and here's the science bit:-
Firstly, I would like to emphasise that I am in no way suggesting an ?open door? policy on immigration. I respect the right of the UK to implement immigration control.
I respect that there is a need to ensure that people who enter the UK as the fiancé, spouse or civil partner of a UK citizen are not a burden on the taxpayer, and that their relationship is genuine.
I would also like to point out that I agree with the family route immigration controls for spouses and civil partners that were in force prior to July 2012. I have been through this process and I believe that it is sufficiently rigorous.
When challenged regarding these new rules, The Home Secretary and UKBA always respond that the new rules are there to prevent sham marriages and to protect the taxpayer. However, partners sponsoring a non eu spouse had to prove their relationship was genuine prior to the new rules being brought in.
Whether a relationship is genuine or not does not depend on how much the partners earn. In addition, non eu spouses are not allowed to claim benefits, they have no recourse to public funds, and this is stamped clearly on their passports. In order to claim benefits, they have to have worked in the UK and paid taxes into the system for at least five years.
Before July 2012 the sponsor had to show evidence that they were able to live with their partner without relying on state benefits by providing their bank account details, pay slips, savings account balance etc, and show that they could provide accommodation by sending in their mortgage statement or confirmation from their Landlord showing the partner had permission to live with them.
Now, they have to prove that they earn at least 18.600. If given permission to come into the UK they have to prove at they still earn this income after 2.5 years. Then they may be given a further temporary visa of 2.5 years, at which point they have to prove the income once again. If at any point they become unemployed and find a new job, they then have to show that they have an income of at least 18.600 in employment that they have held for six months .
So, for example, if I am earning 18.600 when I apply in August 2012. I lose my job in September 2014. I find another job paying 18.600 in December 2014 and I apply for my partner?s temporary leave to remain in January 2015, I may be refused because I have not been earning 18.600 for long enough.
If the applicant and Sponsor are both in the UK at the time of first applying, both their incomes may be counted. IF only the sponsor is in the UK, only the sponsor?s income is counted.
Under the old rules, any savings were counted. Since July 2012, if you don?t earn 18.600 the first 16.000 of savings cannot be counted. On top of this, you need to have the shortfall X 2.5.
So, if I earn 18.500, I have to have £16.250 in savings to make up for the £100 shortfall.
There are very few people in the UK, even high earners, who have such a large amount of savings, and it?s unlikely that anyone on a low wage has that. So this is almost an impossible obstacle to overcome.
Under the old rules, it was necessary to pass an English test with classes in citizenship OR if you thought your English was good enough, a Knowledge of Life in the UK test. A high level of English is needed to pass the KOL. Whereas before July 2012, spouses could take either one or the other, depending on their level of English, everyone now has to pass both. All new applicants have to pass an English test BEFORE entering the United Kingdom.
I agree wholeheartedly that when moving to another country, it is necessary to know the culture and to try to speak the language. I speak five languages and have lived in two other countries, and I would not move to the other country without attempting to learn the language. However, I do think that the best place to learn a language is within the country itself. Experts in teaching English as a Second Language do not agree with the new language requirements and believe that rather encouraging integration, they are a barrier.
www.natecla.org.uk/content/509/NATECLA-statements
Some campaigners who oppose the new rules disagree with the extension of the temporary spouse visa from 2 years to 5 years. They believe that employers are reluctant to hire someone on a temporary visa. It could be argued, therefore, that it?s unfair to expect someone to earn 18.600, a wage much higher than the national average in most regions at the same time making them less desirable to employers for five years. It should be noted that UKBA themselves do not employ people on temporary visas, not even to clean their floors, and this is stated on their website.
It?s not only the content of the new rules that have received criticism. The rules were brought into effect without a debate in Parliament. Instead the ?negative resolution? procedure was used. Given the potential impact that this has on couples and families, one would hope for a proper debate to have taken place before the rules were introduced.
More details are provided here.:-
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/18/supreme-court-immigration-rules
Any new rules that are brought in have to undergo an impact assessment in order to minimise people unfairly falling foul of them. The Home Office?s own report admits that the personal cost ?may be significant? but glosses over it.
There is evidence that since July 2012, a significant number of people have already been affected. Enough concern has been shown to trigger an inquiry on the new rules, and people who have been affected and their advocates have been invited to submit their evidence to the inquiry before January 2013.
www.appgmigration.org.uk/family-inquiry
A campaign petition in circulation includes many comments from individuals and their families and friends.
www.change.org/petitions/theresa-may-new-uk-immigration-laws-are-tearing-families-apart-change-them-now?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=33446016
and there are two Facebook groups which provide emotional support to people affected and for campaigners to share information
www.facebook.com/groups/458130764223591/
www.facebook.com/groups/139807999382936/