Alert: Rule Changes

But net-net, the message seems to be don't marry somebody on benefits unless you can prove you are the best and brightest, or thick with the mean green.

I am so confused by all of this. Are these changes aimed at people that are not yet in the country on spouse visas? Are they aimed at people already here on spouse visas but that don't yet have ILR? Are they aimed at both?

 

This turned out to be a big non-event.  

Long and short, DG delivered a speech.  Nothing at all was nailed down, the most important for this particular forum was the outcome of the family consultation.  He gave a few indications, but nothing solid.  A few people asked questions after the speech which gave a stronger indication of what's expected and I can put some of the answers in the advocacy area if there's strong interest.  

But net-net, the message seems to be don't marry somebody on benefits unless you can prove you are the best and brightest, or thick with the mean green.

yeaaaah they better not pass this law because its discrimination!!!!!! that in itself is against the law, hell i cant help it i have a learning disability!!! jesus!


btw is there anyway we can contact them about this information?

I am so confused by all of this. Are these changes aimed at people that are not yet in the country on spouse visas? Are they aimed at people already here on spouse visas but that don't yet have ILR? Are they aimed at both?

[/quote

i too mimibeth dont understand this,sorry all just got out of hospital after 3rd heart attack the weekend,are the changes affecting those in country?....only wife is due for her ILR in 9 weeks time?

It should be different if it's disability

There is already a brief circulating in the legal community which embraces your position.  Exactly what you expressed.  So this has not gone unnoticed.

This turned out to be a big non-event.  

Long and short, DG delivered a speech.  Nothing at all was nailed down, the most important for this particular forum was the outcome of the family consultation.  He gave a few indications, but nothing solid.  A few people asked questions after the speech which gave a stronger indication of what's expected and I can put some of the answers in the advocacy area if there's strong interest. 
But net-net, the message seems to be don't marry somebody on benefits unless you can prove you are the best and brightest, or thick with the mean green.

I'd be very grateful if you could post something about that if you get the time.

There is already a brief circulating in the legal community which embraces your position.  Exactly what you expressed.  So this has not gone unnoticed.

good!!

But net-net, the message seems to be don't marry somebody on benefits unless you can prove you are the best and brightest, or thick with the mean green.

Hasn't this always been the case in sense though? If your UK partner is on benefits you need to have more savings or earning potential. 

I suppose the main worry is how much they are going to set things at.  If they make things reasonable and clear then I think even people here will be happy. 

Right now it just seems so unclear, but if they make it you need 18,000 to bring someone over and you can make that between a job and savings and a sponsor then surely it will mean less guessing about what they really want to see. 

And then less people being turned away because they don't meet some random officials idea of who can or cannot meet the requirements.

so are these changes affecting in country??.....for ILR

This turned out to be a big non-event.  

Long and short, DG delivered a speech.  Nothing at all was nailed down, the most important for this particular forum was the outcome of the family consultation.  He gave a few indications, but nothing solid.  A few people asked questions after the speech which gave a stronger indication of what's expected and I can put some of the answers in the advocacy area if there's strong interest.  

But net-net, the message seems to be don't marry somebody on benefits unless you can prove you are the best and brightest, or thick with the mean green.

Transpondia, thank you for the update. I must confess I was panicking at the outcome. I will soon be applying for my wife's settlement visa and wasn't sure whether to do it now, before whatever deadline is passed, or just wait and see what happens.

Hasn't this always been the case in sense though? If your UK partner is on benefits you need to have more savings or earning potential.

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. I for one would hate to be on benefits, but it is a safety net for those who need it. At some point, most people would like to come off benefits. For many, especially families with children, it's not possible, especially with the abundance of low paying jobs out there.

I think the speech was exact enough to know what they plan on doing with ILR or citizenship or anything really.  

Still do we think anything will change, other than prices, for April for ILR?  That would be really short notice.  

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. I for one would hate to be on benefits, but it is a safety net for those who need it. At some point, most people would like to come off benefits. For many, especially families with children, it's not possible, especially with the abundance of low paying jobs out there. Being on benefits is not a crime unless people are perfectly happy sitting home all day watching TV.

Where did you get that?

Right now, under the current system, I think people on benefits are treated pretty shabbily because there is no real fixed amount.  Just this nebulous amount of "being able to support yourselves" and you have to guess at what exactly they want.

Yes, the general figure we put here is the 105.whatever per week after council tax and rent, but if there were an exact figure and one that isn't too high then it is something that people can actually see and make a goal for. 

Right now, if the person who reviews your app thinks you can't do it they deny you.  Then it needs to go to a review and whatnot.

If they had a set amount then there would be no debate.

I agree, bookgrl.  The objection to an income threshold should be the level it's set at, if that is unreasonably high, not the fact that it's set.  Most other countries, including the US, have an income requirement for immigration.  As long as they take savings (sponsor's and applicant's) and third party support into account, I've got no problem with it. 

Totally.

I don't think it should be high, but I think everyone deserves to know what the expectation is. 

£18k doesn't sound unreasonable to me, if they're including both parties' savings and third-party support, and making allowances for disability benefits.

£26k - the average wage - is however totally unreasonable and unjustified.