We must all sign this petition

[Terpe]

i can't see how they can possibly let this go through.. ive got a good feeling that they cant let this happen.. it is basically excluding the majority of people from applying.

Based on what?

[Robert86]

hi stevie, hows u bud?? i honestly can't see this being implemented in April.. its too much too soon, but i wouldnt put anything past this tory/lib government thats for sure..

[Robert86]

great pics !!

[Terpe]

hi stevie, hows u bud?? i honestly can't see this being implemented in April.. its too much too soon, but i wouldnt put anything past this tory/lib government thats for sure..

So you think it might not happen?
or
it might happen?

[lastlid]

That is actually already part of the proposals.
Instead of 2 years in UK as spouse before ILR (and able to claim benefits) it is proposed to be 5 years before ILR.

Has anyone actually taken time to read the proposals and the MAC report.

So if I ILR is set at 5 years, what happens when the 2 year Spouse visa expires? FLR for those on a Spouse visa?

[Iani]

For all it's worth, my opinion is that for something which will affect quite a lot of people - not millions, but nevertheless, more than a few hundred, the internet is pretty quiet about it.

To me, it sounds more like government bluster on the lines of "well we'd like to do this, but..." Governments aren't totally stupid, they won't want to implement something which will be challenged.

It was raised at the tory conference, and that was preaching to the crowd.
I think they'll change some things, but this is quite a big change. I personally think it's not likely to happen.........yet. BUT it might.

I am not a betting man, but if I was, I would stick a tenner on it not happening, put it that way.

If they really wanted to make a change that would be more likely to stick, they'd make it law that no benefits paid for 5 years say, and each applicant would have to submit accounts to prove their ability to support her/him. That would frankly be better than an arbitary wage check, as goodness knows what someone's outgoings are, and this would be safer for the government in the long run. To pay for that extra admin - stick up the cost of the visa by a couple of hundred.

Anyway, not up to me, let them do as they will.

[lastlid]

I understand the Govt is thinking along the lines of between £18,700 and £25,700 pa.

This seems to be the kind of figure banded about. But I just wonder if they might start off at a lower level and ease it up slowly. Say a starting point of 10K or 12K per annum and then ratchett the levels upwards. I have to say that I am not fully in touch with the facts at all, but I seem to recall that Denmark have much stiffer hurdles for Spouse visas than we do and yet Article 8 still applies to Denmark also. (I seem to recall the Danish bit cropping up in the governments recent consultation / assessment on these matters when they were looking to see how other countries dealt with these issues).

[Dedworth]

This seems to be the kind of figure banded about. But I just wonder if they might start off at a lower level and ease it up slowly. Say a starting point of 10K or 12K per annum and then ratchett the levels upwards. I have to say that I am not fully in touch with the facts at all, but I seem to recall that Denmark have much stiffer hurdles for Spouse visas than we do and yet Article 8 still applies to Denmark also. (I seem to recall the Danish bit cropping up in the governments recent assessment on these matters when they were looking to see how other countries dealt with these issues).

Good point.

Along with the rest of the Europeans I don't think the Danes have the same bleeding heart, hand wringing perception of Article 8 Human Rights nonsense as the UK judiciary

[joebloggs]

they could extend the spouse visa so its valid for 5 yrs, but that's a idea, better keeping it as it is, but as you've said, after 2yrs you would have to apply for FLR, why because they wouldn't have to make many changes in the spouse visa, but more importantly, its more money if everyone had to apply for FLR

i think they will do it, this gov and previous labour govs have brought in many changes, the life in uk test, the English language test, raising the minimum age to 21 (then having to lower it) all these in the last 5yrs or so.

Brits married to non Europeans are a minority, and all the economic problems with have the majority of Brits don't give a damn

[grahamw48]

Having a job at the time of application is no guarantee that you'll still have a job even a few months down the line, so rather an unreliable factor anyway.

The no benefits rule should be more than enough.

[joebloggs]

If they really wanted to make a change that would be more likely to stick, they'd make it law that no benefits paid for 5 years say, and each applicant would have to submit accounts to prove their ability to support her/him.

the problem is, if that person is married to a Brit, European or someone with ILR they (the Brit,European or person with ILR) can still claim the benefits ( and why not !, they've paid their taxes and are entitled to them)

so i doubt how much the gov will actually save.

[Terpe]

This seems to be the kind of figure banded about. But I just wonder if they might start off at a lower level and ease it up slowly. Say a starting point of 10K or 12K per annum and then ratchett the levels upwards. I have to say that I am not fully in touch with the facts at all, but I seem to recall that Denmark have much stiffer hurdles for Spouse visas than we do and yet Article 8 still applies to Denmark also. (I seem to recall the Danish bit cropping up in the governments recent consultation / assessment on these matters when they were looking to see how other countries dealt with these issues).

I doubt that any starting point would be that low.
The MAC report states the following :-

Under the assumption that housing costs are zero, the equivalent current gross income threshold would be £5,500 per year.

Under the assumption that housing costs are £119 per week, the equivalent current post-tax income threshold is £224.95 per week (i.e. £105.95 plus £119).
The equivalent current gross income threshold is therefore £264 per week, or £13,700 per year.

The above assumptions are for a childless couple.

The current "financial test" is generally based on income support levels, which for 2011/2012 are set at £105.95 per week. Means the sponsor needs to show that amount as available for discretional spending.
This was largely arrived at by tribunals and legal system.

[joebloggs]

yes your right Terpe, they want to set the figure high enough so you cannot claim certain benefits, would be no point in setting it too low as people might be able to claim certain benefits still.

i worked with someone, he refused a pay increase a number of times, because if he got the increase it would reduce certain benefits he got, so in fact if he took the pay increase he would in fact be worse off

[imagine]

I doubt that any starting point would be that low.
The MAC report states the following :-

Under the assumption that housing costs are zero, the equivalent current gross income threshold would be £5,500 per year.

Under the assumption that housing costs are £119 per week, the equivalent current post-tax income threshold is £224.95 per week (i.e. £105.95 plus £119).
The equivalent current gross income threshold is therefore £264 per week, or £13,700 per year.

The above assumptions are for a childless couple.

The current "financial test" is generally based on income support levels, which for 2011/2012 are set at £105.95 per week. Means the sponsor needs to show that amount as available for discretional spending.
This was largely arrived at by tribunals and legal system.

so if the new figures are put into place, will it still be worked out in the same way as you have put above, ie, if no housing costs the new amount of income needed could be less

[lastlid]

I doubt that any starting point would be that low.
The MAC report states the following :-

Yes, I was taking an uneducated guess. Maybe £13700 then? Or thereabouts...

[Baliw99]

Just singed the petition, will be asking my friends and relatives to sign it too, this is worrying for me as I am marrying my mahal the end of the year, I have a good stable job, earn over 1k per month, but earn less than the minimum requirement.

[Arthur Little]

We could put another spin on it,view it from a different angle,if I truly,hark that word,TRULY loved someone and she couldnt come here,well if the mountain wont come to mohammed............

... - TOTALLY impracticable for at least TWO reasons that immediately spring to mind:

1. T'would inevitably mean starting from scratch. You'd need to be resourceful workwise. Okay, I KNOW you've "been there ... done that ... worn the 'T'~shirt et al"! But not everyone has your tenacity in that respect. Jobs might well "grow on trees" - if you're prepared to do constant hard graft on a banana or coconut plantation - but the hours are exceedingly long and arduous, in humid temperatures completely unsuited to many westerners ... and the earnings most likely crap compared to what the majority have been accustomed to previously. And then there's the [not so small] consideration of finding appropriate accommodation at an affordable price either to buy or rent ... and

2. Probably even more importantly ... there would be no NHS to fall back on should you be stricken by any of all manner of illnesses.

IMO ... FAR from ideal!

[Arthur Little]

... if a woman isnt allowed in her husbands country and they are totally in love then the husband would lower his living expectations and move to hers, one of my mates sadly now deceased did just that,moved to pinas with a few quid and lived with his woman for 4 years I think?

... can't help wondering if MAYBE that's WHY he's now deceased.

[Terpe]

so if the new figures are put into place, will it still be worked out in the same way as you have put above, ie, if no housing costs the new amount of income needed could be less

Oddly there's no mention of that logic anywhere.
Only assumptions based on income. Which I feel is not fair.

[joebloggs]

also what if your retired, what if you have a disability and don't work, what if your working or even not working but have large savings, what if your spouse could earn the minimum income or even more, as in my case the misses wage is double what i earn.

a whole can of worms will be opened up, challenges in court for being unfair also this will not effect a non British European living in the UK bring their spouse here, its madness

[Arthur Little]

also what if your retired, what if you have a disability and don't work, what if your working or even not working but have large savings ...

... s ... etc., etc. etc. ...

... - when you really start to THINK about it - the list is virtually endless ...

[grahamw48]

Presumably you just have to show evidence of income, as the self-employed do.

Then show disposable income....which is what it is all about.

[stevie c]

... - TOTALLY impracticable for at least TWO reasons that immediately spring to mind:

1. T'would inevitably mean starting from scratch. You'd need to be resourceful workwise. Okay, I KNOW you've "been there ... done that ... worn the 'T'~shirt et al"! But not everyone has your tenacity in that respect. Jobs might well "grow on trees" - if you're prepared to do constant hard graft on a banana or coconut plantation - but the hours are exceedingly long and arduous, in humid temperatures completely unsuited to many westerners ... and the earnings most likely crap compared to what the majority have been accustomed to previously. And then there's the [not so small] consideration of finding appropriate accommodation at an affordable price either to buy or rent ... and

2. Probably even more importantly ... there would be no NHS to fall back on should you be stricken by any of all manner of illnesses.

IMO ... FAR from ideal!

Totally agree with you arthur my thoughts exactly

[grahamw48]

Competing with the local labour force on 2-300 pesos a day would be fun, even if you do find a rice-planter's hat to fit.

You're not permitted to work there anyway of course, unless you have a work permit (most unlikely).

Running your own business is one way (which I did for 3 years), but I think even that would need to be in a local's name.

[Rory]

Just had a look at the e-petition on the government site, the "income barrier to genuine family migration" is way down on page 44 of all e-petitions and only has a measly 125 signatures
You think anybody knows it is really there and can hear all 125 of us shouting?
We are fighting as a small minority and the majority can only see people like us as bringing more immigrants to this country. We are shouting on deaf ears but we should not give up.

[stevie c]

Yes Rory the amount of signatures are very dissapointing.

I hope before April it reaches the 1000 mark but to be honest i cant see it myself

[Dedworth]

This petition is a bit of a dead duck. You need to lobby your MP's and get them on side, don't just email them make an appointment to see them at their local surgery and work on friends and colleagues to do likewise for you. Try to get in the local papers and radio.

12 years ago I was involved in a bit of a local campaign and must have met my MP (now Secretary of State) 5 or 6 times in as many months - They are there to represent you

[Doc Alan]

This petition is a bit of a dead duck. You need to lobby your MP's and get them on side, don't just email them make an appointment to see them at their local surgery and work on friends and colleagues to do likewise for you. Try to get in the local papers and radio.

Agreed, Ded. Even MPs have said ( Commons Procedures Committee ) that the Government's e-petitions website is " misleading " people about their chances of influencing policy. It creates " unrealistically high " expectations for the impact of submissions. Only when 100,000 ( + ) signatures have been gathered does the House's back-bench business committee have the power to timetable a parliamentary debate. That happened with issues like stripping benefits from rioters and scrapping fuel duty rises.

[Tawi2]

if MAYBE that's WHY he's now deceased.

Heart attack arthur,liked alcohol way too much,very overweight,got totally p*ssed-up and went for a swim diving head-first into the sea............The End!

[marc72]

want to sign but it says this e-petition is closed,,why is this dodgy government maybe???