Whatever your political persuasion, defend your corner here. All we ask is that you voice YOUR opinion, rather than just post a link to a half-hour youtube video. Politics can get a bit lively, and if you prefer a less combative debate, please post in the Politics for Moderates section instead.
As much as I understand what you're trying to say, you're wasting your time; this law supports the wealthy which most of those who support it seem happy to tug on their forelocks to. If you have money you're OK, if you don't well sod you. You can be a wealthy Nigerian and get into the country but if you are British and starting off in life and meet the love of your life who just happens to be from a foreign country then you're screwed.
Geoffrey's I'm utterly surprised at you; I must say I expected better.
Mark, You can get a pension without doing a days work all your life, as long as you sign on of course so it's not down to hard work as to whether you get one or not
Jim
Not me you seem upset about, but the Supreme Court - it was THEIR decision.
You'll be saying next that they are the enemy of the people.
Geoff.
The Supreme Court have agreed the "law" is legal. However they also suggested that although it is legal it's unfair and doesn't take into consideration the spouse is working, therefore not claiming benefits - the income will never match the figure given in the law itself.
The times have changed but the law hasn't changed with them.....
PhotoLady wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:41 am
The Supreme Court have agreed the "law" is legal. However they also suggested that although it is legal it's unfair and doesn't take into consideration the spouse is working, therefore not claiming benefits - the income will never match the figure given in the law itself.
The times have changed but the law hasn't changed with them.....
Yes Jules, the Supreme Court suggested that although legal it is morally wrong. As usual Geoffreys you are one of the first to give support to legislation that is morally reprehensible. This law prevents British subjects bringing their foreign born spouses into the UK unless of course they have plenty of money; as around 2 thirds of the UK population earn less than the minimum amount required this I only benefits the wealthy. Of course if you have £62,500 sat in your current account for six months months prior to submitting your application you may just gain leave to stay though again only the wealthy have this sort of money to leave lying about.
Anyway Geoffrey's; good to see you still supporting your betters.
Jim B wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:07 pm
Yes Jules, the Supreme Court suggested that although legal it is morally wrong. As usual Geoffreys you are one of the first to give support to legislation that is morally reprehensible. This law prevents British subjects bringing their foreign born spouses into the UK unless of course they have plenty of money; as around 2 thirds of the UK population earn less than the minimum amount required this I only benefits the wealthy. Of course if you have £62,500 sat in your current account for six months months prior to submitting your application you may just gain leave to stay though again only the wealthy have this sort of money to leave lying about.
Anyway Geoffrey's; good to see you still supporting your betters.
Jim
Life's a bitch sometimes, but I know my place Jim. Do you?
Geoff.
Hudswell wrote "....and yes your pension is a right but someone has to pay it and if you are retired it is not you"
Please wait, wait, wait - that statement is not quite accurate. In 1952 at age 20 I commenced full time employment, having just left university. My grandparents and mother were all alive, my mother continuing to work until she was 65 ( I eventually retired at 70) my father died consequent on is wartime service. Both my mother and I were paying National Insurance and Income Tax which, as you rightly say, helped to pay for my grandparents pension etc following the introduction of the 1948 Welfare Provisions. I now have a surviving working daughter who in turn is contributing towards my pension but in addition I still pay income tax on my pensions which income had already been taxed under PAYE and so it goes on but please do not say all of us pensioners dont contribute to the pot because many of us still do.
I am sure your son-in-law is a hard working decent fellow and yes it is somewhat harsh but the figure used was not just plucked from the air it was a calculation of many factors I am sure I do not have to tell you that the UK is at saturation point inhabitant wise and something had to be done. There was a point when dependent relatives were being admitted to the country soley on the basis of being dependents and that is a fact. A report was commissioned by Tony Blair regarding the welfare bill which includes everything not just benefits (and state pensions are not a benefit). Frank Field MP was the author of the report which contained some not very welfare user friendly suggestions. As a result the report was put on one side never to see the light of day in any form because it was considered to be a vote loser. And therein lies the rub - welfare provisions and funding are far too political at the present time. In my personal view what is required is an all party working committee to grasp this thorny problem and come up with a report covering every aspect of the welfare aspect of our lives its use and its cost to us ALL. Take the party politics out of it and stop the bickering, arguing and backbiting out of the equation altogether so there is no constant diatribe of who spends the most. It wont be easy and we joe public may well be far from happy with the resultant suggestions of possibly having to pay more. Constant borrowing is not the answer.
JB you are being mischevious again you said "this law supports the wealthy which most of those who support it seem happy to tug their forelocks to"
I am in favour of a law which states it is necessary to support ones family before seeking to live in the country. How can it possibly be fair and reasonable for anyone with no visible means of supporting themselves and their family to be allowed to reside in a country not of their birth when those entitled to live in said country are penalised by having to fund the bill? I am not speaking of those who marry someone of a different nationality and seek to bring their legitimate spouse to live with them but there must be a degree of self support in such an application and particularly so where there are children of that union.
As for touching forelocks I have never done such a thing in all my life and have no intention of starting to do so. In some peoples eyes I may be deemed wealthy and if someone has nothing I am but I consider myself to be comfortable and that does come from a lifetime of hardworking. I not only paid my taxes etc but like many others I paid in extra for my state Pension to the limit allowed by the Inland Revenue and into a Private Pension Fund and others could have done exactly the same as I had they so chosen. I did not come from a wealthy family and originally lived in a two up, two down no bathroom and an outside toilet in the Midlands and brought up on the work ethic. My mother did three jobs in order to keep my brother and I at Technical College and University respectively following my father's death. The world may owes us a living Jim but we have to go out and find that living. I can also say without fear of contradiction if I and others like me were to return to the UK and asked for assistance in finding somewhere to live I/We would be told we had too much money so dont qualify.
Rite, I liked your latest post - but what is your view on immigrants to the UK?
(without being Political unless you hail from Stoke-on-Trent, Hi Hi).
Geoff.
Those of us fortunate enough to live in Cyprus, are in a sense means tested. The Cypriot government wants to ensure we are not a burden on the local economy. If we were unfortunate enough to fall on hard times, we would receive absolutely no long term support, apart from charity from the Cypriot Government.
I have no problem with this, any sensible country needs to support its own people first, and are correct in ensuring immigrants are self funded.
I feel for some of the posters on this forum, who have been affected by what is in effect means testing by the UK government, but.... Where is the line drawn?
At what point should the UK government open its doors to all and sundry?
The ruling on foreign spousal income is sensible, it is a line in the sand that no one can or should cross.
At least everyone knows precisely the criteria for entry, again very clear and unambiguous.
Again I express my sympathy to those affected, previous abuse of the welfare state created the need for criteria.
Mark wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:15 pm
Those of us fortunate enough to live in Cyprus, are in a sense means tested. The Cypriot government wants to ensure we are not a burden on the local economy. If we were unfortunate enough to fall on hard times, we would receive absolutely no long term support, apart from charity from the Cypriot Government.
I have no problem with this, any sensible country needs to support its own people first, and are correct in ensuring immigrants are self funded.
I feel for some of the posters on this forum, who have been affected by what is in effect means testing by the UK government, but.... Where is the line drawn?
At what point should the UK government open its doors to all and sundry?
The ruling on foreign spousal income is sensible, it is a line in the sand that no one can or should cross.
At least everyone knows precisely the criteria for entry, again very clear and unambiguous.
Again I express my sympathy to those affected, previous abuse of the welfare state created the need for criteria.
I am in accord with most of what you say and it is as plain as a pikestaff that state pensions will not be as generous in later years as they are now if there is such a thing in existence at all. The workplace pension move is, in my view, the strongest indication that pension provisions as we know them will go at some point in time save for the very poorest of us. Pensioners, of course, do not pay National Insurance contributions when they have passed retirement age because that is the law and that is where, in my view, there is a vital necessity to reform and get to grips with the whole welfare issue on a non political basis. Not easy but not impossible either. The present system is itsy bitsy and totally unsatisfactory.
I am aware of the tight criteria dependent immigrants (and others) face particularly as the majority of my caseload involved immigration matters on behalf of the Home Office. However the staff can only work on the basis of the rules put before them by the Government of the day. For instance (and as I have said before) instructions were given to staff (under the Labour administration) not to keep records of "visitors" entering and leaving the country so in reality they had no idea how many entered or whether they had left when required to do so - madness. I am going to attempt to reply to Geoffreys on a point he has addressed to me (think he is being a tad provocative) but it touches on your point a little.
Geoffreys.
You ask me not to be political when addressing your question of my view of immigrants unless I hail from Stoke-on-Trent. Well if you had read other posts I have made correctly you will realise I hail from next door to Stoke-on-Trent i.e. Newcastle-Under-Lyme but my paternal family are "Potters"
As for immigrants I have no problem at all with people of other nationalities living amongst us providing they have legitimately entered the country and are as self supporting as the native populace. There has always been immigrants and emigrants and I can see no reason why that cannot continue so long as same is properly regulated. They provide a valuable contribution to society in my opinion and for my own part I do not see colour or race when I am addressing anyone. Furthermore I am an immigrant in Cyprus otherwise known as a "foreigner" but have on the whole been treated very well.
The result of the Stoke By Election will probably be known later tonight and it should be quite interesting given that Stoke is notorious for low turn outs at general election time let alone By Elections.
Thank you to all the posters above who have made kind remarks regarding my earlier post it is much appreciated.
As always I read your post with great care and I understand what you are saying. It appears when you read the supporting posts they look on everyone who is trying to get into the UK is a sponger and nothing could be further from the truth, of course some abuse the system but the vast majority don't The people who are affected by this law are British Citizens and they have as much right to life with their partner of choice as do those who choose to marry another UK Citizen. You have to ask yourself when you were married did your husband earn the equivalent of £18,500, I'm pretty certain the equivalent of my normal 40 hour wage when I married was much lower and that is my point to it being a means test allowing only the wealthy to qualify.
Neither me nor my husband earned £18,500 right up to when we left UK in 2004. In fact, my salary in Cyprus equated to more than any UK salary I ever earned!
For those UK citizens earning what's considered a "normal" salary but with a non-UK spouse who can only get employment under a zero hours contract or earning minimum wage, they will never be in the salary bracket as defined by the law....
It's very unjust to those families who are trying to do the right thing by not coming into UK in order to claim benefits. Most people as has already been said do not come to UK with this on their minds.
Bloody hell, my and my hubby can't even claim benefits here in UK and we're both UK citizens!
Rita Sherry wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:58 pm
Hudswell
I am in accord with most of what you say and it is as plain as a pikestaff that state pensions will not be as generous in later years as they are now if there is such a thing in existence at all. The workplace pension move is, in my view, the strongest indication that pension provisions as we know them will go at some point in time save for the very poorest of us. Pensioners, of course, do not pay National Insurance contributions when they have passed retirement age because that is the law and that is where, in my view, there is a vital necessity to reform and get to grips with the whole welfare issue on a non political basis. Not easy but not impossible either. The present system is itsy bitsy and totally unsatisfactory.
I am aware of the tight criteria dependent immigrants (and others) face particularly as the majority of my caseload involved immigration matters on behalf of the Home Office. However the staff can only work on the basis of the rules put before them by the Government of the day. For instance (and as I have said before) instructions were given to staff (under the Labour administration) not to keep records of "visitors" entering and leaving the country so in reality they had no idea how many entered or whether they had left when required to do so - madness. I am going to attempt to reply to Geoffreys on a point he has addressed to me (think he is being a tad provocative) but it touches on your point a little.
Geoffreys.
You ask me not to be political when addressing your question of my view of immigrants unless I hail from Stoke-on-Trent. Well if you had read other posts I have made correctly you will realise I hail from next door to Stoke-on-Trent i.e. Newcastle-Under-Lyme but my paternal family are "Potters"
As for immigrants I have no problem at all with people of other nationalities living amongst us providing they have legitimately entered the country and are as self supporting as the native populace. There has always been immigrants and emigrants and I can see no reason why that cannot continue so long as same is properly regulated. They provide a valuable contribution to society in my opinion and for my own part I do not see colour or race when I am addressing anyone. Furthermore I am an immigrant in Cyprus otherwise known as a "foreigner" but have on the whole been treated very well.
The result of the Stoke By Election will probably be known later tonight and it should be quite interesting given that Stoke is notorious for low turn outs at general election time let alone By Elections.
Thank you to all the posters above who have made kind remarks regarding my earlier post it is much appreciated.
Rita
Thank you Rita. The key phrase there is "..properly regulated.." I agree!
Geoff.
And as Hudswell said, it was properly regulated as prior to introducing this "law" the requirements to gain the right to reside were very strict; unfortunately people believe anyone who wants to enter the UK just breezes in with a cursory check. I would love all those to come see what an applicant has to go through just to obtain a Tourist Visa, finger prints, retina scan and a multi page form than if you get one tick in the wrong place it gets rejected out of hand and of course you lose your fee. Most of you have no idea.
The law is unfair and morally reprehensible (even the the Supreme Court indicated they were unhappy with it) and just because it's a law does not make it right; there are many laws that were badly thought out as no doubt Rita can confirm. As I keep saying this affects UK Citizens, just the same as you, not immigrants, not Asylum Seekers or Economic Migrants, just British people who happened to fall in love and marry citizens of other countries.
Hang on a bit Jules. You can claim benefits but as you have said on other posts you are not prepared to meet the criteria to claim so your post is a tad misleading.
Poppy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:53 am
Hang on a bit Jules. You can claim benefits but as you have said on other posts you are not prepared to meet the criteria to claim so your post is a tad misleading.
Poppy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:53 am
Hang on a bit Jules. You can claim benefits but as you have said on other posts you are not prepared to meet the criteria to claim so your post is a tad misleading.
No, we can't claim benefits - what we can do is try to claim NI credits. But we still have to go every 2 weeks (a 24 mile round trip) and prove we have been looking for work for 35 hours each week.
What I said is I'm happy to take my chances when the time comes with my pension. I've already got my required UK years in plus another 11+ yrs in Cyprus - so yes, that's why I'm not jumping through hoops for my NI credits. Plus we would only need to work part-time so we're definitely not going to spend 35hrs a week looking for or pretending to look for work!
We cannot claim any benefits in UK because we own our own home outright and have just above the limit of savings allowed. However, our private pension income is well below the amount we're supposed to be able to live on so the savings will dwindle slowly.
So, we wait until our limited funds run out - or our pensions kick in. Whichever comes first!
I am taking issue with the two of you re your statement "immigration was properly regulated prior to 2012" no it was not and the Labour Front bench have admitted it and apologised for it since. As I have said in my previous post "visitors" coming to the UK of course had to show the relevant documentation but no records (under orders) were kept showing they had subsequently left the UK on termination of the granted leave. Thousands of files were found stored away and the Home Secretary (Mrs May) was lambasted in the Commons because she could not give a figure on how many people were in the country illegally - nobody could because of the failure to keep records of those who had left. Dependent relatives were not confined to "spouses" but any member of the family whom it was claimed was dependent on the sponsoring person. That was the deliberate intention of the then government as to quote them "such people would be more inclined to vote Labour" That is absolute fact and was subsequently reported and admitted.
Consequently new rules and regulations were introduced out of which has come the financial requirement not just for spouses of UK citizens but anyone who is not a EU citizen (although those people are supposed to have a job to go to and somewhere to live- hmm). I have no desire to quarrel with either of you and I have agreed in my former posts that the rules respecting spouses (both male and female) of British Citizens are somewhat harsh and, as you say Jim, it is very likely the legislation was hastily drafted to encompass all, which is no excuse for ill thought out drafting. Hopefully the authorities will take heed of what the judgment has pointed out. I hope so for the sake of all the genuine applicants.
On a lighter note no Jim my husband did not have the equivalent of 18,500 salary when we got married (1956) he was a Regular serving Serviceman and we could only dream of a figure of that, at the time, magnitude.
Jules I am totally lost re your explanation of benefits or otherwise which you may or may not be able to claim. My own take on the system is anyone should be able to "retire" at whatever age they choose so long as they are able to support themselves and not look to the State (taxpayers) to do the supporting. I am sure you will agree, irrespective of the journey distance or time required, that it is vital the authorities check that applicants are indeed genuine and entitled to obtain and continue to obtain assistance. One of the major problems today is the sense of the State is there to provide and an attitude of entitlement without any effort which to my mind is not only selfish but an insult to those hard working people living just above the deemed hardship line who either make no claims or will not get anything anyway but are required to pay for others not so bothered. I am also afraid that the prudent amongst us with savings (however large or small) are once more penalised.
Incidetally I have to return to the UK next week as my brother's health has deteriorated rapidly and he is now entirely incapable of taking care of himself - you, of course, had to deal with this with your late Dad. Have a good holiday in Malta unless you have already been in which case I hope it was good.
