Alert: Rule Changes

... And remember - the consultation document is nearly a year old, and a lot has changed since then...

...All those families with 2 or 3 kids who can't meet the new (very high) income threshold, and at such short notice? The courts would be rammed within weeks of the changes coming in!

The Tier changes, and the recent restrictions on family visit visa refusal appeals-yup, saw that. I was encouraged too by the way the announcements are leap-frogging the marriage and partners section, that has me thinking maybe someone somewhere took a second and third look.

And too, every time I look back through the consultation I remind myself to stay calm, it's a year old and not a lot of it has been implemented. I really like the idea of believing we'll 'grandfather' in, but I am keeping a wary eye. I get up in the morning and make the rounds of news and info sites to see if anything has slipped in overnight.

I do think there were be a great number of challenges, those staggering maintenance amounts almost guarantee challenges.

All we can do is watch and wait, make what pro-active changes we can to cope with any changes, and above all, stay calm.

MWill, respectfully, I think you place too much faith in "the courts." Court challenges take years to have any effect--like with the 21-age rule--and by the time anything changes, hundreds of people have already fallen foul of the rule.  There have been two cases in the past few years of the government trying to implement immigration changes with no transitional arrangements.  The first was HSMP to Tier 1 and the second was the 2008 BCI bill. Both of those times it was political pressure from activist groups and individuals that resulted in transitional arrangements being put in place, not court challenges.  Let's just say that they do apply any new requirements to people who already have spousal visas.  Most will do whatever they can to meet the requirements and avoid hassle.  Those who can't meet them may challenge, but if a challenge is lodged in 2012, it may not be until 2014 or 2015 until anything changes, and by then no one will be left for whom the new rules don't legitimately apply.  Going to court is expensive, stressful, and time consuming, the majority of people just don't bother.  It's direct political action that makes the most difference in these cases. 

MWill, respectfully, I think you place too much faith in "the courts." Court challenges take years to have any effect--like with the 21-age rule--and by the time anything changes, hundreds of people have already fallen foul of the rule.  There have been two cases in the past few years of the government trying to implement immigration changes with no transitional arrangements.  The first was HSMP to Tier 1 and the second was the 2008 BCI bill. Both of those times it was political pressure from activist groups and individuals that resulted in transitional arrangements being put in place, not court challenges.  Let's just say that they do apply any new requirements to people who already have spousal visas.  Most will do whatever they can to meet the requirements and avoid hassle.  Those who can't meet them may challenge, but if a challenge is lodged in 2012, it may not be until 2014 or 2015 until anything changes, and by then no one will be left for whom the new rules don't legitimately apply.  Going to court is expensive, stressful, and time consuming, the majority of people just don't bother.  It's direct political action that makes the most difference in these cases. 

Some people would have no choice but to go to court though, I know won't.  If they implement these new rules to people already here (like me) then we'll fail our ILR application and they'll be seperating a family who are already proving they doing ok on the money they have whiich surely must be against human rights?

If a hook handed terrorist can appeal deportation, surely I'll have some chance to a right to a family life?

I think the argument will be what it always is.  You can have a family life in another country, while the hook handed terrorist faces torture. 

It sucks, but that is their opinion.

I'm not saying people won't go to court, nor am I saying court challenges aren't worthwhile.  I'm saying that they take a long time and meanwhile people will be affected by the changes.  My position is that if there are no transitional arrangements then the way to deal with it is by direct political action, not court challenges.  MWill's contention is that the government will include transitional arrangements because they'll be afraid of their policies being struck down in court.  I disagree.  The main goal for the Tories is to show how tough on immigration they are.  If their tough measures are struck down three years from now that goal will still have been achieved.  If there are transitional arrangements (and FWIW, I think there will be) then it will be down to the history of strong and organised campaigns for them, not due to any worry about future court challenges. 

I think the argument will be what it always is.  You can have a family life in another country, while the hook handed terrorist faces torture. 

It sucks, but that is their opinion.

What if you have no home/job in another country as you've spent the last x amount of years living/working here?  Do they really split up families?  From watching Border Force UK, they even allow illegals to stay if they've got a family?

This may mean nothing, but supposedly the consultation took into account how things work in other countries.

In the US, there is no "transitional arrangement" for the different steps from fiance to spouse to permanent resident.  Each application for each step stands on the merits of the law as of the date the case was postmarked.

Now - that being said - with a family case, income only comes into account one time, and that is for the step to permanent resident once the alien is in country and married to a US citizen.  (Fiance visas have an income requirement also but it's not a binding contract and each American consulate handles proof of the requirement differently - so I leave it out of "hard and fast" rules).  If the alien were a conditional permanent resident (married less than two years when they filed to become resident) they must file to have the conditions of their residency lifted (similar to getting ILR if I understand things).  At that step, no income qualifications are necessary.  There are no income qualifications for citizenship either.

So in other words, once a family life is established in the US, the families income is no longer taken into the equation.

@Rebbecajo-I wonder if part of the comparative simplicity of the US process is because the benefits system is a lot less generous in the US than it is in the UK?

FWIW you are about the third person lately I've heard say the UK>US visa path is a lot simpler to navigate than the US>UK path.

It depends what you mean by "simple.". The US system has very clear cut requirements for the application:  you either pass them or you don't, whereas the UK is a lot more wooly which allows more discretion but also a higher risk of surprise refusals.

On the other hand, with priority you can get a UK fiancé visa approved in less than a week, whereas a K-1 application will involve tons more paperwork and take 6 months to be processed - possibly years if it's complex and a waiver needs to be obtained.

I agree with the above. We've done immigration both ways...actually to the UK twice. It was FAR easier to know EXACTLY what was required by USCIS for Glyn to go to the States. It also took 6+ months for his CR1 visa. I found the UKBA much less straightforward. There were times I sat going through their website getting all turned around. Definitely not user friendly.

 I'm here in the UK now on my spousal visa and I am trying not to worry about any changes that may take place before I apply for ILR. I could apply at any time as I have KOL Req stamped on my visa but I still need to study for the test and come up with the fee. I figure I did enough worrying getting to where I am now, and worrying about something I can't change does me no good.

I'm not saying people won't go to court, nor am I saying court challenges aren't worthwhile.  I'm saying that they take a long time and meanwhile people will be affected by the changes.  My position is that if there are no transitional arrangements then the way to deal with it is by direct political action, not court challenges.  MWill's contention is that the government will include transitional arrangements because they'll be afraid of their policies being struck down in court.  I disagree.  The main goal for the Tories is to show how tough on immigration they are.  If their tough measures are struck down three years from now that goal will still have been achieved.  If there are transitional arrangements (and FWIW, I think there will be) then it will be down to the history of strong and organised campaigns for them, not due to any worry about future court challenges. 

OK, that's fair enough. I take your point, and I am incredibly grateful to those who have argued so well for transitional arrangements in the past. It seems to have had a lasting effect, if the Tier 2 changes are anything to go by.

As for UK vs US systems, my understanding is that, assuming there are no complications like criminal records, the US system is more straightforward than the UK one (especially when coming from the UK), but that initial application takes much longer - up to 9 months.

When it comes to challenges, I think courts generally accept the HO argument that "they could just live in the other country together" when it comes to entry clearance, but for couples/families already in the UK they have generally decided that it's disproportionate to interfere with that family life just because they're on a low income.

What if you have no home/job in another country as you've spent the last x amount of years living/working here?  Do they really split up families?  From watching Border Force UK, they even allow illegals to stay if they've got a family?

I'm not saying it is just, I'm just saying what they say.  There is nothing to stop you from going to the other country. 

As for UK Border Force, I wouldn't put much stock into a tv show.  There could be plenty of other issues behind the scenes that they don't discuss on the show.

I get up every morning and put a kettle on. During the wait for the boil, I boot up the laptop.

During the wait for the laptop to boot up and the wi-fi to kick in, I go back to the kitchen and make a pot of tea.

Back to the bedroom, online to check:

UKBA news page
Home Office immigration new pages
The Telegraph immigration news page
Email-and I'm looking for alerts from my friends in different time zones re: anything new they may have heard, and emails from friends who have contacted their MP and/or an action group.

Back to the kitchen for the first of four mugs of tea.

Back to the laptop, and trawling the 'Net for immigration news.

Back to the kitchen...

Back to the laptop...

And when that fourth cuppa is down and done, I shut off the computer and get moving in real life.

I joked to a friend in NZ last night that one morning we will wake to find an announcement has been made. Of course, we will. Until then, I'm just trying to get through the morning (ok, and afternoon) sensibly checking and then getting about my day.

It does help to have a place to discuss it all, though. Even if it is speculation, it helps. I may have mentioned that my husband came out of retirement to make sure we he made enough money to satisfy even the most absurd extreme staggering rise to the income requirements.

And from my afternoon trawling I see that a certain person has a lot of other fires burning a lot close to her hem-I'm hoping she's going to be too busy putting out all those.

And from my afternoon trawling I see that a certain person has a lot of other fires burning a lot close to her hem-I'm hoping she's going to be too busy putting out all those.

I said just about the same thing to DH tonight while eating tea and listening to the news on the radio.

All this talk of 'possible changes' is driving me bonkers!!  We started planning on moving to the UK about 3.5 months ago.  Hubby and children are all dual citizens (US/UK) however I am only a lowly US citizen.  Now we are feverishly trying to get all the documents required to apply for a spousal visa immediately (we are waiting for the postal service to deliver the accommodation letters from SIL..she is pissed that while she was told 3 day mail it has been just over a week and the USPS told us that 3 days was not happening from the UK and more likely 2 weeks!). 

I assume if I apply before any changes take affect that I will fall under the old requirements correct?  Do I need to have my biometrics done before the changes or just apply online?  Or is this all stuff that 'no one knows'?  We would definitely not fill the requirements if they upped the financial guidelines to those high numbers as we have 5 children.

Hurry up mail and calm to UK politicians!  Not all immigrants are looking for a handout from the UK government.