Couples speak of pain over spouse visa rules

Immigration rules that require a Briton to be earning a minimum amount before they can bring a non-EU spouse to the UK have been upheld in the Supreme Court. How does this policy affect families?
"My son has seen his father a few times only," says British national Toni Stew.
"I feel like a single mother rather than a wife."
Ms Stew, from Worcester, met her Egyptian husband Mohamed El Faramawi, 33, while on holiday in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2009. They got married six years later.
But, as the 25-year-old does not earn a minimum of £18,600 per year, her husband has been unable to join her and their 17-month-old son Ali in the UK.
"I feel very guilty towards my baby," she says.
"He hasn't done anything to deserve being without his father."
Ms Stew, who works as a part-time sales assistant, says she can't afford to work full-time as she also needs to care for Ali.
'Ridiculous'
They are just one couple out of thousands who are said to be unable to meet the minimum income requirement that came into force in July 2012.
Under the family migration policy, only British citizens, foreign nationals who are deemed to be "present and settled" in the UK, or those with refugee status can apply to sponsor their non-European partner's visa.
And whichever of those three categories they are in, they must also show they have sufficient funding. In most cases, this is proof of an annual salary of £18,600, held for at least six months prior to the application. This level rises to £22,400 for a non-European partner and child, with an additional levy of £2,400 for each additional child. The rule does not apply to EU citizens.
Those who are granted the "family of a settled person" visa cannot usually claim benefits or other public funds.
The Home Office introduced the rules as part of attempts to control immigration from outside Europe, with ministers in the then coalition government arguing that the rules would ensure no incoming families would burden the UK taxpayer.

But the minimum income requirement policy was challenged in the High Court in 2013 and again in the Court of Appeal in 2014 by two British claimants and one claimant who has refugee status who want to bring their non-EU spouses to the UK.
They said the rules were discriminatory and interfered with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.
The case then went to the Supreme Court, which said that while family immigration rules requiring minimum income cause hardship, they are lawful.
These rules need to be changed as the income threshold is too high, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants says.
The charity's chief executive Saira Grant says it would "greatly help" if the income of the foreign partner was taken into account.
Thousands of people are impacted by the rules, she says.
British national Laura Segan and her American husband Spencer Russ are facing the possibility of separation less than a year after they have got married.
"Just because she happens to fall in love with me and I have the wrong passport, she isn't allowed to live with me in her own country," says Spencer, 28.

Maddog wrote:This is the problem with a fairly robust welfare state. Strings get attached.

I'm sure Ben would wave his rights to any assistance, but that waiver couldn't be enforced.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:This is the problem with a fairly robust welfare state. Strings get attached.

I'm sure Ben would wave his rights to any assistance, but that waiver couldn't be enforced.

I wouldn't be eligible for welfare anyway, so the waiver would be meaningless. They're trying to make sure nobody can abuse the system.

What I'd prefer is some benchmark that I could satisfy, and if I didn't, my visa could be revoked. For example, give me six months to find a job that raises the total household income to, say, £20,000.

That would give me a shot, yet give the UK government the right to tell me to go back to America if I didn't prove I came here to work.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:This is the problem with a fairly robust welfare state. Strings get attached.

I'm sure Ben would wave his rights to any assistance, but that waiver couldn't be enforced.

I wouldn't be eligible for welfare anyway, so the waiver would be meaningless. They're trying to make sure nobody can abuse the system.

What I'd prefer is some benchmark that I could satisfy, and if I didn't, my visa could be revoked. For example, give me six months to find a job that raises the total household income to, say, £20,000.

That would give me a shot, yet give the UK government the right to tell me to go back to America if I didn't prove I came here to work.

There is all sorts of assistance including healthcare that fall under the umbrella of the welfare state.

They would be afraid you would go underground and not report to a deportation hearing.

Again, it's the problem with the welfare state. Too many people don't look at the entire picture, just the parts that make them feel good.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There is all sorts of assistance including healthcare that fall under the umbrella of the welfare state.

They would be afraid you would go underground and not report to a deportation hearing.

Again, it's the problem with the welfare state. Too many people don't look at the entire picture, just the parts that make them feel good.

Well, they cover their bases pretty well in the UK. For instance, you can't qualify for a spouse visa until you've paid a fee of over £1,000 into the NHS. Now, when's the last time you spent more than $1,000 on health care in a year?

But I get what you're saying -- welfare states do have their problems. The biggest one being that people hear about some isolated charlatan now and again who's managed to cheat the system, and react by calling for draconian policies that hurt a small number of bad actors and a much larger number of honest people.

gelico wrote:

On a security level it makes absolutely no sense as we have allowed all sorts of criminals and jihadis etc to go unchecked

and yet a decent bloke like Ben who isn't a criminal and wants to work and just wants to be with his family gets refused

it's fucking insane

wish there was something i could do

Ben Reilly wrote:

gelico wrote:

On a security level it makes absolutely no sense as we have allowed all sorts of criminals and jihadis etc to go unchecked

and yet a decent bloke like Ben who isn't a criminal and wants to work and just wants to be with his family gets refused

it's fucking insane

wish there was something i could do

We're toying with the idea of a protest or demonstration, so ...

Ben Reilly wrote:Thanks so much, gels and nicko. Going to spend some time with edds, now, while I still can!

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Thanks so much, gels and nicko. Going to spend some time with edds, now, while I still can!

Is this white privilege?

The reality is in this case its worked against you

If you were not white, you would have become a British citizen

I want you to be here and be with eddie but you are so clueless that in reality that being white here has worked against you

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I wouldn't be eligible for welfare anyway, so the waiver would be meaningless. They're trying to make sure nobody can abuse the system.

What I'd prefer is some benchmark that I could satisfy, and if I didn't, my visa could be revoked. For example, give me six months to find a job that raises the total household income to, say, £20,000.

That would give me a shot, yet give the UK government the right to tell me to go back to America if I didn't prove I came here to work.

There is all sorts of assistance including healthcare that fall under the umbrella of the welfare state.

They would be afraid you would go underground and not report to a deportation hearing.

Again, it's the problem with the welfare state. Too many people don't look at the entire picture, just the parts that make them feel good.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Thanks so much, gels and nicko. Going to spend some time with edds, now, while I still can!

Is this white privilege?

The reality is in this case its worked against you

If you were not white, you would have become a British citizen

I want you to be here and be with eddie but you are so clueless that in reality that being white here has worked against you
.

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I wouldn't be eligible for welfare anyway, so the waiver would be meaningless. They're trying to make sure nobody can abuse the system.

What I'd prefer is some benchmark that I could satisfy, and if I didn't, my visa could be revoked. For example, give me six months to find a job that raises the total household income to, say, £20,000.

That would give me a shot, yet give the UK government the right to tell me to go back to America if I didn't prove I came here to work.

There is all sorts of assistance including healthcare that fall under the umbrella of the welfare state.

They would be afraid you would go underground and not report to a deportation hearing.

Again, it's the problem with the welfare state. Too many people don't look at the entire picture, just the parts that make them feel good.

What a load of idiotic fucking bullshit...

Straight from the keyboard of an uneducated and inexperienced know-nothing redneck twat..

Find out what you're complaining about first, you ill-bred moron.

Eilzel wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


What a load of idiotic fucking bullshit...

Straight from the keyboard of an uneducated and inexperienced know-nothing redneck twat..

Find out what you're complaining about first, you ill-bred moron.

Wolfie, regardless of your personal disagreements with Maddog, could you please at least try not to make every response to him a tirade of insults

eddie wrote:Tonight this house is sad.

My son goes to university tomorrow and then my husband goes back to Texas.

My daughter has cried so many tears over losing her brother and her stepdad on the same day.
My sons girlfriend is crying.

It’s a long road ahead of us and Ben and I are still awake trying to make the most of our last night together.

I don’t think anyone sees what this does to human beings.

Enough said. Thanks to you all for your support.

Tomorrow is going to be about me and my daughter trying to be each other’s Prozac on a very fucking difficult day.

Namaste. X