[UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Discuss the problems that can occur in relationships with differing cultures and help overcome any barriers that exist.

Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network

User avatar
HEPZIBAH
Luxor4u God
Luxor4u God
Posts: 11714
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:15 pm
Has thanked: 3154 times
Been thanked: 4537 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

[UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by HEPZIBAH »

Immigration measures ruled lawful

The Government has won a challenge over the legality of new immigration measures affecting British citizens who want their spouses to join them in this country from abroad.

Three leading judges in London today allowed an appeal by the Home Secretary over a ruling given in July last year that the measures were ''onerous'' and ''unjustified''.

Although Mr Justice Blake ruled at the High Court at the time that it would not be appropriate to ''strike down'' the financial requirements set out in rules laid before Parliament in June 2012, he concluded that they amounted to a ''disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship''.

The case centres on three judicial review applications brought by two British citizens who are resident in the Birmingham area, and a ''recognised refugee'', relating to amendments made to the Immigration Rules, which include a mandatory requirement that a sponsor has a minimum gross income of £ 18,600.

Allowing the Government's challenge at the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Aikens and Lord Justice Treacy, declared that the new Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) rules "are lawful".

Following the ruling, campaigners said that the decision "will be devastating for the families who continue to be needlessly separated across borders".

Lord Justice Aikens, giving the ruling of the court, said that on July 9 2012 "changes were made to the Immigration Rules which, in summary, created a requirement that a UK partner who wishes to sponsor the entry of a non-EEA (European Economic Area state) partner must have a 'Minimum Income Requirement' of £18,600 gross per annum and additional income in respect of each child who wishes to enter the UK".

He added: "Various other new income and savings requirements were also introduced. The key question on this appeal is whether these provisions are unlawful as being a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 8 rights (the right to a private and family life)."

Mr Justice Blake had held "in effect" that they were.

But Lord Justice Aikens ruled that Mr Justice Blake's "analysis and conclusion that the new MIR were, in principle, incapable of being compatible with the Article 8 rights of the UK partners, and others if relevant, was not correct".

Lord Justice Aikens said: "I am very conscious of the evidence submitted by the claimants to demonstrate how the new MIR will have an impact on particular groups and, in particular, the evidence that only 301 occupations out of 422 listed in the 2011 UK Earnings data had average annual earnings over £18,600.

"But, given the work that was done on behalf of the Secretary of State to analyse the effect of the immigration of non-EEA partners and dependant children on the benefits system, the level of income needed to minimise dependence on the state for families where non-EEA partners enter the UK, and what I regard as a rational conclusion on the link between better income and greater chances of integration, my conclusion is that the Secretary of State's judgment cannot be impugned.

"She has discharged the burden of demonstrating that the interference was both the minimum necessary and strikes a fair balance between the interests of the groups concerned and the community in general."

The judge added: "Individuals will have different views on what constitutes the minimum income requirements needed to accomplish the stated policy terms.

"In my judgment it is not the court's job to impose its own view unless, objectively judged, the levels chosen are to be characterised as irrational, or inherently unjust or inherently unfair. In my view they cannot be."

Ruth Grove-White, policy director at the Migrants Rights Network, a charity campaigning for the right of UK residents "to have their family life respected in the UK", said after the ruling: " This judgment will be devastating for the families who continue to be needlessly separated across borders.

"Many UK residents and British citizens have had their lives put on hold for over a year, often with no chance of seeing their loved husbands, wives or children during that time.

"These rules are a shocking infringement of the right to family life, as almost half of the UK working population earns below the required amount. Being able to start a family in your own country should not be subject to the amount of money you make.

" Today's judgment is not the end of the story. We will keep campaigning for rules that respect the right of UK residents to live with their family, and hope that government will see sense and make the changes that are needed to protect these rights."

Paul Blomfield MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, said: " Today's Court of Appeal judgment will come as a disappointment for the thousands of families across the UK who remain apart as a result of these rules.

"A year ago, a cross-party group of MPs recognised the anguish they have caused and urged the Government to review the family migration rules.

"That concern was highlighted again this week in a packed meeting in the House of Commons. On behalf of our constituents, we will continue to press the Government to think again."

The Home Office welcomed what it described as a "major" judgment upholding the lawfulness of the minimum income threshold under the new family migration rules.

It said in a statement: "The minimum income threshold for British citizens to sponsor a non-EEA spouse or partner or child to come and live in the UK was introduced in July 2012. It aims to ensure that family migrants do not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and are able to integrate effectively.

" The minimum income threshold was set, following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 for sponsoring a spouse or partner, rising to £22,400 for also sponsoring a child and an additional £2,400 for each further child."

Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire said: " I am delighted that the Court of Appeal has comprehensively upheld the lawfulness of this important policy.

"We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution, but family life must not be established in the UK at the taxpayer's expense and family migrants must be able to integrate.

"The minimum income threshold to sponsor family migrants is delivering these objectives and this judgment recognises the important public interest it serves."

The Home Office says the Court of Appeal judgment means that from July 28 " the 4,000 individuals whose applications are currently on hold, pending this judgment, will now receive a decision".

The statement added: "These are cases which met all the requirements apart from the minimum income threshold and now stand to be refused."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/immigration-m ... ml#wxdLTCW


Image Experience is not what happens to you;
it is what you do with what happens to you.
-Aldous Huxley

LovelyLadyLux
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:27 am
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 2256 times
Canada

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by LovelyLadyLux »

Don't have lots of specific details (cause I really did NOT want to know and on some levels know more about this relationship than I've ever wanted to know) but I have a friend who brought in (ahem) spouse. Her income to do this was very minimal and just skirted the lines of being able to do this and any public assistance that was available was applied for. Said spouse gets a factory job after whatever time passed. Now ALL his earned income is funneled back to HIS family which coincidentally happens to be Luxor.

Just somehow doesn't seem fair that the UK taxpayers cough up but now the earned money isn't even going back into the UK economy. Just one example and doesn't amount to a sneeze in the breeze - but - just saying!

User avatar
BENNU
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 3229
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:31 pm
Has thanked: 1015 times
Been thanked: 3478 times
Gender:
Egypt

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by BENNU »

LovelyLadyLux wrote: Said spouse gets a factory job after whatever time passed. Now ALL his earned income is funneled back to HIS family which coincidentally happens to be Luxor.

Just somehow doesn't seem fair that the UK taxpayers cough up but now the earned money isn't even going back into the UK economy. Just one example and doesn't amount to a sneeze in the breeze - but - just saying!
Doesn't he pay tax now :?:

User avatar
carrie
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:46 am
Location: luxor
Has thanked: 2995 times
Been thanked: 5639 times
United Kingdom

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by carrie »

Surely everyone is entitled to do what they like with their earned income.

LovelyLadyLux
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:27 am
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 2256 times
Canada

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by LovelyLadyLux »

I don't know if he pays tax (I guess he would through his work) and I realize everybody is entitled to do what they want with their $$ - my point was he really was not investing financially in the UK. He was only taking and taking and not putting anything back into the economy there.

User avatar
Zooropa
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Leicester
Has thanked: 1286 times
Been thanked: 1749 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by Zooropa »

Of course people are entitled to spend their money how they see fit and yes im sure he probably pays taxes but it does not alter the fact that if the money is leaving the country and not being re spent at a local level on a large scale then the economy will stagnate.

Ive had plenty of debates about immigration on here and ive still not heard what I consider to be a convincing argument against a much reduced level of intake over the next twenty years.

Because of our policy of mass immigration we have created an entitlement attitude amongst the population.

People consider a lot of jobs beneath them and successive governments have allowed this to breed by not insisting that people in receipt of unemployment benefits take available jobs.

There is a skills gap in this country, there are in most countries but its in the engineering and scientific areas where it exists and not in the fruit/veg fields and or in the fast food/cleaning industries.

Nobody should be made to do a job they don't want to do and the rest of us should not be forced to pay taxes in support of people who take up this option either.

LovelyLadyLux
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:27 am
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 2256 times
Canada

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by LovelyLadyLux »

In the scenario I'm citing this guy is returning nothing to your local economy. He has taken (believe me he has TAKEN from my gf - but then she has been silly enough to GIVE to her Toy boy) and sucked the system for all he was worth. Now that he is working in a factory he returns nothing to the local economy as it is all going back to Egypt. I hardly think this fellow is unique. He is there IMHO only to bleed off the UK and make enough $$ to fund himself a REAL Egyptian wife when he returns to Egypt (and I predict he WILL asap he has sufficient $$ to do so) in a few years time.

User avatar
Bearded Brian
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 660 times
Been thanked: 554 times
Gender:
Cambodia

Re: [UK] Immigration measures ruled lawful

Post by Bearded Brian »

A bit of sense at last from the british high court. Would have been better if they had raised the level even further.

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
  • If the pharaohs still ruled Egypt today...
    by Glyphdoctor » Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:30 pm » in News and Sport
    102 Replies
    6477 Views
    Last post by Dusak
    Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:09 am
  • Cooking measures
    by Kevininabydos » Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:39 am » in Kitchen Corner
    2 Replies
    186 Views
    Last post by Countessa
    Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:51 am
  • Egypt outlines new security measures
    by Chris » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:06 pm » in Know Egypt
    24 Replies
    1554 Views
    Last post by Major Thom
    Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:42 am
  • Tourism ministry to tighten security measures in Sharm
    by DJKeefy » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:12 am » in Know Egypt
    0 Replies
    234 Views
    Last post by DJKeefy
    Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:12 am