Hello from Minnesota

Hello Everyone,

I'm really glad that I found your forum, and am hopeful that I can find some answers to questions regarding a potential move to the UK.

I married a lovely woman from Britain, nearly 10 years ago. She left Britain to be with me here in the states, and we've lived here in Minnesota, on a hobby farm, for the past 8 years. Our kids are grown on moved on now, so we've been thinking about moving to Britain, but from what I've been able to find online, (which isn't much), it isn't so easy, despite my being married to a British National. Much to consider, much to learn, and I hope that you can get me started.

Kind regards,
Kevin

Hi Kevin,

As someone who is going through the process of marrying a Brit and emigrating, I can definitely confirm it is a complicated process. It varies, though. If you have a fairly "straightforward" case, all it takes is time and money. Not that these are small things! I understand the hot button nature of immigration, and the fact that they cannot restrict EU migrants, but punishing UK citizens for wanting to have a foreign spouse join them, or return to the UK with a foreign spouse, is very unfair of the government.

If you have any questions about how to go through the process, I'm sure there are plenty of people on this board (myself included) who can share their experience and outline the process.

Hope you are staying warm in Minnesota. Is it actually Spring yet?

Regards,
Jesse

Hello Jesse, and "Thank you" for the encouragement.
I've learnt not to trust Spring in Minnesota. It has come awfully early this year, with temps last week nearly 70! Of course, we could have a foot of snow next week too, so we knock of lots of wood up here.

I'm trying to figure out if it would be smart for me to find an employer over here who has a branch based in Wales, to help facilitate the process? Outside of that, I'm hopeful that with a simple spousal visa, we could move over and live off of some of the money from the sale of our farm, until I landed a good job. I don't know if that would even be allowed, but it sounds good to me. lol

P.S. My wife is from Surrey!

Kind regards,
Kevin

I'm trying to figure out if it would be smart for me to find an employer over here who has a branch based in Wales, to help facilitate the process?

You would need to have worked for that company for at least a year before you could have a temporary move to the UK and then you would also need to earn a set amount. i.e. 41.5k for a long term ICT visa.

Outside of that, I'm hopeful that with a simple spousal visa, we could move over and live off of some of the money from the sale of our farm, until I landed a good job. I don't know if that would even be allowed, but it sounds good to me. lol

If your farm gives you 62.5 in capital after the sale, then you could use that for your wife to sponsor you on a spouse visa.

I understand the hot button nature of immigration, and the fact that they cannot restrict EU migrants, but punishing UK citizens for wanting to have a foreign spouse join them, or return to the UK with a foreign spouse, is very unfair of the government.

The financial requirement was raised to be fairer to the UK taxpayers who fund the welfare state, and to make the sponsor more financially responsible for the person they want to bring to the UK. 18k is the benefit poverty line for a couple.

Under the old rules, the UK taxpayer would give more benefits to the Brit for his foreign spouse, even though they had no recourse to public funds themselves.

The UK taxpayers will still pay for their child if the parents don't keep it themselves, so as to not disadvantage that child.

The financial requirement was raised to be fairer to the UK taxpayers who fund the welfare state, and to make the sponsor more financially responsible for the person they want to bring to the UK. 18k is the benefit poverty line for a couple.

I have no argument with the idea that people should meet a minimum income threshold before being able to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes. That makes perfect sense. What seems punitive is the way in which someone's income can and cannot be calculated (ie, which categories can be combined and which cannot) and the actual threshold itself.

I don't think taxpayers should be further on the hook for benefits than they are forced to be because of EU treaty rights rearing their ugly heads. Yet, when (by my generous calculation of 40 hours a week/52 weeks a year at 6.50) the annual income of a full time worker making minimum wage is only 13,520 - a full 5 grand shy of the requirement - you can hardly argue why some people find the 18k punishing. As a government, you can't say that someone makes enough money at the minimum wage to live life and pursue happiness etc, then deny them the right to have their wife or husband by their side. Surely most people want to work, and will work once they arrive in the country - therefore helping to support themselves and their sponsor and the country by becoming a taxpayer themselves. By excluding the foreign spouses income from consideration when applying for settlement, they are forcing a sponsor to have a "better than minimum" job - which is unfair. It places a negative judgement on those who work hard, but don't work in a job that's considered acceptable enough. One has to earn the privilege of having a loved one make a home in their home country? It's elitist. It keeps families apart and people in misery. Obviously, this is an argument to raise the minimum wage to a "living wage" - just like the argument we have in the States to do so - and is separate from an immigration issue. Except that it's not as separate as it seems. Just like every issue working class people face as a result of low wages.

Honestly, not trying to attack or start a flame war or massive debate - I'm sure this forum is FULL of such topics for discussion. I definitely see both sides of the coin, and can respect the reluctance to admit another person who may end up on benefits at some point. I just know that through the personal struggles my partner and I have endured and witnessed in other couples, simply trying to follow the rule of law and do what we can to stay together, any discussion of "fairness" to the UK taxpayer should also include the "fairness" to the UK citizen and their foreign spouse.

What bothers be about the requirements is that I'm the American and the breadwinner in our marriage; my wife is the Brit, who stayed home and reared our children. Yet, if we move to Britain, the financial requirement can't or wouldn't be based on my income, but her's, which aside from our farm, is non-existent. In our case, the sale of our farm will allow her to technically "sponsor" me, but the whole thing is quite silly. Why should it matter if it's an American's income or the British sponsor's income that's considered? Like here in America, it'll be me who's working in Britain to sustain us.

Precisely part of my point, Kevin. It's very frustrating.

In my case, my partner is in the better earning position and already in the UK - however, she is self-employed, and owns a property that she rents out for income. While that puts us over the threshold, you are not allowed to combine income from self-employment and income from "other sources" like a rental property. She can use her rental property combined if she were a salaried employee somewhere, but not if she is self-employed. We could also meet the threshold if some of my money could be taken into consideration, but of course it can't. The ONLY reason we have finally managed to be in a position to go ahead and get married and plan my move to the UK is because of supportive family members who were willing to help dismantle a trust, and move some cash into savings. This trust was in my fiancee's name, through an inheritance, but not in "her sole control" (another requirement) - so instead of being able to simply use the trust as proof of financial solvency combined with the other income, we would have to have it available as cash.

We were advised by our lovely immigration solicitor that the most straightforward application is the best possible chance of being approved. The rules have become so complicated that even someone like her, whose entire occupation is just immigration law, has a hard time keeping up. Therefore, we decided the easiest route was to take the trust money along with any other savings, and put it into a cash savings account, in her name, and use this as our only evidence financially. We've got loads more evidence, but it's too complicated to be worth it. So we've had 62,500 sitting in a bank account since October, not accruing the same kind of interest it could in the trust (which would, of course, give us more money with which to support ourselves and the British economy!) simply waiting to be used for my spousal visa application after our marriage. Somehow, that's supposed to be the easiest and most straightforward way!

It's all absolutely mad. In general, it seems that immigration done legally, borders on the absurd, forcing many people, (at least in Mexico) to do so illegally. If any of our idiot politicians in America would realize this bizarre irony, they might do something constructive to remedy the situation. Instead, they make one looney decision after another. Apparently, the British government is struggling to come up with common sense solutions as well.