How the government wants you to see family migrants

Official discourse on family migration sees certain words crop up time again. This use of language plays a significant role in justifying the family reunification rules and shaping public opinion, and consequently, in framing the wider immigration debate.

Conservative policy maintains the party is, “… restoring order to our immigration system,” and in doing so, they have implemented a number of reforms to the family route.

Those familiar with the amended rules will have heard the mantra frequently:

“We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution but a family life must not be established here at the taxpayer's expense. To play a full part in British life, family migrants must be able to integrate – that means they must speak our language and pay their way. This is fair to applicants, but also fair to the public.”

Yet the July 2012 introduction of an earning threshold of £18,600 for anyone wanting to bring a non-EEA spouse to settle in the UK has been anything but fair, to both ‘sponsors’ and ‘taxpayers’ – often one and the same.

Many contributors earn below the threshold and are therefore excluded and unable to enjoy family life in the UK.   

Government discourse assesses migrants seeking to settle in the UK with their British family in terms of whether they are hard-working, can make a contribution, will become a burden or are able to integrate. Protecting the ‘taxpayer’ is paramount.

Family migrants have no access to social benefits during the compulsory five-year probationary period towards settlement and plans are already in place to charge them for use of health services.

Low earners are not necessarily lazy; indeed many are parents with childcare commitments, and as for marriage to a Brit, it is arguably one of the most effective means of integrating into British society besides learning English.

This is not to say family-class immigrants should be allowed to come here at the expense of those already settled in the UK. Even the old rules effectively protected against this.

The repetitive use of ‘our’, such as ‘our immigration system’, ‘our values’, ‘our communities’ and ‘our language’, reveals an intentional distinction between citizen and migrant. There is no emphasis on tolerance or respect for different cultures as a means towards social cohesion and harmony. 

Then there are the distinctions between the ‘high value’ and ‘low-skilled’ migrant, and the ‘hard-working’ and ‘without means’ migrant. But these terms are misleading, not least because all can apply to both citizen and migrant.

The government fixation with protecting the taxpayer through limiting migrants’ access to benefits ignores the fact there is no evidence to suggest family-class migrants come to the UK with the primary purpose of abusing the welfare system. They are here to establish family life with a British partner.

Furthermore, there is no real risk of a ‘flood’ of family migrants since the number of Brits marrying non-EEA partners is unlikely to change significantly within a short space of time, so this category of immigration presents little in the way of a threat of unmanageable burden on public services.

Family migrants who are unable to meet the spouse visa criteria are deemed undesirable regardless of their family ties in the UK, their knowledge of British life or their ability to pay their own way or rely on third-party support.

The unqualified sponsor, on the other hand, quickly goes from taxpayer to burden, contributor to abuser, citizen to exile. In many cases, British children are driven out of the UK as a result of one parent not qualifying.

Is this what ‘restoring order’ looks like? Dividing families, forcing Brits to become single parents and making British children grow up minus one parent simply because that parent is not British? These policies are not fair to applicants or the public, as the Conservatives claim.

Recent studies reveal family migrants make a positive fiscal contribution on public finances. Yet their value goes beyond the economic price tag the government has awarded them. They are part of the very building blocks of a stable society and community, as Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, pointed out in December 2013. 

The sooner the public stops seeing family immigrants in the government’s terms, the sooner we can put an end to these shameful, un-British policies which are causing devastation to genuine families.

Looking beyond the economic value of family migrants

The UK government’s move towards placing increasingly harder-to-meet restrictions on British nationals who want to bring their non-EEA partner to the UK emphasises a global pattern of equating the value of migrants with their economic benefit.

July 2012 saw the introduction of significant amendments to the UK’s family migration rules, including the introduction of an annual income threshold of GBP 18,600 for British sponsors seeking to bring their non-EEA partner to settle in the UK.

Other changes included a considerable extension on the previous probationary period, bringing the period in which a family migrant has no recourse to public funds to five years.  

Rather than being compatible with the Conservatives’ goal to strengthen families and the Liberal Democrats’ passion for protecting civil liberties, the rules have resulted in hundreds of families being torn apart indefinitely and many British citizens being unable to avail of their right to respect for family life.

By judging family migrants on their economic benefits only, we render those who don’t meet the financial requirement as undesirable.

This false notion is problematic since determining migrants on their fiscal value alone ignores their non-economic qualities and marginalises their, albeit uncertain, future and potential contributions.

When family migration policy is motivated solely by a desire for economically desirable migrants, the results are not just economic but social, too.

What is the price of forcing British children to grow up without one parent due to their economic value being deemed as insufficient to qualify for settlement? 

Or the price of making a British parent grow old and die alone as their British child cannot gain access to the UK as a family unit with their non-EEA spouse?

The inevitable collapse in the family, and consequently the community, which is sure to follow is certain to have profound, long-term effects on society in general.

The value of family life cannot be measured in terms of a financial threshold. If we want to create a society which supports family reunion and consequently, stable families and communities, it is time we moved beyond focusing on economic rationales when formulating family migration policies.

Nigerian husband of pregnant Brit denied visa

The Home Office has appealed against the decision to let the Nigerian husband of a pregnant British woman remain in the UK.

The appeal follows the reversal of the decision to refuse her husband a spouse visa by a First Tier judge.

However, the Home Office believes the judge made an error of law by taking into account the best interests of their unborn child.

When British national Becky, 23, met her Nigerian husband-to-be in the UK in December 2010, she had no idea of the hurdles which would lie ahead when the time would come to establish family life together in the UK.

Uzo, Becky’s 33-year-old Nigerian partner, arrived in the UK as a visitor. His subsequent enrollment in the British Army as a trainee combat engineer allowed him to extend his visa more than once, with a view to applying for a two-year work visa at the end of his training. 

But Uzo turned 32 – the cut-off point for applying to join the army – before he could complete his training.

In May 2012, Becky and Uzo got married, and Uzo applied for Further Leave to Remain based on his marriage a month later. His application was made just before significant amendments to the UK’s family migration rules came into force.  

The new rules, introduced in July 2012 and the cause of much anguish among couples such as Becky and Uzo, require British nationals to have an annual income of GBP 18,600 in order to sponsor a non-EEA spouse to settle in the UK.

After a 10-month wait, Uzo was refused a visa on the grounds he had taken the wrong English language exam and that his visa at the time of application was valid for less than six months. The fact Uzo had been in the UK legally for two years prior to application was not considered. 

The couple lodged an appeal against the refusal since they had no way of successfully reapplying under the new rules due to Becky, who was a fine art student in Liverpool at the time, not being able to meet the income requirements.  

A few weeks after giving notice of appeal Becky discovered she was pregnant. “Although we knew our situation wasn't the best to bring a child into, we could not consider an abortion as this was not a decision we should feel forced into because of the immigration laws, and we hoped that our appeal would be successful before our baby was born,” said Becky.

At 25 weeks pregnant, their case was heard and two weeks later, the appeal was allowed under Article 8 due to the best interests of their child. “We breathed the hugest sigh of relief”, said Becky.

But the relief didn’t last long. Four days after the allowed time limit for giving notice of appeal, the Home Office appealed the decision based on the notion the First Tier judge had made an error of law by taking into consideration the best interests of the couple’s unborn child.

Despite the lateness of the application, which the couple later discovered was due to the case officer being on sick leave, the appeal was allowed.

The process has taken its toll on Becky’s heath and well-being, “I have became so distressed and ill with the thought that we have to continue this fight,” said Becky. “At a time when it is of the utmost importance for a woman to be looking after her health, I am experiencing panic attacks, my blood pressure has shot up and I can not sleep,” she added.

The couple has since discovered their baby has a kidney problem and possibly a chromosomal disorder.

With just two weeks to go until the Upper Tier Tribunal hearing, at which time Becky will be 37 weeks pregnant, Becky and Uzo are bracing themselves for the possibility of a ruling which will require Becky to move to Nigeria should she wish to enjoy family life with her husband. “Why should I leave my entire support system, culture and family behind?” asked Becky.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advises against all but essential travel to Abia, the southeastern Nigerian state where Uzo comes from.

“We just don't know what our future holds right now,” said Becky. “My husband wants nothing more than the right to work and support his pregnant wife and future son, and to pay taxes and contribute to UK society,” she added.

The immigration rules make no concessions in cases which involve children. Applicants who are parent to a British child must endure the same five-year route to settlement as other applicants, regardless of the length of the couple’s relationship. 

Successful spouse visa applicants are given the right to work but have no access to benefits during the probationary period, during which time the couple must demonstrate they can meet the financial requirements a further two times.