Theresa May wants minimum income of £25,700; £49,000 if you have 2 kids

May take effect this June

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9165090/Ministers-plan-major-immigration-crackdown.html

The letter from Mrs May to Nick Clegg, which has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, proposes a tough new minimum income of £25,700 a year for anyone seeking to bring a spouse, partner or dependant to the UK from outside the European Union from June - almost double the current threshold of £13,700.

The minimum income would rise dramatically - up to £62,600 - if children are also brought in.



This is absolutely ridiculous and the income is way too high for practically everyone wanting to bring children to the UK

Hmmmm... doesn't seem that different from the consultation docs, except it looks like they are going for the top amount as far as support goes.

Would be nice to know what is going to happen one way or the other though.

If agreed upon and implemented a lot of people on here aren't going to be able to go over there based on the high income requirement. There are people on here going over there whose spouses/fiances are on disability benefits that won't stand a chance. While a part of me thinks the rule is unfair another part of me thinks that you should have a decent amount of money to bring somebody over. I'm wondering how long it's going to take to pass or not pass it since there is opposition to it.

It's grossly unfair, and this coming from the same person who didn't enforce passport checks.

I for one will not be able to come over unless I apply within the next two months. It's a narrow window of opportunity. I don't want to be stranded in the USA.

This ruling should make British citizens think twice about marrying a foreign spouse because someday they might want to bring their spouse and any kids to the UK and unless your making 50 grand a year that's not going to happen.

If agreed upon and implemented a lot of people on here aren't going to be able to go over there based on the high income requirement. There are people on here going over there whose spouses/fiances are on disability benefits that won't stand a chance. While a part of me thinks the rule is unfair another part of me thinks that you should have a decent amount of money to bring somebody over. I'm wondering how long it's going to take to pass or not pass it since there is opposition to it.

I wonder how well it would hold up under EU human rights case.  It's all well and good to tell an applicant they can go to the country of their spouse, but in the case of a disabled person, that may not be possible.  They would loose any of their health benefits.  If they were to move to the states with a preexisting condition, they won't get coverage.  What are the chances of a disabled person earning the kind of money they are proposing?  Next to nil. 
I came over on a fiance visa in 08.  My husband was disabled and housebound.  I had $10,000in savings, thus meeting the maintenance requirements.  If I had to do it after these changes, I would not qualify. 

It's not just disabled people or people on benefits that this discriminates against.

Since his father's death, my husband runs his family's crofting business.  The house we live in has been paid off for years, no one here claims any benefits, and we work hard.  But we'll never make that kind of money, living out here.  Nor will most other people living in rural areas, or virtually anywhere outside the southeast/London area. 

And when you start looking at other groups who statistically earn lower incomes (i.e. women and minorities), it becomes very clear that the only people the government believes should have the right to marry whom they please are white, middle-class, males from the home counties.  As usual, they care nothing for anyone who falls outside that category.

Would be nice to know what is going to happen one way or the other though.

And when. Fortunately my application is filled out, barring one or two small things, and I'm applying tomorrow while we still have some savings. Even though my job is going to continue when we move, it's still not enough to meet that income requirement, especially since we have a baby.

That is absolutely DISGRACEFUL! I am already here, but it makes me feel horrible for everyone who hasn't gone through the process yet. We would just barely squeak by the minimum for the two of us...but with my daughter??? NO WAY!

I wonder how well it would hold up under EU human rights case.  It's all well and good to tell an applicant they can go to the country of their spouse, but in the case of a disabled person, that may not be possible.  They would loose any of their health benefits.  If they were to move to the states with a preexisting condition, they won't get coverage.  What are the chances of a disabled person earning the kind of money they are proposing?  Next to nil. 
I came over on a fiance visa in 08.  My husband was disabled and housebound.  I had $10,000in savings, thus meeting the maintenance requirements.  If I had to do it after these changes, I would not qualify. 

I have a feeling it's all going to be caught up in the coutrts for a long time until anything is actually implemented. There are going to be challenges to it the moment it's made into law.

On another note I have read elsewhere that these new rules may be implemented retroactively. Meaning that people who are on the track for IRL will have to prove the new higher income also. If so that would bump a whole lot of people out.

I'm also pretty concerned what it would do to same-sex couples. I know a few UK/US same sex marriages that simply would not be able to locate back to the US!

Ho hum. Hoping I squeak in with my ILR before the end of May, but very concerned about everyone else. And reckon a lot of people will just go and get married, not realising about the new rules.

And when you start looking at other groups who statistically earn lower incomes (i.e. women and minorities), it becomes very clear that the only people the government believes should have the right to marry whom they please are white, middle-class, males from the home counties.  As usual, they care nothing for anyone who falls outside that category.

Honestly, my BF is a white male who lives in the home counties and is unlikely to make £25k anytime soon, unless he commutes into London. The £18k threshold is more doable, although he current makes less.

On another note I have read elsewhere that these new rules may be implemented retroactively. Meaning that people who are on the track for IRL will have to prove the new higher income also. If so that would bump a whole lot of people out.

Where have you read that?

The boards general understanding around the family consultation is that it will be applied to those not already on the family track. If they apply it retroactively, that will mean quite a few section 8 cases in the courts on their hands.

Where have you read that?

The boards general understanding around the family consultation is that it will be applied to those not already on the family track. If they apply it retroactively, that will mean quite a few section 8 cases in the courts on their hands.

I've been all over the web this morning so I don't remember exactly where. I won't believe it's going to happen unless I hear it from a government official.

Folks, one thing we've all got to remember is that this policy is intended to be exclusionary.  This government's goal, which it has clearly stated from the beginning, is to severely reduce net migration.  The only way that can be done is if many, many people are told that they cannot immigrate.  We've already seen the impact of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 restrictions, and now it's the family path's turn.  Yes it's unfair.  It's meant to be.  £26,000 is the proposed number precisely because it would exclude half the population.  Now, whether such a policy can be implemented without falling afoul of Article 8 remains to be seen, but shouting about how unfair it is is not a good strategy for opposition.  UKY and other immigrant groups have been instrumental in the past in effecting changes to bad immigration policy.  Once the real proposals are made, we can think about how to counter them.  For now, I'd suggest everyone step back and take a deep breath.  It looks like nothing will happen until June at the earliest, so no need to panic just yet.  Any necessary bridges will be crossed in due course, not before

On another note I have read elsewhere that these new rules may be implemented retroactively. Meaning that people who are on the track for IRL will have to prove the new higher income also. If so that would bump a whole lot of people out.

Well that's a pretty damn scary thought! Although I think they would have a hard time implementing that for people that are already here. Or there would be an awful lot of us in the courts.