Labour and family immigration

“Our intention is clear – we will reform the system because the current rules aren’t right.” – Office of David HansonMP, Shadow Immigration Minister, Labour Party

On 9^th July 2014, as part of a discussion of UK’s Adult Dependant Relative rules, David Hanson MP Shadow Immigration Minister, confirmed that come 8^th May, if Labour is in government, and if he is Immigration Minister, he will immediately launch a review of the family immigration rules.  Although there was no mention of what they would be changed to, and there were too many ifs for my liking, this was still a big step forward given it was made as a public statement from a frontbench politician of one of UK’s main parties. 

In January 2015 I followed up with David and his office in order to get more clarification.  David, in his position as Labour spokesperson with the decision making power on Labour’s immigration policy has confirmed that “if elected to government I will be undertaking a review of the spousal rules as I confirm they are unfair and we wish to change them. Only a Labour government will do this as the current Coalition support the rules and no other party will be able to form an alternative government in May”.   (We have asked David for Labour's view of the ADR rules as well, and will update readers once we have a response.)

This is in line with what David has been saying to me since my first meeting with him; that in his view UK’s family immigration rules are unfair and unjust, hence his working with others in the Labour party to making a pledge to change these rules.  

The commitment to change the family immigration rules, at least as they impact British citizens and residents with a non-EEA partner, is no longer contingent on David being Immigration Minister. It is a party pledge, with the purpose of the review not to see whether the rules should change – they are clear that the rules must be changed - but rather to assess what a reformed set of rules and systems, to bring about fairness to families, would look like.    

Some readers may suggest why not just revert to the pre 9 July 2012 rules.  Others will express cynicism as to whether this is just another hollow promise.  Politicians after all don't have a great track record in following through on their promises - just compare the 2010 election manifestos to how families have actually been treated under this government, despite all parties claiming families were the 'bedrock of society'.  Labour is not blameless either.  As Opposition, they did not even put up a fight against these rules in 2012.

However, having liaised with David and his office for about a year now I have some faith that in David perhaps we're seeing a politician as they should be.  He comes across as genuine and caring.  Having grown up in an extended family, where grandparents, aunts, uncles formed part of the same household, David appears to understand the need for kids to have both their parents; the value grandparents bring to the lives of young ones; and that family is not always just a nuclear unit.  We hope David's commitment to families remains as firm if he is in government, as it is as the opposition.

Note: BritCits has approached all the main political parties to garner their views on family immigration.  Watch this space!

Below is a copy of the email sent by the Labour Frontbench to one of our members.

From: Frontbench <frontbench@labour.org.uk>

Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Response from the Labour Party

Thank you for your email from December regarding spousal visas. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us, and apologise for the delay in responding.

At a time when our national finances are hard-stretched, it is only fair that anyone wanting to bring someone new to this country should be able to prove that they can provide for themselves, and not be a burden on the state. But Labour is concerned that the Government’s policy, of requiring an income upwards of £18,600 before a spouse or dependent can move to Britain, will not achieve what it hopes. We are also worried that the Government have rejected other options that could be fairer for families and provide better protection for the taxpayer.

We are living in an increasingly globalised world, where more and more people are travelling abroad and developing relationships across borders. There is a danger that the Government’s policy could be unfair on people with modest incomes who genuinely fall in love overseas, perhaps with someone whose income does not meet the Government’s criteria. And in the current climate, even someone earning £40,000 today could find themselves out of work and earning nothing tomorrow, so simply relying on income as a guarantee may be a mistake that can still leave the taxpayer exposed.

That’s why there might be other ways of doing it, such as considering the income of the person who is entering as well as the person who is already in Britain. Or, it might be fairer and more effective to insist that anyone sponsoring a partner to come to this country should deposit a financial bond that could be used to meet any unforeseen costs, and which would be redeemable after a fixed period. Yet the Government didn’t even consult on this option.  A Labour Government will review the changes to the spousal visa system.

The system for legal migration needs to be much more effective. For example, huge delays for visitor visas mean that British families’ overseas relatives end up missing weddings and funerals. And we know the quality of decision making on family visitor visas is simply not good enough, as almost half of the decisions are overturned on appeal. That is why Labour opposes the Government’s plans to abolish the appeals process for family visitor visas.

The Government’s net migration target isn’t targeting the right things, and illegal immigration is getting worse as a result, with fewer people stopped, more absconding, fewer deported and backlogs of cases not pursued. There needs to be a mature recognition that there are different kinds of immigration – some types that work for both migrants and for Britain, and some that do not. Labour will not engage in an arms race on immigration rhetoric, or pander to prejudice or populism. We want a sensible debate on policies to make sure immigration works for all.

Labour have a progressive and fair approach to immigration, based on fairness and contribution. You can read more about Labour’s plan for Britain’s future in our Changing Britain Together booklet.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

With kind regards,

On behalf of the Labour Party

 

Wes & Erica - Featured Family

“We queue up films on DVD or Netflix to watch at the same time.  It makes us feel we are together even though we are thousands of miles apart”

Wes is a British citizen living in Glastonbury, where his family has lived and farmed for several generations.  West first met his wife, Erica, online through a friend’s band.  Erica is from USA.

Despite his Masters degree and job as a Library Assistant, Wes does not earn enough to sponsor his wife.  The library does not open for nearly enough hours for Wes to earn £18,600 and even at the top of his pay-grade, the full-time salary is £15,500 – well short of the threshold.  Wes is adamant that the government’s careers guidance website indicating salaries for library assistants as between £16,000 to £19,000 a year does not reflect pay levels in his region.

Wes and Erica became close friends very quickly, exchanging letters and emails and talking daily.  They first met face to face in 2002 when Erica came over to the UK to see the Manic Street Preachers on tour.  Erica loves British music.  

The couple continued to stay in touch, but the seeming impossibility of a transatlantic relationship meant it was 10 years before they ‘got together’.

In 2012, both opened up to the other about their feelings, for the first time.  Erica subsequently visited Wes again that year, and after a very romantic trip to France, and ten years after they first met, Wes proposed to Erica underground in Wookey Hole Caves.  Wes confesses it was a cheesy proposal – literally, as cheese is made in these caves, and swears by the sacred atmosphere in the third chamber of the caves, where he proposed.

The couple got engaged on 2nd July, exactly one week before the government’s new rules came into effect.  At that time, the couple thought that although there would be challenges to meet, surely the UK would respect the right of a married couple, involving a British citizen, to live together.  This appears to be the general public opinion, even from ones wanting UK to be tough on migration.

The couple got married in a vineyard called Soaring Wings in Springfield, Nebraska, in May 2013.  It was a beautiful day attended by many of Erica’s friends and family.  Wes and Erica, being writers, wrote their own vows in poem form.  

May 2014 saw their first anniversary, celebrated on Wes’s parent’s farm and a small informal ceremony, so that the British friends and family could share in the celebrations. For most of them it was the first time they had met Erica.

The couple is forced to spend most of their time apart, which is spent talking on Google Hangouts.  In order to maintain some togetherness, the couple even queue up films to watch on DVD or Netflix at the same time.  It makes them feel like they’re spending time together even though they’re thousands of miles apart. Getting physical letters from each other is exciting, with hearts beating faster – like it was when they first fell in love. But there is no one to cuddle, and talking and texting as much as possible does not make for being able to hold hands.

Wes is looking for another job that will meet the threshold but has not found one yet.  Erica recently completed her Bachelor’s degree with a good grade average and would look for work here – and pay taxes - as soon as she was allowed to.

Supporting themselves is therefore not the problem.  However, they also have a solid support network who would be able to evidence third party support, but that of course is no longer allowed. 

Wes has never claimed any form of benefits.  He just wants to be able to live in the UK in the region his family has lived in for hundreds of years.

The couple is confident they will satisfy this hurdle, but the time apart is forever lost.  Wes sometimes feel guilty for not being able to earn enough to sponsor his wife, even though he knows it’s the rules which are failing them. 

Wes, a prize-winning poet (he won Wells Festival of Literature’s first prize in 2013 for a poem titled ‘Catwoman’) has written a set of poems about their situation.

The Heart Secretary  for the Home Secretary, Theresa May http://bit.ly/heartsecretary

On the wall of the Heart Office there is an embroidery
in patriotic colours, faded since 1905
to pink, cream and baby blue. It reads,
‘I SHOW ME HERE THE EARTH IS.’
It’s a famous phrase, but broken up;
letters apart that should be together,
together that should be apart.
A few metres in front of the work, at a simple desk, sits the Heart Secretary.
She is sorting the beating organs that are her concern, hands stained red with their juices.
Here are two that cling to one another as if seeking to merge into one,
their valves and ventricles becoming inextricable.
They are symbiotic. But the Secretary
coolly assesses their monetary worth;
finds one of them, in this case, lacking -
its mass just shy of the scales -
so sets to with her scalpel, slices through their sinew,
severs them. The first is sent home.
Then she wraps the other heart, still beating, in an application form,
places it with show of care
in a small wooden crate packed with sawdust,
nails it shut, and marks for shipping to a single-occupant apartment
in a foreign city
four thousand miles hence over oceans.

 

Teresa

Santa Teresa is stuck through the heart,
in a moment eternally captured in art:
the angel is thrusting his hot golden spear,
right here, and right here, and again again here.

Bernini has rendered the mystic nun’s marvel
in a chapel in Rome in dramatic white marble
and has captured the rapture in each downcast lid of
our saint, and the sting she’d “not wish to be rid of” -

for Teresa revels in the exquisite pain
as her cherub inflicts it again and again
and she moans and she groans and she gasps and she sings:
“It is love alone that gives worth to all things”.

May

We married on the 18th, in a vineyard in Nebraska.
Matched cummings to Breton in our vows:
“i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart)” stood next to “My wife whose wrists are matches
Whose fingers are raffles holding the ace of hearts” -
In yellow sun and yellow dress
you looked like Disney’s Belle made flesh.
And you do. You carry and hold that card from my deck, my darling.
But this game was written by a joker,
and the hearts are trumped
by diamonds

every trick.

David & Dee - Featured Family

“Home Office has appealed the High Court decision and they have my wife’s passport. Asking for it back would mean withdrawal of her application and loss of the fee.  But with the appeal the legal route could realistically take years!”

David is a British citizen from Wales.  He is married to Dee from Canada.

In early 2005, they met through an online friendship group which played Trivia quizzes and games with mutual friends across different countries.  After a few months, nudged by many of these friends, David and Dee started talking outside of the group.

Initially the contact was via email, progressing to nightly phone calls.  They didn’t seem to run out of things to talk about and discussed meeting each other.

At the time, David had his two children from a previous marriage living with him due to his ex-wife having health issues.  It was once his kids were able to return to their mother that David visited Dee in Canada for two weeks.

It was lovely.  They got on so well that Dee invited David to consider moving over for a longer period.

Back in the UK, David discussed this with his family, arranging to keep in contact with the kids through weekly phone calls and regular mail.

In October 2006, Dee came to the UK for two weeks to meet David’s family and friends, following which they returned together to Canada.  David got on well with Dee's teenage children, and the couple married in June 2007.

David applied for Permanent Residency in Canada which also requires any children under 22 to have medical check-ups, whether or not they are migrating across with the applicant.  These check-ups require consent from both parents.  David’s ex-wife withheld this consent and so David’s application was refused.

Thus David returned to the UK in February 2011, and it was back to nightly phone calls, emails and Skype chats again.  There was born once again a couple happily married, unhappily living apart.

Dee came over to visit for six months in May 2012, with the intention to apply for Leave to Remain during her stay.  Exactly six weeks later, Home Office changed the rules.  Dee could no longer apply from within UK, and David would be required to earn at least £18,600.  A salary level not achievable for a construction site labourer in South Wales.  Third-party support was also no longer allowed.

The married couple were now looking at yet more time apart once Dee left UK in November 2012 with no certainty on when they’d see each other again, be able to hold hands, hug.

David is unable to even consider moving to Canada now as one of his daughters, Kayleigh, diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) moved in with him permanently in December 2012.  Duty of care to her makes it even more difficult for David to work the extra hours needed to reach the £18,600 level. 

The couple has now spent two Christmases apart, and second Christmas apart and counting.

David has also had the opportunity to speak about his situation at the APPG on Migration meeting in Parliament on 10^th February 2013, as arranged by Migrants Rights Network.

David is not a public speaker. He doesn’t like it; he doesn’t profess to be an expert at it.  However, he is a firm believer that if you don’t stand up for what you believe in, then it’s not right to ask others to stand up on your behalf.

When David shared his story he was overwhelmed with the support her received.  He was advised by many present that Dee should apply for Leave to Enter even though they don't meet the minimum income requirement, and that they’d win an appeal anyway. 

In March 2013, Dee took her application to Toronto to have her Biometrics done. They told her there that she'd have to come back in May because she'd put August as her date of travel, and couldn't apply more than three months before that date.

Dee went back two months later (as requested) to find that the last two pages of her paperwork was missing (it had been there at the first appointment but mysteriously disappeared this time round).

For David it was really hard to receive a phone call from his wife 3,500 miles away, crying her eyes out, knowing there was little he could do to help.   After speaking with her husband, Dee decided to make one last stop at the office as it was closing before catching her bus back home and happily the Consulate had found the missing pages and faxed them across. RESULT!!!!

Dee was told it would take about ten weeks to process, and so the couple waited again, in anticipation of their reunion.  They allowed themselves to forget that just when it looks like there's light at the end of the tunnel, the Home Office just builds more tunnel.

A High Court decision in the MM & Ors vs. Secretary of State case deemed that the income rules were disproportionate and unjustified, leading to the Home Office pausing all applications where the income requirement would be the only reason for refusal.

By late August, Dee’s application had been with the British embassy for fourteen weeks already.  According to the embassy’s own estimate this would mean it was already a month overdue in the decision being made.  However, the MM case, followed by the Home Office not only pausing applications such as theirs, but also now appealing the High Court decision leaves this family mired in uncertainty.  How much longer will it take? David estimates another year.

What is worse however is the Home Office has Dee’s passport.  If she asks for it back, her application gets withdrawn and the family loses the application fee.  This means that Dee is likely to miss the wedding of her son, James, who is getting married in Manila to his fiancée, a citizen of the Philippines.

David and Dee have no intention of giving up.  Their love is strong enough to cope with anything Home Office throws at them.  The issue of course remains, that they shouldn’t have to be cope with life apart.

Update:

1)   Dee did ask for her passport back which meant her application was withdrawn.  Before going to her son’s wedding, Dee visited the UK, however she was refused entry and held in a detention centre for a very distressing two days before being sent back to Canada.

2)   Subsequently, David and Dee exercised their free movement rights and were reunited in Malta, where they lived and worked, making a lot of friends.

3)   After several months, the couple were able to return to the UK under EEA regulations, reuniting the couple with David’s kids in Wales.  Dee is hoping to soon be the proud holder of a UK Resident Card.  However the couple continue to help others caught in the Home Office family immigration web who also wish to exercise their free movemen rights, by sharing their knowledge and experience of Malta.