fool. IMO anybody whose reasons for discriminating against a group of people are based on easily disproved lies is a bigot.