Category Archives: family migration

British families forced to move to Europe to see their spouse or family member – VIDEO

VIDEO –

KO

Surinder Singh – My video diary of my UK family exercising their EU treaty rights

In her reckless pursuit of lower immigration to the UK, Theresa May put UK citizens and settled people in a far less privileged position than EU nationals living in the UK. The rule changes Ms May implemented last year also meant that UK citizens living in other EU countries had more rights than if they lived in the UK. But thanks to a certain Mr Singh, they not only have more rights elsewhere in Europe, but they can bring them back to the UK under certain conditions. On the blogs and in the facebook groups of people affected by the family immigration rules, Surinder Singh has become a buzz word.
Surinder Singh himself was an Indian national working in Germany who married a British national who also worked there. They moved to the UK together, but the marriage broke down. Surinder was refused indefinite leave, then became an over stayer and deportation proceedings were initiated. In appealing against the proceedings it was argued that as his wife was a European citizen he should have originally been granted settlement rights, not the one year visa. In winning this case, in 1992, a legal precedent was set.
Bags
Now, twenty one years later we see people packing their bags and moving out of the UK to work in Europe and in doing so taking a major step towards reuniting their families in the UK. Dublin is a favourite, thanks to cultural similarities and a lack of language difficulties. But other destinations include in Italy, Spain, Germany and Portugal.
It is a move as good as sanctioned on the UKBA website. The guidance notes on EEA family permits clearly state:
“It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he / she could come back to the UK with his / her family members under EC law.”
Initially it was the government position that if a British citizen had left the UK ‘in order to enable his family member to acquire rights’ the Surinder Singh route would not be available. Later, in the case of Akrich, JCWI secured the rights for people who had exercised Treaty rights regardless of motive.
There is nowhere which states if there is a required minimum period one has to be exercising Treaty rights for before qualifying for an EEA visa for a non-EU family member.
Documentation
When a UK / Non-EU couple arrive at another European country, there is no requirement for them to show any documentation other than their passports and marriage / civil partnership certificate. However, in some places immigration officials are unfamiliar with the rules around exercising your Treaty Rights, it is worth having a letter outlining your intent, and quoting Directive 2004/38/ec of the European Parliament which establishes the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
The Directive states:
“The right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality.”
There’s some interesting accounts of people’s experiences and discussions cropping up on facebook and other fora. There are tips on job hunting, accommodation, thrifty living and employment and bank accounts.
Farcical
These measures are legal, sanctioned in law and have nothing underhand or sneaky about them. People have been forced to take these routes to family unity here by farcical rules introduced by a Home Secretary who is hell bent on low immigration statistics whatever the human cost involved. The people having to pursue this route are, by definition, primarily low earners and the experience is not a cheap one. It is perhaps a dramatic display of love and determination to achieve family life.
Those that go through this experience should be applauded, especially by the mainstream political parties that constantly strain to be champions of family life. The worry is that their immigration rules are forcing families to become scattered and separated which is a costly matter for society. Politicians need to develop some consistency in their policies and start to genuinely promote family life for all they claim to represent.
The EU have published a more user friendly guide for people interested in living elsewhere in Europe.
 

– See more at: http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/04/19/surinder-singh-and-family-unity#sthash.ZWZ3EvTC.dpuf

In her reckless pursuit of lower immigration to the UK, Theresa May put UK citizens and settled people in a far less privileged position than EU nationals living in the UK. The rule changes Ms May implemented last year also meant that UK citizens living in other EU countries had more rights than if they lived in the UK. But thanks to a certain Mr Singh, they not only have more rights elsewhere in Europe, but they can bring them back to the UK under certain conditions. On the blogs and in the facebook groups of people affected by the family immigration rules, Surinder Singh has become a buzz word.
Surinder Singh himself was an Indian national working in Germany who married a British national who also worked there. They moved to the UK together, but the marriage broke down. Surinder was refused indefinite leave, then became an over stayer and deportation proceedings were initiated. In appealing against the proceedings it was argued that as his wife was a European citizen he should have originally been granted settlement rights, not the one year visa. In winning this case, in 1992, a legal precedent was set.
Bags
Now, twenty one years later we see people packing their bags and moving out of the UK to work in Europe and in doing so taking a major step towards reuniting their families in the UK. Dublin is a favourite, thanks to cultural similarities and a lack of language difficulties. But other destinations include in Italy, Spain, Germany and Portugal.
It is a move as good as sanctioned on the UKBA website. The guidance notes on EEA family permits clearly state:

“It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he / she could come back to the UK with his / her family members under EC law.”

Initially it was the government position that if a British citizen had left the UK ‘in order to enable his family member to acquire rights’ the Surinder Singh route would not be available. Later, in the case of Akrich, JCWI secured the rights for people who had exercised Treaty rights regardless of motive.
There is nowhere which states if there is a required minimum period one has to be exercising Treaty rights for before qualifying for an EEA visa for a non-EU family member.
Documentation
When a UK / Non-EU couple arrive at another European country, there is no requirement for them to show any documentation other than their passports and marriage / civil partnership certificate. However, in some places immigration officials are unfamiliar with the rules around exercising your Treaty Rights, it is worth having a letter outlining your intent, and quoting Directive 2004/38/ec of the European Parliament which establishes the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
The Directive states:

“The right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality.”

There’s some interesting accounts of people’s experiences and discussions cropping up on facebook and other fora. There are tips on job hunting, accommodation, thrifty living and employment and bank accounts.
Farcical
These measures are legal, sanctioned in law and have nothing underhand or sneaky about them. People have been forced to take these routes to family unity here by farcical rules introduced by a Home Secretary who is hell bent on low immigration statistics whatever the human cost involved. The people having to pursue this route are, by definition, primarily low earners and the experience is not a cheap one. It is perhaps a dramatic display of love and determination to achieve family life.
Those that go through this experience should be applauded, especially by the mainstream political parties that constantly strain to be champions of family life. The worry is that their immigration rules are forcing families to become scattered and separated which is a costly matter for society. Politicians need to develop some consistency in their policies and start to genuinely promote family life for all they claim to represent.
The EU have published a more user friendly guide for people interested in living elsewhere in Europe.
 

– See more at: http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/04/19/surinder-singh-and-family-unity#sthash.ZWZ3EvTC.dpuf

UK spouse immigration rules ‘unjustified’, High Court says

UK spouse immigration rules ‘unjustified’,

High Court says

High Court rejects claims that new UK visa rules are discriminatory and infringe human rights
The judge said it was for the home secretary to decide if any changes should be made to the rules

UK family immigration rules are not unlawful but are “onerous… and unjustified”, the High Court has ruled.

Three claimants had challenged the new measures which set earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor the UK visas of spouses coming from abroad.

A judge said the court would not “strike down” the rules, but urged the home secretary to adjust them.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), said the ruling proved they were “disproportionate”.

The Home Office introduced the rules in July 2012 to ease the financial burden of migration on the state.

Under the new family migration policy only British citizens, or those with refugee status, who earn at least £18,600 a year can sponsor their non-European spouse’s visa.

This rises to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each extra child.

‘Sit up and listen’

The policy had been challenged on the basis that the rules were discriminatory and interfered with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.

The court concluded that the measures were not unlawful on the basis of discrimination, or due to a conflict with the statutory duty to regard the best interests of children while making visa decisions.

Mr Justice Blake, sitting in London, said it would not be appropriate to “strike down” the financial requirements set out in the rules – which were laid before Parliament in June 2012.

However, he said that the earnings threshold was disproportionate if combined with one of the four other requirements in the rules – for example, an inability to supplement a shortfall in income with savings, unless the savings were over £16,000.

He said that while there may be sound reasons in favour of some of the individual requirements “taken in isolation”, the combination of more than one of the five requirements of the rules was “so onerous in effect as to be an unjustified and disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship”.

The judge also suggested that a more “proportionate financial requirement” might be to reduce the minimum income required of the sponsor alone to about £13,000.

In a written ruling, the judge said it would be “for the secretary of state, if she sees fit, to make such adjustments to the rules as will meet the observations of this judgement”.

The BBC’s legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman says it is now for Mrs May to decide whether any amendments should be made to the rules to satisfy the requirements of proportionality.

The home secretary has been given permission to appeal.

‘Causing anguish’

Responding to the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “Our family changes were brought in to make sure that spouses coming to live in the UK would not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and would be able to integrate effectively. We’re pleased that this judgment supports the basis of our approach.

“We are looking closely at the judgment and its likely impact on the minimum income threshold before we decide how to respond.

“In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold.”

JCWI’s legal and policy director, Saira Grant, said that while she was disappointed the financial requirement rule had not been overturned, her organisation was “very pleased that the judiciary has given a clear message that £18,600 is a disproportionately high requirement”.

She said the judge’s comments represented a “clear message to (Home Secretary) Theresa May and she needs to sit up and listen”.

Ms Grant added that the judge’s suggestion of a financial requirement of about £13,000 was a “reasonable, workable figure”, but that people would still lose out.

Meanwhile, a group of MPs and Lords known as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration has called for an independent review of the minimum income requirement.

In a review published last month, it looked at more than 175 cases from families affected by the rules.

Baroness Hamwee, chairwoman of the review and Liberal Democrat home affairs lead in the House of Lords, said the parliamentary group had been “struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives”.

“These rules are causing anguish for families and, counter to their original objectives, may actually be costing the public purse,” she said.

The group said thousands of Britons had been unable to bring non-EU spouses to the UK since the minimum earnings requirements were introduced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23198144

Teresa May costs UK government £850Million and breaks up UK familes with Immigration rules.

Revealed: The financial cost of Theresa May’s immigration policy

Tuesday, 9 July 2013 8:28 AM

The UK will lose £850 million over ten years as a result of new visa restrictions on foreign spouses of British citizens, new research suggests.

Analysis of the government’s impact assessment from Middlesex University strongly suggests income requirements on foreign spouses could be putting an additional burden on the taxpayer.

“It appears the government got its sums wrong when designing this policy,” said Dr Helena Wray, from the School of Law at Middlesex University, who co-authored the research.

“When the cost-benefit calculations for this policy in the impact assessment are properly carried out, the figures actually show that the income requirement could cost the public purse £850 million over ten years.

“It will not reduce the benefits bill; in fact, it is likely to increase it as single people are more likely to claim benefits than those living with a partner.”

The government claims the £18,600 income benchmark for brining a foreign spouse into the country was designed to prevent these families becoming a burden on the taxpayer.

Home Office estimates suggested the policy would reduce family visas by 17,800 a year.

Recent figures suggest that guess was, if anything, an underestimate. There has been a 58% drop in overall applications, including an 83.6% drop in the number of visas issued to male partners of a British spouse.

But the research shows that non-EEA foreign spouses, who had the right to work but not to claim benefits, were never a burden on the welfare state.

Researchers pointed out that Home Office statistics only counted the cost of services to migrants but excluded their overall economic contribution, in a move which went directly against the advice of the migration advisory committee. This cooking of the statistics hid the economic effects of the policy, according to analysts.

Government figures also fail to take into account the difference in welfare claims depending on marital status.

Single parents, for example, are more likely to draw on state support if they are alone than if their partner is given the right to work in the UK.

Once a non-EEA partner is in the UK and providing the family with two potential incomes, the family unit is more likely to earn above the cut-off point for welfare.

Critics of the move have also highlighted the severe social effects of the policy, with many families split up by the rules.

Many British people living overseas have discovered they cannot return home with their family, because of the need to show income statements demonstrating they are in work.

Instead they are forced to return home without their spouse and children, find work, and then bring them over.

Others, who have incomes below the £18,600 benchmark, are being forced to live in Europe, which has more family-friendly immigration rules.

A coalition of affected families and charities will take a petition against the policy to Downing Street today, before attending a protest at the Home Office.

Report links below –

http://m.politics.co.uk/news/2013/07/09/revealed-the-financial-cost-of-theresa-may-s-immigrationl

Stop David Cameron and Teresa May destroying UK families

This page is to make people aware that while the government are spouting the importance of family life they are destroying thousands of families throughout the UK.

In July 2012 Teresa May and David Cameron made it near impossible for the working class people of the UK to have the right to have their non EU wife or child live with them in the UK by bringing in a minimum wage threshold of £18,600.

Family migration in the UK covers 3% of immigration,for the sake of 3% Teresa May and David Cameron are willing to keep husbands and wives,parents and children apart,they face living apart for years under the new rules, meaning the likelihood is the family will break up and this government will be responsible for a lot of one parent families.

When people think about immigration to the UK they think of people coming here to claim benefits and add nothing to the system,with regards to family migration the partner is not allowed to claim any benefits for the first five years,in that time if the relationship turns out to be bogus they are sent back to their country,Teresa May fails to mention this,and fails to mention the fact that EU citizens can at a drop of hat turn up tomorrow in the UK without any connection to the UK or without any intention of adding anything to UK.

Family visa’s are being rejected by the home office for minor reasons,once the spouse has paid the best part of £1000 for the visa which is non refundable he then gets told that an appeal can take up to a year,and he will have to pay for this to,the government are putting up obstacles and changing the rules almost daily so they can keep their net migration figure down to create political credit,in the mean time thousands of UK citizens who have lived here their whole life,who may have met their spouse while working or travelling abroad are forced apart so David Cameron and Teresa May can say their figure for immigration is 3% lower.
Please add any news and stories about family migration to the UK .

 

Mum takes UK visa battle to Westminster – David Cameron & Teresa May attempt to break up family

A MUM who has seen her son’s family ripped apart by tough new immigration laws has been invited to speak at a key Parliamentary debate about the controversial legislation.

Gillian Davies-Nippel has seen at close quarters just how devastating fresh guidelines, put in place last summer, can be.

Her heartbroken son Kevin Allen, from Catrine, appeared in the Chronicle on December 26 as he faced up to Christmas without wife Jamie and children Tristan and Eowyn.

His fight to obtain a visa for the trio to fly them in from the USA has been a frustrating and ultimately forlorn one.

All because he wasn’t able to prove he earned £18,600 in his native Scotland.

Gillian has campaigned on his behalf and her efforts have been rewarded when she visits Westminster on January 23.

http://www.cumnockchronicle.com/news/roundup/articles/2013/01/09/443031-mum-takes-visa-battle-to-westminster/

The New U.K Immigration Rules are NOT OK!

Changes to the Immigration rules put forward by Teresa May are going to make a massive difference to a lot of people hoping to settle in the UK. May Mansour has penned a piece for us explaining why these changes are wrong.

Recent adjustments in the UK Family migration rules have triggered outrage amongst overseas citizens, as well as British nationals living abroad or in the U.K. Amongst the most contentious alterations is the New Income Threshold of £18,600 for those who wish to sponsor a non-EU partner or spouse, which consequently affects 40% of the population in the U.K according to the National Earnings Survey website. As a minimum wage salary is £6.08 an hour, for a lot of people it will never be possible to acquire an annual salary that could come close to £18,600. The situation is more or less hopeless for new couples looking to settle in the U.K.

The new migration rules set by Home Secretary Theresa May seem quite discriminative against ordinaryBritish citizens and on some level utterly racist against citizens of other countries. Not only will they decrease the potential of foreign businesses looking to invest in the U.K but they will also create a social uproar against such a new motion of blunt fascism.

In regards to how this relates to my background, and in what sense / how it affects me as an agnostic Egyptian female from a Muslim family, I assume my culture is included as part of “the threat” for social and economic reasons! We’re not progressive or rich enough so to speak! Boohoo.

So it is understandable that people have noticed an increase of asylum seekers and immigrants within the U.K! But why is THIS the problem? Even if the way they look or dress alienates them from their surrounding environments? So what of Punks and Goths then? Or the conservative Jewish communities? According to Theresa May in this article it is a matter of “Setting new standards for those who wish to live among us”.

I am a constant visitor and perpetual wanderer in England, and I have come across ethnic minorities who have no problem maintaining the same lifestyle they have been exercising in their former home countries, (I.e wearing headscarves or full-body veils or whichever “mannerisms” that go hand in hand with their certain cultures). This seems to confuse the British government when they Try to identify the difficulties at hand; specifically in regards to social discomfort. I however believe it is the immigrants who Impose their belief system among others within the country that are the problem! Nevertheless the UK Government should not interfere by appointing such severe migration rules that will unfortunately be enforced upon everyone! Conservatives and Fanatic Extremists as well as broad-minded anti-fascist, anti-racist Liberals who seek to settle in a country they can realistically relate to, and commit to with an aspiring, well-driven and relevant flair!

I for one am an Egyptian female citizen who’s escaped her own country in pursuit of a more liberal and receptive society as I have been a constant victim of verbal harassments and assaults back in my home town, for being myself; which seems to annoy the majority of males in my society and mislead them into thinking that I perhaps may be a prostitute or something for having male friends whom i’m openly “chummy” and comfortable with on the streets, for smoking cigarettes in public or for wearing leather pants or skirts! Coming to London often in search of sanctuary I find myself yet again a victim of the same assaults made by other Arabs or Middle Eastern immigrants, for simply claiming my nationality or religion through casual conversations with Falafel vendors, or waiters at cafeterias or restaurants on Egdware road or passers by on Tottenham Court Road, Marble Arch and Oxford Street who intentionally and interrogatively approach me to know where I come from and react accordingly! Sometimes I’d hear sexist or perverted remarks / mumbles in Arabic as I walk by, I turn around and defend myself because it turns out I understand the language and accordingly I must be Arab or Muslim, and it is as though they have the right to insult me even more then! I have been insulted or simply even frowned upon because of how I look and dress, which is not even remotely provocative in the eyes of any regular British or European citizen, but according to my fellow obnoxious muslim extremists, I am a disgrace to my kind! But aren’t we all subject to verbal or even physical assaults? By men of all races and ethnicities? And aren’t there just as many struggling Brits as there are other ethnicities within the country? So apart from my personal rant on social discomfort, there are several other factors that may have bugged the Government enough to enforce stricter migration rules that technically bypass all ethical or humanitarian prospects! But for citizens of other countries, it is now one hell of a nightmare! Especially for those of us who were already bewildered and constantly struggling to belong to the British culture as we more or less have the mentality for it! But alas, we aren’t “rich” enough.

So what becomes of us? The artists and musicians, the aspiring journalists and authors, the innovative youth who’s ideas and beliefs are simply condemned by their own governments. Are we not entitled to attempt to settle within a society that accepts us? Especially if we are committed to an EU-member? No matter our financial assets or whether or not we desire to be employed by a highly corporate, first-class business. Families are being destroyed as we speak because of the new family migration rules; and their only options now are to separate or struggle to settle in some other country. The solution is not to restrict all non-EU citizens from attempting to work, study or settle in the U.K with their partners or families. But to take action against those specific individuals who wish to distort the country’s cultural, political and social advantages, inspite of their ethnic backgrounds, and that may just be the most sincere manner of dealing with such an issue. Diversity must be welcomed within any country for it to flourish with grander and more stimulating ventures! Where immigrants may express, practise and develop their abilities in any worthwhile position!

Reducing net migration in the U.K is a simple guise behind the Home Secretary’s initiative towards class warfare; to protect the wealthiest of individuals, and reduce economic risk. Instead of encouraging any uprising potential, the aspiring, perfect-English-speaking, high-minded youth who wish to invest in the British community, slowly but surely. Alas! One tends to resort to Money and Power, over Character and Virtue. and that’s a right shame!

All words by May Mansour.

http://louderthanwar.com/the-new-u-k-immigration-rules-notok/

KO

Uncertain future for family – Actions by Teresa May and David Cameron of the Conservative party UK

Tim Cox and Sarah Cox. Sarah is Filipino and has been denied a visa. She will have to leave the country and their two children in June Kimberly Cox and James Cox

 

Published on Wednesday 2 January 2013 06:30

 

New Year is normally a time of happiness and optimism but for one Murrow family, their celebrations were tinged with uncertainty for the year ahead.

 

Sarah Cox was featured in the Citizen earlier in the year after being refused a settlement visa to stay in the UK with her children. Now, despite the best efforts of her family and MP Steve Barclay, she has again been refused her visa.

The Cox family believe they have done everything that was asked of them, including Sarah’s husband Tim resigning from his £100,000 per year job in the Middle East to show how serious they are about settling in the UK.

But to their disbelief, just two days before they flew home for Christmas from Oman, where Sarah has to make her visa application, they received a rejection letter stating they did not meet the financial criteria.

“As a family, we have more than proven to the world that we are not a burden on society,” Tim said, speaking from his parents’ home where Sarah and children James (11) and Kimberly (8) live. He was due to fly back to the Middle East today (Wednesday).

The strain on the family is clear, with Sarah fighting back tears at the thought of having to leave her children for six months.

The simple answer appears to be for Tim to move back to the UK and get a job here, but he said with Sarah unable to work they would lose their house, as he would be unable to earn a similar wage.

Sarah is a trained theatre nurse and there are hospitals needing nurses with her skills locally. With both of them working, they could make ends meet but not with just Tim bringing in a wage.

Tim said: “I want to challenge the government’s interpretation of its own law, which I think is fundamentally flawed. There is no benefit to refusing Sarah’s visa. Would they be happy if I was down the dole office, signing on and asking them to feed my children and parents?”

The family are extremely unhappy with their treatment by the embassy in Oman and said they were messed around by officials and given the wrong information about how much money they needed to have.

Tim claims it was also not made clear that they needed to have had a certain amount of money in their account for six months prior to the application. This was one of the reasons for their visa refusal.

“If we had been told this at the start, we wouldn’t have bothered. Sarah could have applied for a visitor’s visa, got it in a few days and at a fifth of the cost. We wouldn’t have had to go through all this stress.”

Tim and Sarah are also concerned about the potential effect on their children. James poignantly asked for his Mummy and Daddy to be home safely when asked to write his Christmas list.

Both children are excelling at school – Kimberly at Murrow Primary School and James at Peele Community College in Long Sutton – and their teachers noticed a visible change in them while Sarah had to leave the country to make her visa application.

“They don’t understand,” Sarah said. “I am standing there with my suitcases and they are saying ‘Mummy, why do you have to go?’”

A spokesperson for UKBA said they are unable to comment on individual cases. Steve Barclay has raised the Cox’s case with immigration minister Mark Harper, who will be instructing his officers to review it.

Mr Barclay, who was praised by the family for his support, said: “There need to be tough rules on immigration in place and they need to be enforced, but at the same time there needs to be common sense. These rules were put in place to stop people abusing the system and being a financial burden on the state, but this clearly isn’t the case here.”

Link to original story –

http://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/news/latest-news/uncertain-future-for-family-1-4627960

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The Heartlessness of the Home Secretary

Compassion and immigration control have appeared as unreconcilable concepts since Theresa May’s appointment as Home Secretary. Ever since she took office in 2010, Ms. May has appeared determined to respond to the tabloids’ cries that the UK is letting in too many immigrants. Certainly we need some way of determining how many and what kind of immigrants should be let into the UK, but May’s policies and the actions of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) have persistently and ruthlessly attacked the wrong kinds of immigrants with, in some cases, a blatant lack of concern for human dignity.

Take for example the case of Roseline Akhalu, a now 49-year-old Nigerian who came to the UK in 2004 to take a masters degree in development and gender studies at Leeds University. She was stricken with kidney failure shortly after arrival. In 2009 she received a successful transplant, but relies on regular hospital checks and must take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of her life. Since March 2012 she faced deportation by the UKBA to Nigeria, where she claims she will not be able to receive adequate medical treatment and could die. Fortunately, last Friday (30th Nov) a judge quashed the Home Office decision based on article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

No one claims that the NHS is not suffering a huge strain on its resources, and of course those who funded the institution through their tax money deserve to reap the benefits first. But let’s imagine a completely unlikely yet pertinently hypothetical situation in which Ms. Akhalu turns up at your doorstep and says that she needs a small amount of your money or she will definitely die. Nobody else can help her but you. If you send her away she will die. You’d give her the money, wouldn’t you?

Some argue that states may – and indeed ought to – adopt a different set of moral standards to the individual. This is often necessary, but in the case of immigration decisions it shouldn’t be. If Ms. Akhalu had indeed been deported to Nigeria and died, nobody in the UK would have been affected by it and our NHS would probably have saved a little bit of money. But can we really adopt such a closed world-view where we treat human beings from other countries as being of less worth than our compatriots? It’s not as though Ms. Akhalu is Abu Qatada, who harbours extreme religious view antithetical to a free society like Britain. She clearly wanted to live here, as shown by her volunteering work and how her friends gave evidence in court about the value she added the local community. She deserved to stay.

Let’s move on to some younger victims of Theresa May – namely, the under-reported (what are they doing now?) case earlier this year of thousands of international students at London Metropolitan University who faced deportation after the university had its highly-trusted status (HTS) revoked. I ran into the National Union of Students’ (NUS) International Students’ Officer Daniel Stevens at the NUS Demo in London on 21st November when I was covering it for my students’ newspaper. He was marching with some students from London Met – but Mr. Stevens seems to be one of the few standing up for these young victims.

On a similar note, the abolition of the Tier 1 Post-study Work Visa last April unfairly penalised international students currently studying in the UK. It should only have applied to new applicants, not existing students. Having invited them into our country to spend tens of thousands of pounds on our education system, promising them up to two years in the UK after their studies to look for work, but then to turn around and say actually we want to kick you out between one-three months after graduation is a gross deception on the government’s part. I’m sure many prospective international students would have looked elsewhere – the US, Canada, Australia – if they’d known that was going to happen.

There’s one final issue I’d like to touch upon, and it’s a measure which has received scant opposition in the press besides a few articles when it was first introduced. I’m talking about the new £18,600 minimum salary requirement for bringing in a foreign partner from outside the European Union Economic Area (EEA). Essentially this means a ban on many working-class Brits from marrying foreigners, which seems absurd considering how many members of the opposite sex (or same, depending on your persuasion) we encounter these days who don’t posses that vital document which is a British passport. This measure is, in my opinion, an unwarranted intrusion into one’s personal life and a breach of the human right to fall in love with just about whoever we please, thank you very much.

If you need any more evidence that our government is daily sacrificing human dignity to the cold rationality of economics, note how it’s planning to ease restrictions on Chinese tourist visas so more of the nouveau riche Chinese can stimulate our economy on Oxford Street by buying up all the designer goods. That’s fair enough – but at the same time it is turning a blind eye to all those suffering under May’s immigration regime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/michael-allen/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-_2_b_2228818.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Britain’s migration rules are tearing families apart – The Telegraph

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration launches an inquiry into the new
family route migrant rules today. Dr Brooke Magnanti, herself a UK migrant,
argues that the changes are anti-women and anti-family.

The new rules disproportionately affect British women, whose wages are on average lower than men’s, making them less able to marry someone from outside the EU. In addition, because foreign-based spousal income isn’t counted, it does nothing to address public concerns about dependent spouses reliant on their British-born partner or on the state.

The policy even gives Brits a disadvantage compared to other Europeans: an EU resident with non-EU spouse can settle here and claim “treaty rights” without ever having to go through the UKBA application; native Britons can’t. Don’t even get me started on the same-sex couples and many others for whom “just settle elsewhere” isn’t a feasible option.

Angry families affected by these new changes are now speaking out on social media and Twitter, hoping to raise awareness of the inquiry and of a policy that affects British people as much as it does foreign ones. One hilarious (and hilariously depressing) spoof making the rounds shows what the UK Border Agency’s Christmas cards would look like if they were really honest.

 

Measures put a price on love

I wrote on this topic some months ago before the changes came into force, pointing out that while income level is of course a concern, in fact most family migrants neither need nor want to live off of benefits. It also puts a price on love: why is my husband’s income supposedly an indication of how genuine our relationship is? We learned first-hand the UKBA only looks at his payslips and doesn’t even ask him where we met or any of that colour-of-toothbrush stuff you think could alert them to forced and sham marriages. Why not have in-depth interviews instead of the arbitrary system in place now?

 

Part of the reason could be the way the current Government has decided to frame the problem. People are understandably concerned about overall inward migration because of rapid changes in society and concerns about the economy. But the Government does not propose to reduce that at all. Instead they focus on the slippery term “net migration”: the difference between people moving in and people moving out. In other words, they are hoping loads of British people will leave as well. This leads to a system where monied oligarchs and predatory bankers are waved through and genuine families are forced out.

Like most family route migrants in the UK, I feel that it’s entirely reasonable to expect new arrivals to support themselves. I and many others are also tired of a system that has had more changes in the last decade than Nigella Lawson has had hot dinners. By and large these changes are not keeping out frauds – they are disadvantaging people who come here ready to work, settle, and become part of British life. They are keeping husbands from their wives and parents from their children. It’s a policy that is anti-women, anti-family and the British public should not support it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9688898/Britains-migration-rules-are-tearing-families-apart.html

FACEBOOK GROUPS

UNITE FAMILES FIGHT FOR LOVE

https://www.facebook.com/#!/UniteFamiliesFightForLove

I LOVE MY FOREIGN SPOUSE

https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/139807999382936/?fref=ts

PLEASE SIGN THE FOLLOWING EPETITION TO SUPPORT OUR CAUSE TO BE WITH OUR SPOUSE / FAMILY –

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34835

(Hitler showed more heart and common sense than Teresa May.)

KO