Alert: Rule Changes

£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.

Totally agreed. Another thing to keep in mind: on the whole (but not always), those getting married tend to be younger (20s-early 30s) and therefore less experienced, so may command a lower salary. They may be excluding even more of the marriageable crowd than the populace as a whole. Those statistics are made-up, though, so I could be totally wrong 

I do like the idea of some sort of clearly stated, objective minimum financial status. I think it must take into account the assets of both partners and have some sort of trade-off between savings and income.  I think the old system, income after tax and rent, works very well--it self-corrects for cost of living, whereas a solid minimum income can't possibly do so unless you have multiple "bands". 26k in London is not 26k in Southampton.

Totally agreed. Another thing to keep in mind: on the whole (but not always), those getting married tend to be younger (20s-early 30s) and therefore less experienced, so may command a lower salary. They may be excluding even more of the marriageable crowd than the populace as a whole. Those statistics are made-up, though, so I could be totally wrong 

I do like the idea of some sort of clearly stated, objective minimum financial status. I think it must take into account the assets of both partners and have some sort of trade-off between savings and income.  I think the old system, income after tax and rent, works very well--it self-corrects for cost of living, whereas a solid minimum income can't possibly do so unless you have multiple "bands". 26k in London is not 26k in Southampton.

And even more so the further north you go! A flat in the midlands might cost you £400 a month in rent, but you'd be paying at least £1000 a month for a simiar place in London. So it also discriminates geographically.

Our flat in Southampton is only £485 a month. We could definitely still live comfortably without relying on any benefits with my husband's income alone, and yet it looks like he wouldn't make enough!

where we live that would get you a two or perhaps three bedroom house.

Love pads x

Same here, our mortgage is fixed for term and way less than £400 per month on three bed semi.  Council tax is £70 per month.

To say we need £26,000 per year is sheer stupidity.  We could live a better life on half of that than someone earning £26,000 in London.

From the speech:

"This will produce a new system for family migration which is selective in choosing people who are ready and able to take a positive role in the life of their local community and society more widely."

There is just something about this sentence that smacks of disregard for the family.

Also from the speech:

"But we have seen in recent years a number of high-profile court cases in which people have been allowed to stay here by asserting rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of these rights, at least in the form they have been given expression through the case law,  are not recognised as such by the bulk of the population.  That  leads to the ridiculous and damaging situation where the whole concept of Human Rights is called into question. This is not healthy for anyone. It is also dangerous for there to be a long-term stand-off between Parliament and the judges, which is why we want to give better Parliamentary guidance on what should be considered in these kind of cases in future.

I do want to do what I can to avoid any obvious mismatch between immigration rules on the one hand, and the interpretation of human rights legislation on the other.   When we bring forward the new rules on Family migration which I referred to earlier, they will set out to Parliament the Government’s view on how the balance between individual rights and the public interest should be struck.  That means the Rules will reflect how the conditions we set for entry and the right to remain are in our view proportionate and therefore consistent with Article 8 entitlements.  This means the Rules will mean what they say and we, applicants and the public will be clear about who is entitled to be here, on what conditions and why."

As far as family immigration goes, I think this is where the interesting bit will lie.

This is absolutely awful, even if I was to work full time on minimum wage for 37 hours a week I would only earn about £8,000 in a single year.

Our flat in Southampton is only £485 a month. We could definitely still live comfortably without relying on any benefits with my husband's income alone, and yet it looks like he wouldn't make enough!

Our one bed in London is £1200 a month, we're looking for a new flat at the moment and we're looking at up to £500 a week 

If you take our current rent then add £140 for council tax, 2 x £120 a month on the tube and you're looking at needing £19K a year after tax to rent a house, pay council tax and get to work   That's without any household bills, food etc.

Our one bed in London is £1200 a month, we're looking for a new flat at the moment and we're looking at up to £500 a week 

If you take our current rent then add £140 for council tax, 2 x £120 a month on the tube and you're looking at needing £19K a year after tax to rent a house, pay council tax and get to work   That's without any household bills, food etc.

Wow 

It's utterly insane for anyone to try to compare your situation to Diana_'s, Shandy's, or pads's.

But you know, I think they understand that. The real reason for this isn't to streamline anything, and it's certainly not, as their rhetorical window-dressing seems to imply, for the good of the immigrant. It's pandering to the BNP types so they can say "Look, we reduced all those scary migrants!"

At least, that's how it feels from this side of the pond.

Also from the speech:

"But we have seen in recent years a number of high-profile court cases in which people have been allowed to stay here by asserting rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of these rights, at least in the form they have been given expression through the case law,  are not recognised as such by the bulk of the population.  That  leads to the ridiculous and damaging situation where the whole concept of Human Rights is called into question. This is not healthy for anyone. It is also dangerous for there to be a long-term stand-off between Parliament and the judges, which is why we want to give better Parliamentary guidance on what should be considered in these kind of cases in future.

I do want to do what I can to avoid any obvious mismatch between immigration rules on the one hand, and the interpretation of human rights legislation on the other.   When we bring forward the new rules on Family migration which I referred to earlier, they will set out to Parliament the Government’s view on how the balance between individual rights and the public interest should be struck.  That means the Rules will reflect how the conditions we set for entry and the right to remain are in our view proportionate and therefore consistent with Article 8 entitlements.  This means the Rules will mean what they say and we, applicants and the public will be clear about who is entitled to be here, on what conditions and why."

As far as family immigration goes, I think this is where the interesting bit will lie.

Will it really change the judges' decisions, though? The law is the law, and the HO is ALWAYS arguing that its measures are proportional ... and then being overturned.

I agree with Cheese biscuit you can't compare London prices to anywhere else.  For example even 25,000 pounds gross won't get you very far in london with rent and transport you could perhaps just get by.

But up here that is an absolute fortune a lot of graduates don't make that or doctors or nurses.

Love pads x

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

Hopefully for the better I'll be fully capable and plan on working once I get my visa for the UK. it's just getting in that I'm worried about.

Question: do the rule changes need parliamentary approval? I thought they could be approved instantly but then there was something in the speech about the changes being 'brought before parliament'. If this is the case, could they possibly be approved by April? (Or am I getting confused with the American system where it literally takes an act of Congress, ie. forever, to get something approved. This British system seems scarily efficient in comparison...)

The changes will (probably) be implemented via secondary legislation. The government will use a Statuory Instrument to bring in the changes into effect. This requires that the government tell Parliament what they are going to do, but there is little room or time for objection. The changes don't require a formal debate and vote to pass into law like primary legislation (e.g. a new Act) would. In theory either House may annul an Instrument, but this virtually never happens.

Changes to the Immigration Rules have generally been going into effect 21 days after they are laid before Parliament (the minimum statutory time).