International Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Foreign wives face migration curb - you have got to be kidding me. : (
DH just emailed this too me. I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor. I think this is ridiculous considering we're not even entitled to benefits. What do you think?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/foreign-wives-face-migration-curb-6262971.html
Re: Foreign wives face migration curb - you have got to be kidding me. : (
Come over get a cat, you should be good to go.
6% from the US very interesting.
Bio
Truthfully I am not surprised. For DH's immigration to the US we has to show that we made 125% over the poverty line. Because our income was outside of the US and I wasn't living in the US and working we had to have my parent's be our financial support. We were lucky because there our couples who don't have the family support.
Because of his immigration staus he's not able to receive most government benefits.
2012 Reading Challenge
Now Nesting from Chicago, IL My nail blog:
Is it really unreasonable to ask that somebody earns over ?18k a year to bring someone in to the country? Personally, I say no.
And, as OP said, "we're not even entitled to benefits". People who aren't entitled to benefits have had babies in the UK before. I would consider that a benefit, whether they "should" get that or not. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, not knocking those people.
I guess I fail to see the outrage within the article. Feel free to school me.
I'm sort of on the same page as Rita and Alli. We had to prove we were solvent so DH could immigrate to the US, why shouldn't we have to prove the same if we move to the UK?
I'm partially inclined to be outraged by stuff like this, my initial reaction was, "they'll let a dude with a British cat stay, but spouses can't???" but I also think it's unreasonable to show up and be like, "I'm here! Look after me!"
Yeah, I have to agree with this and wise_rita. The US requires a minimum amount of money to sponsor someone for a Green card/visa, so this is not that crazy.
And actually I am confused about the benefits thing. Like pp said, you have the benefit of the NHS, which is a huge one. What benefits don't you qualify for that you think you should?
I guess for me it's about the right to choose your life partner and be able to live with them without arbitrary $ (or pound or euro) amounts being put in your way. I would feel less outraged if they made it more flexible, like that you had to prove you lived in such a way that your income would support your spouse (what if someone is making below the level listed but is in a shared apartment and the spouse is ok with that?).
I'm not saying it to be all "but how can you stand in the way of true luuuuuuuv??" but in an "the EU member states passed Council Directive 2003/86/EC on family reunification which obligates them to allow family reunification other than in cases in which public order, internal security, or public health are at risk" kind of way. And I don't know if it really counts as endangering the public order, although I bet that's how they'll argue if it ever goes to the ECHR.
Here's a summary of the directive, by the way:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33118_en.htm
I feel like a lot of info is being left out in the article. For instance, is the immigrating spouse's earning potential taken into consideration?
I wonder too if there are things the government could do rather than deny folks a visa, such as ask the citizen to relinquish benefits for a period of time. But then you get into the whole discrimination issue yet again...
Would they count his income as part of the equation if you were applying for those things?
ETA: we used my parents' income to qualify for his GC since we didn't have jobs...although I got one shortly after we applied.
FWIW I actually agree that it's reasonable to have a good job to bring a spouse here.
What I don't get is the part where it said it might effect people who are unemployed. Well, yeah b/c they don't earn ?27,000. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Bio
Oh I know, I think I phrased this wrong. My point was you get a HUGE benefit in the NHS. I have no problem not going the dole. You shouldn't be able to just move to another country and immediately start getting money from the government without paying in at all.
On the surface, I don't think it's that big of a deal. You need to prove that if you're bringing someone into the country, that you can support them, and that you won't require government assistance if you now need to support a two-person household instead of one.
But there are too many questions left unanswered here. How many people actually go on the dole as a direct result of bringing in a foreign spouse. And how many spouses come over and contribute to the household income?
I don't know how it works in the UK, but if you are already unemployed (or receiving gov't assistance, be it housing allowance or whatever), aren't you already on the dole?
I don't think you should be allowed to be on the dole AND bring your spouse over. If you can't support yourself, you can't support a family.
I agree with Rita as long as there are some exceptions. In Norway, the supporting/sponsoring person must make 232000NOK a year (40000USD) and not have received social support in the last 12 months. There are exceptions for refugees, victims, children and students.
I was initially denied a permit based on the income requirement because my husband hadn't been a student long enough which I thought was rather silly. The decision was reversed on appeal.
I'm not sure I understand the problem either. We had to prove we could support ourselves to get into the UK and until we had permenant residency, it says 'no access to public funds' on our passports. So we couldn't claim the dole or whatever other benefits were out there (we would get NHS coverage and maternity benefits since that's something you pay into at work).
BFP Apr 2012, EDD Dec 19 2012 * twin h/b at 6wk, 9wk scan * Baby A lost at 12wks, Baby B was my rainbow born at 36wks
Absolutely, exceptions are necessary. For example, my DBF (who Norway recognizes as a legitimate recognized family member to me, even though we're not married) didn't make a lot of money in 2010 because he was a student for half of it. However, he now has a well paying job.
To me, now is more important than a previous tax year. If he had made a million kroner in 2010 but makes nothing today....which is more important?
To the Norwegian immigration officials it's the past, not the present.
Agreed. However, I also agree that there should be exceptions. The refugee one mentioned above is a good example. I'm a journalist, so maybe I'm being petty here, but I think it was a bad article. It raised more questions than it answered.
I agree with Kelly and think what this really boils down to is trying to save money without loosing votes.
What if you're an apprentice or still in school? I mean in the first year of an apprenticeship, you can earn as little as ?2.60 an hour. What if you're working full time, earning a low wage, but live in a very low cost of living area? Does this mean you should not be able to bring your partner over?
I watched a program a few weeks ago on the benefit system and there was a family from somewhere in the EU living in council housing in one of the most expensive areas of London and this single family, with no ties to the UK, were costing the council something like ?3,000 a month in rent. That is madness.
And I really don't think the excuse that just because you had to do x and earn y to enter the US with your spouse is relevant.
I also find the title annoying . . . foreign wives? Why not partners?
None of us were saying that just because you have to x and earn y to enter the US that it makes this relevant, but rather it just was showing that this is not this huge outlandish decision that only the UK is making. It happens in many countries.
Of course you are free to fall in love with whomever you want, from whatever country, but should the fact that you are in love mean you should be granted free entry to live in another country just because you are in love? To get other visas to live in the UK you have to prove certain financial requirements, so I just don't see the big hoopla in doing the same for spouses.
I would hope they would do some of it like the US, with perhaps doing it based on the poverty level, or letting someone else help sponsor the spouse. But overall the general idea stays the same. Only time will tell since they are constantly changing.
Was the article poorly written in terms of explaining everything? Sure. Is the use of wives instead of partners and spouses annoying? Definitely. Are there still some unanswered questions? Yes. But overall this isn't so out there.
Well the benefits they refer to must be the US because it was stamped right in my passport "No acess to public funds" and we had to clarify whether or not that included the NHS. I thought it did and that my access started when I began working and was paying taxes, maybe I remember that incorrectly.
Either way, if you have the child of a UK citizen then at the very least your hospital bills to have the child should be covered. In my opinion. If they provide it to every other UK citizen it should be provided to children who will be UK citizens at birth, whether one or both of their parents are currently UK citizens seems irrelevant to me.
I don't 100% disagree with an income threshold, though. This is really just talking about raising it, though. There is already an income threshold in the UK I thought. It's just quite a bit lower now than it should be in, according to this article anyway. I can understand the frustration but I don't think 18K GBP a year is an outlandish amount of money to expect two people to have to have to earn in order to bring someone into the country.
Yes, I think if you are married to someone from the UK {for example} you should be granted entry into the country. Free entry? No. Clearly, there has to be something in place to weed out sham marriage, etc. But if the resident is able to support themselves and just happens, for any number of reasons, to earn a small salary, I don't think it should be held against them.
I am constantly surprised {and this is not aimed at you, Andrea} at the lack of compassion on this board in terms of immigration/visa issues. We have all been through it and have first hand knowledge of how difficult it is. Why support something that would make it even harder?
littleredbuttons - I don't think its a lack of compassion necessarily. I think it sucks when someone is trying to follow all the rules and gets totally run around and screwed. Of course I get just as frustrated when DH runs into issues because of his immigration status. But we still follow all the rules, whether its a pain in the butt or not. Is when people want to get around the rules that it rubs me the wrong way - at least people who I think DO have the ability to follow them. Illegal immigration in the US, or anywhere, by people who are trying to get away from oppression or extreme poverty or the like is much more understandable to me than people who simply are trying to move from one country to another because they want to and are finding it difficult so they try to get around it. If that makes sense.
That said, I think 18K in the UK would be a small salary. Maybe my thoughts on that are skewed because I really never lived very far outside of London but I don't think even my IL's in NI couldn't survive on that little money without assistance. That's why that number doesn't seem absurd to me and I can understand why they want to put it in place. What is the minimum income for a single earner to get state assistance in the UK? My guess is maybe they had people filing as single somehow and yet the assistance they got was supporting a foreign spouse, even though technically you're not meant to do that. Sucks for everyone else who does it right but it makes sense that they'd want to try to curb that.
ps: I will agree that I took issue with the fact that they seemed to single out wives as though there are no foreign husbands.
I'm not talking about supporting anything illegal or trying to skirt the rules? Just that having a low income should not necessarily hinder you from bringing your husband or wife over from another country.
I don't know what the current minimum wage is, nevermind what the minimum wage for a single earner to receive state assistance is. I am not an expert in this area by any means. I just know that this feels wrong to me and I can't imagine ever supporting a bill that would add more hoops to the immigration process.
I feel bad because I am not at all trying to be uncompassionate about immigration, because, as you said, I have been through it. I was denied our marriage visa at first in the UK - after we had been married almost a year, and I was pregnant. I know how hard it is. We did it coming to the US as well. We have spent thousands of dollars doing so in both countries.
I guess my feeling is that the government of any country has to put boundaries in place or else they will get people moving to their country and living off the government, and with the economy the way it is in most countries these days I would wager to say that isn't feasible. It would be awesome if the world was open to anyone, but it isn't, so I can see that they have to have guidelines in place.
I have no idea if ?18k is appropriate or not. I know the US has it set to poverty level, which is very low. But I also have to think that if someone is earning, say ?10k a year, can they truly support a family on that salary? You couldn't in London, and unless they distinguished between cities they have to make it a broad guideline.
Immigration is tricky and difficult and sucks no matter the country. That is what we get for falling in love with non-Americans
I think ?18K is a threshold in a lot of areas - it's not the poverty line, it's not even what you get if you're on income support (I htink the's usually 12-14?), but I think that's been deemed sort of a minimum income to survive on. We live in a relatively LCOL area (the NE is cheaper by far than the SE) but there is no way we could survive on 18K. HOWEVER, my BIL was on 18K in the SE and survived fine. I think (not sure however) you can qualify for some benefits if you go below that (council housing, working tax credits, etc?)
I see no problems with a threshold income for this. It's not a lot of money. I see no problems with someone having to get a second job to bolster an income to support a spouse. ?18 supported my BIL as a single guy; he will not be able to support his GF and baby on it come January. So he is working 2-3 jobs. They're all British. If he wanted to bring her over from the US or Oz or wherever, surely it'd be the sam esituation?
Sorry, this isn't hte most eloquently written post but i've got to run and check on the baby...