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

I also read something that made me think this would apply to people on two-year visas but can't find it now (if the government wants to show a measurable dent in permanent settlement before the next election they'd almost have to). Do wonder if the time to write to your MPs, etc. about this is now though, not after an announcement is made and the change is more or less a done deal. Maybe it's one of those intentional leaks designed to measure public reaction (which sadly seems pretty strong overall)?

However, a government impact assessment reveals the change will cut the number of NHS nurses by "hundreds or low thousands" and cost the economy up to £433m over the next 10 years as economically active people leave, a figure disputed by the UK Border Agency. The impact assessment says: "We estimate 48% of migrant nurses, 37% of primary school teachers, 35% of IT/software professionals and 9% of secondary teachers would be excluded."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/25/migrant-nurses-nhs

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.

Would be interesting to know where that came from. Everything we've had recently - including letters from the Immigration Minister - says that the new rules won't apply to those already here.

The government are between a rock and a hard place, and can no longer get away with ignoring the public demand to do something.  Whilst  I sympathise with those affected, is the government actually doing anything different from what most other western countries and even developing countries do,  has anybody tried to get a work permit to work in India.  There are many reasons for stopping or reducing immigration including serious health issues, but more importantly at what population level do people think is acceptable.  80 million, 100 million, 200 million? 

The tradition of continuing to allow 1st cousin marriage immigration from the sub-continent, stops integration in it's tracks, it sustains the non- english speaking, often illiterate, welfare dependant, segregated society  that many communities prefer to live in.  It is  also  creating a demographic time bomb for the NHS, as the families of 1st cousin marriages are creating large numbers of children with  genetically disabling conditions  requiring lifelong dependency.

Theresa May is doing this because she is being forced to,  and those wanting to come to this country from wherever, are going to find it increasingly difficult to do so. Even in the event Labour get back in nothing will change, they lost a lot of votes by allowing unlimited immigration, I have no doubt their  rhetoric and promises as the election approaches will be even more strident than the Conservatives.

The tradition of continuing to allow 1st cousin marriage immigration from the sub-continent, stops integration in it's tracks, it sustains the non- english speaking, often illiterate, welfare dependant, segregated society  that many communities prefer to live in.  It is  also  creating a demographic time bomb for the NHS, as the families of 1st cousin marriages are creating large numbers of children with  genetically disabling conditions  requiring lifelong dependency.

Hm. Lifelong welfare-dependent immigrants with genetically-disabling conditions, who marry 1st cousins and live in segregated society? Sounds like the royal family to me.

 

Very true a few generations ago!!

It is  also  creating a demographic time bomb for the NHS, as the families of 1st cousin marriages are creating large numbers of children with  genetically disabling conditions  requiring lifelong dependency.

This is not true. There are a handful of drastic genetic abnormalities from first cousin marriages, but they are relatively rare. First cousin marriage does also raise risk for conditions such as hypercholesterolemia and a very rare colon cancer, but these are not conditions that "require lifelong dependency" by any means.

I trained as a genetic epidemiologist and specifically studied relatedness and incidence of diseases in first-cousin offspring in Asian communities in Bradford, so I do know what I'm talking about. (My personal opinion based on studying these communities is that vitamin D deficiency in heavily-covered, darker skinned women migrating to a not-sunny country is far more of a public health concern. Also fat content of the traditional diet when translated to Western relative wealth and abundance. Neither of which has anything to do with marrying your cousin.)

Added to which we are on a board populated by a lot of Americans, and cousin marriage is legal in many places in the US and not exactly rare either.

Just sayin'.

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.

So they'll be able to tear apart our settled family unit?  Surely that's against all sorts of human rights.

I suppose it depends on whose research you use.  At one end it is suggested there  is  13 times the risk, and the best case scenario suggests double the risk of the general population, akin to the  Downs Syndrome risk in older mothers. Not sure if the lower figure takes into account the 3,4 sometimes 5 children common in these marriages, compared to 1 or 2 in the general population. . Anti-natal and post natal mortality upto 10 years old in world wide studies are indicated to be 3.5% higher than the general population.

Long term studies in the Meditteranean suggest that it is also instrumental in a range of conditions creating lifelong dependency. "Long-term studies conducted on the Dalmatian islands in the Adriatic Sea have indicated a positive association between inbreeding and a very wide range of common adulthood disorders, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, uni/bipolar depression, asthma, gout, peptic ulcer, and osteoporosis (80–82). . "  

http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/Content.asp?ContentId=741

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.1/1779.full

I was under the impression in the USA, first cousin marriages of any type are allowed in some states, they are allowed in others if the partners are past childbearing age, and some states ban them  altogether.

My original point was really about the prevalence of this cultural trait in stopping integration of these  communities, something which is probably as important, is that it  prevents the emancipation of women within these communtities from gaining equality in the society they live in.

Theresa May is doing this because she is being forced to...

Ehhh, I'm inclined to believe there's very little force involved. Rather, she's probably quite enjoying it.    

Anyway, none of this is surprising in the least, unfortunately. We all knew it was coming, now it's just a matter of watching and waiting, and in the meantime getting those letter-writing muscles into shape.

So they'll be able to tear apart our settled family unit?  Surely that's against all sorts of human rights.

It is. The courts have determined several times that splitting up a settled family due to a low income is disproportionate. That's probably why the HO hardly ever refuse FLR/ILR based on maintenance. If they try to introduce this retroactively, they're heading for a massive slapdown from the courts, at taxpayers' expense ... which is why they probably won't.

My guess is this - entry clearance and ILR will use the threshold, but FLR(M) won't. This will avoid embarrassing legal challenges, but would mean people earning below the threshold wouldn't get ILR, and the access to benefits that come with it. Also, I'd expect nothing will change for those already here. That's a guess, but it seems the only workable option.

It is. The courts have determined several times that splitting up a settled family due to a low income is disproportionate. That's probably why the HO hardly ever refuse FLR/ILR based on maintenance. If they try to introduce this retroactively, they're heading for a massive slapdown from the courts, at taxpayers' expense ... which is why they probably won't.

My guess is this - entry clearance and ILR will use the threshold, but FLR(M) won't. This will avoid embarrassing legal challenges, but would mean people earning below the threshold wouldn't get ILR, and the access to benefits that come with it. Also, I'd expect nothing will change for those already here. That's a guess, but it seems the only workable option.

Using your/guess logic "poor" spouses will have to keep applying for extensions at great cost forever?  Or have I misunderstood.

This is not true. There are a handful of drastic genetic abnormalities from first cousin marriages, but they are relatively rare. First cousin marriage does also raise risk for conditions such as hypercholesterolemia and a very rare colon cancer, but these are not conditions that "require lifelong dependency" by any means.

I don't think it's as clear as it seems. I have a colleague on my team whose family is originally from Pakistan. Although she bucked tradition herself and did not marry a first cousin, all 4 of her brothers did. One brother has a severely disabled child and the other brother has a deaf child with possible learning disabilities. This is just from one extended family and most of the children are still quite young. My colleague herself will tell you that it is known in her community that first cousin marriages can cause problems, but people cling to the old ways.

Brooke Magnati (aka Belle du Jour, who is actually an American married to a Brit) has a column in the Guardian today that nicely represents the problems with these proposals. It struck me as a good thing to post to Facebook, Twitter, etc for those of you who might want to raise awareness of the issue among UKC friends and family.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/26/theresa-may-migrants-immigration

I think one first cousin marriage probably isn't an issue. 

The issues probably come in when you have generations of first cousins marrying first cousins.

I am sure in the US the occasional first cousins get married, but others marry outside the family.

I'm not sure how it works with families from Pakistan, but from what I have read they tend to keep things more in the family over generations. Plus, you have the issue of having really tribal areas where people never move into an area, so even if you don't marry in the family you are probably marrying someone who is related to you somehow.