Poll: Effect of the new immigration rules on UK-Y

Yes, even when I came over on a fiance visa in 2004 DH made more than the current minimum of £18,600.

I consider us one of the lucky couples.

I voted no as we wouldn't have had the cash.  Partner had a fair sized inheritence that would have bot us most of the way, but the only other thing we had would have been her house which would have had to re-mortgaged to release some cash or sold.  

These rulse are crazy.  I really feel for families that may be really harmed by this.  I realise that our native country places financial requirements on those wishing to enter, but that doesn't make it right.  I think I'd be less angry if something was done about EU immigration.  We all know, including those in the government,  the only way to get net migration down to their proposed numbers, is by limiting EU migrants.  I'm not really in favour of that either, but it seems that a lot of families and nothing will actually change.  

Yes, we would qualify as DF makes above the threshold and has been in his position for almost 4 years, but in today's economic climate, who knows how secure anyone's job is.

When we first got together though, DF wasn't making anything near the threshold and neither was I. He was 24 and I was 20, so I can only imagine how hard these rules will be on younger couples. Which isn't to say it won't be difficult on older couples. The whole thing makes me really upset for anyone who is getting caught out by this. 

I don't see how someone earning £18,500 with £1000 in savings is any worse off than somoene earning £18,600.

Why would they need £16,000+ in savings to integrate any better than someone on £18,600 with no savings.  The whole thing is totally unfair, surely if they're going to count savings, they should count any savings, I don't see the true relevance of the first £16,000 being ignored.

Thankfully it won't effect me but it doesn't half make me mad as it's jut not fair!

I voted yes, because we'd just scrape over the income threshold. However, he'd gone through a pay progression thingie at work about two months before applying, and his income had gone up very slightly (very very slightly - enough to be like two or three quid under before progression) so I'm not sure if they would have considered that okay given the progression or not. He's been working for the same company for 10 years. (while most of the new rules are very clear, the whole trade-off between savings and income threshold is very confusing and illogical to me, particularly where time at a salary level is concerned).  So, yes - I think. 

We are retirees - DH's UK State Pension is miniscule, and his US Social Security benefit isn't a lot more. Mine is larger, and our combined 'income' is above threshold. We bought a house for cash and still had considerable investment assets. Not rich, but enough.

We are lucky, but we worked very hard for 50+ years to be in the position we are in.

Yes, we would have qualified. Thankfully DH and I live in London, so our salaries include London weighting. I consider us very lucky to be a couple who makes over this amount, and that we applied before 9 July 2012.

I wish the very best to couples who will find that the new immigration rules make it difficult to be together.

I said no because DH was doing his PhD when I applied for a fiancé visa. Technically, this means he wasn't even working, though he did get £13K tax-free in stipends. Would a student qualify to sponsor someone under the new rules if somehow they got the 18.6K in stipends?
However, we'd qualify currently, as DH got a job. I dunno, 18.6K doesn't seem too terrible to me. Although it's totally possible for two people to live on less, its not as though they're requiring a level of income to support any grand sort of existence. Hm. Still, it doesn't seem fair to split up legitimate couples and I couldn't agree more with the above post about EEA immigration - we're hardly a drop in the bucket and I seems they are taking their frustration out on us just to be seen as getting something done...

Indeed. It's frustrating that they're hurting non-EEA immigrants, but what I've seen in the news and the comments is that it's the EEA immigrants that are causing the biggest problem for the UK.

If I had come over on the family route in 2005, we more than likely wouldnt have met the threshold at that time. I think BF was on just under £16K at that point and neither of us had any savings.

I voted yes, then realized it should have been no.

When I applied for my ILE visa last year, my hubby was making substantially more than the new requirement, but he had only been on his job about 2months. So I assume it would have been denied due to length of employment.

I think the length of employment requirement is completely unfair due to the higher prevalence of 6mo contracts in the UK vs. US. Would a person on a 6mo contract even be allowed to sponsor their spouse, since they may not have a job in 6mo? Or consider a person on a 1yr contract that begins their new job & waits the requisite 6mo to file for the visa, then will the Home Office say "sorry you only have 6mo left on your contract, that isn't enough"?

I wouldn't have qualified, as DH makes less than the £18,600 per year. When I applied under the "old" rules in 2010, all we needed was the extra £106 per week after rent and council tax, and that we had, so no problem. I think it's horribly unfair to deny others in our situation, who may not make a lot, but still have enough to put a roof over their heads and survive without benefits, as we have.

amen to that!!


i doubt we would qualify if my refusal doesnt get overturned. i mean, its not fair i have enough that will do us for quite awhile and we can get by on, hell i've even sent money to Denise if she needs it all the while still having money to support myself, if i can do that from over here, i sure as hell can do it over there, they have no right to make a decision like that without looking at what people can actually survive on, frankly i wouldnt be surprised if within a few days this was overturned due to people finding it to be discrimination

It's a no for me. DH was a mature student and his parents had to "co-sign" me since we had virtually nothing in savings.

Although the second I started working, not one month after I arrived, I was on well over the current requirements and was supporting DH in his studies.

amen to that!!


i doubt we would qualify if my refusal doesnt get overturned. i mean, its not fair i have enough that will do us for quite awhile and we can get by on, hell i've even sent money to Denise if she needs it all the while still having money to support myself, if i can do that from over here, i sure as hell can do it over there, they have no right to make a decision like that without looking at what people can actually survive on, frankly i wouldnt be surprised if within a few days this was overturned due to people finding it to be discrimination

No chance of that happening within a few days.

Besides, people can't discriminate. But the government isn't a person. 

Also, this is being (or will be) applied equally to all people who don't meet the requirements so I'm not sure if discrimination will hold up.