Category Archives: uk immigration

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

VIDEO –

KO

Advertisements

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

A video of the British families that Teresa May and David Cameron are trying to destroy!

A link to the video – http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/07/16/divided-families-campaign-video

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

The conservatives break up another British family

By 

This is the story of Andy, a man who has had his family torn apart by the government. Despite being a British citizen, Andy didn’t make enough money to be able to live with his wife, so his children had to be separated from their parents. It’s not really a story about Andy – it’s about us and the kind of country we want to live in, but Andy’s story typifies it pretty well.

You will have heard of the Conservative aspiration for tax breaks for married couples. It’s in the coalition agreement and the midterm review. The government is very keen to show how pro-family it is. You will probably not have heard of the policies they impose on low-earners who happen to fall in love with someone from outside the EU. They’re a little quieter about those.

Last year, Theresa May did something fundamentally different with the immigration system. Instead of restricting the freedom of migrants coming to Britain, she restricted the rights of Brits who want to marry people from outside the EU. There was a dribble of coverage in the press, but most still don’t know that if they want to bring a foreign spouse to live with them they need to be earning £18,600. If you’ve got a kid it’s £22,400 and an additional £2,400 for each further child. Under the new system, 40% of the British working population are prevented from bringing a foreign spouse to live with them here in Britain. This, by the way, was the compromise. May wanted the income benchmark higher.

Andy fell into that category. He came back to the UK last March after a long stint in China, bringing with him his wife of six years and their two children. They had just intended to stop by for a holiday with his brother but once he got back Andy enjoyed being home. “The kids liked it,” he says. “It’s nice for the boys to be around their grandparents, to be able to eat sausage rolls and cheese and all that. I wanted to come home. The Chinese schools are pretty scary – I would have had to put them in international schools.”

Andy had also been diagnosed with deep-veined thrombosis the year before and felt more confident with British healthcare if there was another occurrence. “I’d been away from England for ten years,” he says. “I missed it terribly over the years. I’ve been to lots of countries but there comes a time in everyone’s life when you want to go home.”

This entirely natural approach to life was clear evidence of suspicious activity in the broken mindset of the UK Border Agency (UKBA). Immigration minister Mark Harper decided the family had been wrong to enter on a visitor’s visa and that they had always intended to settle here. By this point Molly was already back in China. That hadn’t been an easy choice for the family but she didn’t want to overstay her visa. They played by the rules. She had no idea that before she could return an overzealous immigration system would put a black mark next to her name, even though she’d broken no rules at all. Andy’s MP, David Laws, wrote to Harper urging a change of mind, but to no avail.

With his wife overseas, Andy now has to go through the entire spousal visa application process without her. It could rob his children of their mother for up to a year. First he needs to show UKBA six month’s worth of payslips proving his salary is above £18,500.  Then he needs to twiddle his thumbs during the processing period, which can take up to four months, and hope the authorities do not complain about something irrelevant and unforeseeable, as they frequently do.

He eventually found a job paying over the requisite amount as an academic manager for a chain of language schools. Unfortunately, the job was in Cornwall, so he had to leave his three- and five-year-old children with his parents in Somerset during the working week and only visit them on weekends. This is a situation the British government has inflicted on a British family: the father in Cornwall, the mother in China, their children in Somerset. Their only contact with their mother is on Skype. Recently one of the children started calling her ‘computer mummy’.

“She’s in limbo, my kids are in limbo, I’m in limbo,” Andy says.

“My kids have lost their dad. I drive home two-and-a-half hours every Friday and then again Sunday night. I’ve bags under my eyes. No-one can believe my wife is being prevented from being with her baby boys. China has got its faults, but in terms of family they would never come between a parent and her child.”

Few Brits would have predicted that immigration laws would prevent them marrying whoever they chose, regardless of their income. “It took me by surprise,” Andy says. “When we first started thinking about staying for longer I made some inquiries about changing to a spouse visa and I was shocked. I didn’t think these rules applied to me. Other people do that, I thought.”

Then, quite suddenly, Andy breaks down in tears. “What sort of a man am I, that I can’t keep my family together?” he asks, after a long silence. “I walk around Cornwall. People are chatty here. You tell the story again and again. You feel uncomfortable. It’s weird, a man of my age being completely alone. I’m a family man, I always have been and now I’m not.”

Of course, the question isn’t what sort of a man Andy is. It’s what sort of a country we are. Our constant obsession with immigration is making this a hard, mean place; a place that splits up families so it can satisfy David Cameron’s absent-minded promise of ‘tens-of-thousands’ coming in a year.

As ever, none of this applies to the rich. Non-British millionaires can come and stay as long as they like, no questions asked except for the parameters of their wallet. Hard-working Brits earning under the average wage – the kind of ‘strivers’ George Osborne apparently has such sympathy for – aren’t even allowed to bring in the person they fall in love with.

The problem isn’t with Andy, it’s with us.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/01/18/comment-how-the-government-breaks-up-british-families?fb_comment_id=fbc_197603533716507_741638_197824387027755#f1d750c97

The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.

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/