Unite Families - Fight For Love (UFFFL)
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"...

4 posters

Go down

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"... Empty Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"...

Post  Khrissy3000 Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:57 pm

The many hurdles that the government has laid out infront of us is no more than a viscious discriminating attack on families, mostly outside of London.

The government have attacked non-EU citizens as being a burden on the taxpayer, so they introduced a minimum income that is well above the national minimum wage, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) have still not informed the public as to how they arrived at the figure of "£18,600", I am aware that you are not entitled to benefits at that amount, so it seems to me like they haven't took into account regional pay or individual circumstances. e.g. I live in the North East of England, I earn a basic salary of £17,500 between 2 jobs (inc. overtime £21,000), I save £500pm after all my expenses, which includes sending my partner £150pm remittance (to support her), I currently have £2000 in savings and I own my own property, I live economically and we have no children.
Taking my situation into account, in a democratic country I should be classed as being "healthy earner with my head screwed on" but in an undemocratic country I am classed as "a threat the the welfare system".
So basically, the message is "love has a price tag"

I am going to compromise here and agree that we must prove we can support, but what I can't accpt is that they are playing "God" with peoples lives.
Labour was proposing a "bond" which would in fact give everyone the opportunity to have a family life, this method may also seem harsh, but a "bond" is not necessarily based on your gross income, it's based on how much you spend and if you can support your partner until they have the right to work in the UK, it is also fairer for those living in regions outside of London. (in London you earn more, you spend more - in Machester for example, you earn less but spend less).

"Labour - Party of the many"
"Tories - Party of the rich/bankers"
Lib Dems - I dunno??? Party of the unknown" Rolling Eyes

Last edited by Khrissy3000 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:01 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : spelling mistake)


Posts : 38
Join date : 2012-08-23


Back to top Go down

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"... Empty Re: Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"...

Post  DLH Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:43 am

I think that the bond system proposed by Chris Bryant would be equally discriminatory, in fact. If I understand it correctly, a couple requiring a spousal visa would have to give a substantial bond of money to the government - definitely in the thousands, possibly up to £10,000, I think - until such point as the non-EU spouse received permanent settlement, as surety against them taking out any benefits. I am a student and what savings my husband and I have are hard-earned and with the ultimate intention of putting down a deposit on a mortgage for a house. It might be easier for more people to 'get around' the bond system - I'm sure that loans could be found by those with sufficiently wealthy parents! - but for many it would mean making a choice between having a partner and having a home. The choice would be easy, but why should we be having to make that choice? It's also completely counter-intuitive as the one thing the government patently doesn't want is the couple to end up requiring housing from the state, which the bond system would make more likely, imho.


Back to top Go down

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"... Empty Why compromise?

Post  alandamper Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:27 am

"I am going to compromise here and agree that we must prove we can support......"

We should NOT have to prove we can support a partner. This is a special case. Everyone should have the right to choose a partner from any part of the world provided it is a genuine relationship. That should be the only test.

There are around 30,000 people in the UK each year who want to bring a partner but Theresa May now says you can't do that and expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. Why not? Society consists of a system to bring people and certain pooled wealth together, by way of taxes to enable ALL citizens to achieve a certain way of life. What UK government would ever propose a law to prevent you having more than two children on the grounds that it is unfair to other taxpayers. Yes it puts a burden on them, but we accept that it is your right to choose how many children you have without penalty.

If I hate the shape of my nose and it is causing me distress or affecting my confidence I can now have it fixed on the NHS. If my weight makes me unhappy I can have liposuction or a gastric band fitted, again at the taxpayer's expense. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying it is what this UK society accepts, so it's strange that the Home Secretary says the taxpayer can pick up the bill to help someone avoid the suffering caused by the wrong sized breasts but at the same time thinks that the utter distress caused by the FM rules is acceptable. It is NOT.

Theresa May in her 19th June 2012 speech in the Commons says that the ECHR Article 8 "Right to respect for private and family life" is a qualified right, not an absolute right. She uses that argument to impose rules that she says are allowed by the Convention because governments can override the absolute right in the interests of the nation such as for reasons of security and 'the economic well-being of the UK'. In that speech she added hastily 'as long as it's proportionate and necessary'. She knows that's the Article 8 override proviso. The FM rules are neither proportionate or necessary.

But why is Article 8 a qualified right? What did the architects of it intend? Simple. If you rob a bank and get caught you will go to jail. No good arguing that you or your wife and two kids will have their human rights walked on by your time inside. If it were an absolute right you'd have to close all the prisons.

However, I believe the 'qualified' nature of Article 8 was never intended to be used in the way that Theresa May is using it -against law abiding UK citizens and their law abiding non-EU partners. In fact let's see just how morally wrong the FM rules are. The bank robber spends, say, 5 years in prison. Then he's out - back with his family. Under the FM rules Theresa May is quite happy that the law abiding citizen and prospective partner may be apart for 20 years, simply because their job doesn't now, or ever will, pay enough to meet her arbitrary income threshold. Should bank robbers get better treatment than you and I simply wanting to live with our loved ones?


Posts : 38
Join date : 2012-08-26

Back to top Go down

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"... Empty Re: Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"...

Post  Elbe Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:17 am

I agree with alandamper - if this had anything to do with straining the UK benefits system then they could, at little expense, simply stamp a visa with 'no recourse to public funds'. Oh, they do...

As far as schools, NHS, public services go these things work precisely because they are not simply handing out resources, but are investing in future citizens that will go on to pay taxes to support the next generation of pupils, patients, service users.

Both solutions are bad because they both create two tier systems and are premised on the idea that immigration is bad. It is so tempting to see Labour's solution as marginally better and therefore something we should support but I really feel we have to counteract the pernicious idea that immigration is somehow existentially threatening to the country.


Posts : 8
Join date : 2012-08-28
Location : Wolverhampton

Back to top Go down

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"... Empty Why compromise?

Post  TLCLM Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:16 pm

Exactly... why should we compromise and be kept away from our loved ones of worse and not even an option for some that the British citizen has to exile their home land.

If I could I would give up my Canadian citizenship in a heartbeat to be able to be with my husband. In the YouTube video that T.May made where she talks about the importance of marriage and commitment, I cried. I love my husband, he is my best friend. The decision we made for us to come to Canada so I could go to uni and better our future life in the UK was the hardest decision of our life. We are so misrable and heart broken, some days it is very hard to be forcefully kept away from your life partner.... your family. I have said it feels like having my family held hostage for 24,800 and that is EXACTLY how it feels. May came out and said here are the new rules, if you don't make 24,800 you can't be together as a family. When we joined my husband in 2005 on a finace visa my husband made about 12,000 annually and we lived comfortably for the year until I could work. May cannot decide individual family budgets, they can say that anyone in the country on a visa has no right to access public funding and that is totally fair. But she cannot dictate how much people spend on food, clothing and living. If a married couple decides that they can live off of a certain amount of money then that is their right to do so.

I am so angry, so hurt, so devistated. I sometimes wish it was an option for my husband to exile the UK but why should he have to choose between his family he was born into or the family he married into. May and Cameron are playing God, messing with lives and futures. The government has no right to do these things, how can we stop this? Everyone must show up to the local human rights meetings
Everyone go and stand up for your born human rights ** make your voices heard ** make a difference for our families ** this is not right, they need to know **

Posts : 34
Join date : 2012-08-26

Back to top Go down

Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"... Empty Re: Family Immigration Rules 2012 - Tories "Minimum Income" vs Labours "Bond"...

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum