Fees


Inspired by Mark's post a few days ago on how British citizens are forced to pay at least £5012.29 in fees for visas through the process, our very own David has produced this poster illustrating the point!

 ... Lest anyone imagine that spouses and partners of non-EEA citizens aren't taxpayers, these fees are a tax too - and a very heavy one!

Related Freedom of Information request by @5K4R

British Citizens forced to pay £5015.29 in fees to be allowed to live in the UK with their spouse as a British family!

Author : LondonMark (Mark Stokes)

The Government published last year that the cost per decision for all permanent and temporary migration applications is £182

Yet when presenting information to justify the recent increases in fees in Parliament, they stated that the actual unit cost of processing a spouse Visa is £278 (FLR) - but they now want to charge £649.

This is very misleading.

Anybody unfamiliar with the spouse visa system (including most MPs) would reasonably think that the cost of the visa for a British Citizen to live with their wife/husband or partner is only £649.

What they fail to realise is the process now takes over 5 years and has to be applied for several times providing relatively the same information with a new fee each time!  This is a disproportionate and gross interference in people's lives by the State. During this time couples are in a state of limbo know as the 'probation period'.

The word 'probation' emphasises that they are being treated like criminals in what the Independent Inspector has called 'a culture of disbelief at the Home Office'. This has effects including: not being able get mortgages if both incomes are needed, companies being reluctant to give long term contracts because the visas are only 2.5 years long, travel is restricted due to the requirements if the spouse wishes to be naturalised later, couples living in fear of what might happen if they are between jobs when the next application is due. At a time that should be filled with joy, and that should be a couple's honeymoon period and building plans for the future, instead their world is turned upside down with often unbearable levels of stress.

This April has seen the fees rise disproportionately yet again. This is causing many families immigration fee poverty, that is if they first can earn enough to be even allowed to apply.

So why do I say the visa cost is £5015.29?

As a British citizen you have to now pay the following in stages for your spouse to stay here:

In Country Applications

1. LTR (£649) the first in country application after being married, (£48 increase)
2. Health surcharge at £200 per year of validity for a visa of 30 months (£500) (new this year)
3. Biometric Fee (£19.20), 

= £1168.20

1. FLR (£649) at the 2.5 year mark (£48 increase)
2. Health surcharge at £200 per year of validity of the 30 month visa  (£500)
3. Biometric Fee (£19.20) at each application the same biometrics are taken again with a fee paid to the Post Office

= £1168.20

1. Life in the UK test (£50)  Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship Book (£12.99)
2. ILR (£1,500) at the 5 year mark, a £407 or 37% increase in one year
3. Biometric Fee (£19.20) yet again

= £1582.19

Sub Total £3918.59

1. Naturalisation (£925) after receiving ILR, a £19 increase 
2. Arrangement of a Citizenship Ceremony (£80)
3. Biometric Fee (£19.20)
4. Passport fee (£72.50) (optional but needed for travel on an equal basis as the rest of your family)

= £1096.70

Total £5015.29

But for some people it costs more:

In Person Applications

If you need to travel because of work or family and can not have your passport kept by the Home Office for sometimes over 6 months at a time then you have no choice but to do an in person application each time which costs £400 each time. So that would be (£1200) extra

Total £6215.29

Overseas Application

If you are applying from outside of the UK then it is more as the first application is Settlement instead of LTR for overseas initial applications and costs (£956) which is £307 more 

As the initial visa issued to overseas applications is for 33 months then the health surcharge is then (£600) which is £100 more. even though this is just 3 months extra the Home Office is charging people 6 months extra!

and if you are not in a country that has a visa centre then a (£115)receiving fee

and an outside of the UK visa application centre fee of (£70)

(£150) for IELTS to take an approved english test at an approved centre if you are not already exempt for the english language requirement

Some countries will need to pay to have a TB test that is about (£65) 

so would give 

Total £5822.29

Additionally fees can vary in different countries due to how exchanges rates are implemented and variations in exchange rates can even be 20% for more unstable currencies.

10 Year Route Applications

Anybody who has been forced onto the 10 year route then the fees would be as they need to make two more applications for FLR

Total £7351.69

If you need a Transfer of conditions to a new passport when the old one expires (this will be more common now that the probation period is 5 years) you will be charged £183 or £260 if you have ILR

This does not include the increased complexity of the forms etc that Brits have to wade through. The complexity is so bad now that even the well educated need the help of solicitors just to fill them in, or the solicitors fees, extra English Test fees, validation fees of qualifications, translation fees or court, legal and judicial review fees we have to go through when the H.O. get things wrong.

If your spouse has a non-British/non-EU child then the costs will be even higher.

Even the new Helpline now costs £1.37 per Minute  or £4.00 for the webchat

By comparison Residence Documents issued under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations are not mandatory.

EU National Route Applications

For EU Citizens bringing their spouses here using the EU National route

1. EEA family permit (Free)  is normally for 6 months and allows multiple entry to the UK (https://www.gov.uk/family-permit)
2. after 6 months can apply for 5 year Residence card (£65)
3. Permanent Residence Card (£65) after 5 years of residence in the UK

Total £130 (but is technically optional)

The spouse is only allowed outside the UK 6 months a year.

Spouse visas for British Citizens should not cost anything as the British Citizen is already paying for them indirectly through their taxes. Now with the health surcharge, many are paying 3 times for the same thing as often both members of the couple are already paying taxes and national insurance over the 5 years yet the spouse also has the endorsement on their visa not allowing them to have recourse to public funds anyway.

So why are we now being charged 21.5 times (excluding naturalisation costs) what it costs for something we have already paid for through our taxes? 

Why are British Citizens (most of them born and bred in the UK) being ripped off and discriminated against just because their spouses were born in a non-EU country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? This is discrimination and undue prolonged interference in their family and private life.

Even after being ripped off by extortionate above premium fees the level of service offered is lacking with many applications refused with the fees being pocketed,  applications delayed due to staff cutbacks and many mistakes made with them not quickly corrected etc

Even the application forms are still not fit for purpose and treat British Citizens like immigrants. An example is on the spouse application form 

'Question: 7.22 is your sponsor currently living in the UK? 

Put a cross (x) in the relevant box. 

If ‘Yes’ please provide the date of when he/she first arrived in the UK'

Let's put these fees into context:

An application for a visit visa for a period of five years is £588.

The Government say that all applicants should be earning a minimum of £18,600 per year  even though 47% of the working population earn below this.

So now anybody earning £18,600 would have to pay 

27% of their annual income in application and visa fees! 

last year it was 18%  

But Justice Blake in his MM ruling in 2013 suggested to be fair that the minimum income should be £13,400 

So given that any body earning £13,400 would have to pay 

37.5% of their annual income in visa fees!

just in order to exercise their fundamental right of living with their spouse. 

A household used to be considered to be fuel poor if they were required to spend more than 10% of their income on fuel to maintain an adequate standard of warmth. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319280/Fuel_Poverty_Report_Final.pdf

This is causing many families 'immigration fee poverty', that is if they first can earn enough to be even allowed to apply.

Is it fair that British families now have to pay  27% of their yearly income just to be able to stay together in the UK without restrictions after they get married?

Sources of current fees and costs etc:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visa-regulations-revised-table

Last year's fees:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279536/Fees_Table_April_2014.pdf

Cost of passport:

https://www.gov.uk/renew-adult-passport

Health surcharge:

https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415129/Surcharge_customer_info_web_v1.2.pdf

English language test:

https://www.ielts.org/test_centre_search/results.aspx?TestCentreID=d887b5c9-6b9c-411d-9b76-05a3d6b70c64

(47% of the working population earn below this)

https://www.gov.uk/family-permit

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299617/HO_perm_and_temp_migration_applications_-_Annual_Data.pdf

Appointment booking fee (premium service centre)  £100

Application in person (premium service centre) £400 includes £100 appointment booking fee

Passport pass-back £40

Receiving, preparing and forwarding documents £115

Acceptance of application at Visa Application centre outside the UK  £70

Some proposed charges are:-

If you withdraw your application before a decision is issued you will be charged £80

If a mistake is made in the processing of your application you will be charged an Administrative review fee  £80

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401236/indicative-visa-charges-for-2015-to-2016.pdf

Our PEO experience - ILR

 Author : Steve

A few days ago we had an interview for Indefinite Leave to Remain SET M (spouse of a married person) at PEO Solihull (PEO = public enquiry office, also called premium service centre). I'm happy to say straight off that we got ILR.

This brings to a close a long, stressful and expensive chapter in our lives. Of course, it's much worse now for the people currently going through the process. Our application was under the old rules and furthermore was as strong as these things can be, but it still felt like a trial by ordeal at times. This note is shared to be useful to those currently going through this and hopefully to point people in the right direction.

In due course, I'll tot up the total expense of the whole process from the initial fiancee visa through to ILR (which in our case I estimate ran to several thousand pounds - that's including solicitor's fees to guide us through the initial process for a fiancee visa - expensive but reassuring if you're new to this; language test etc. costs; travel costs; and lost earnings - as I'm self-employed). I'll also do a comparison with at least one other country, to provide an international perspective.

These are our experiences :

Surinder Singh and Scotland

Hi guys

Hope summer has been good to you.  Some updates:

MM case
Last week the lawyers involved indicated they were still waiting on legal aid approval.  There is some confidence that this will be granted, as will permission to appeal to Supreme Court, possibly for a hearing in February next year. However nothing is for certain yet.  More to come when more is known.

Surinder Singh

Please find here the first version of the Surinder Singh country specific guide.  This collates experience of some members (my sincere thanks to these people) who have exercised treaty rights in various member states, covering Residence Card application process to rentals; from best places to find a job to supermarkets; from mobile phone networks to issues faced in opening a bank account.  There is currently substantive information for Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland and Malta. 

Some have put their hand up to be in-country mentors to those who need more help and these mentors will also organise local meetups.

There are lots of gaps still to be filled in (especially for Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain) so pls do your bit to help us help others by dropping me an email with some pointers along the lines of what you have learnt, what you wish you had known before embarking on your SS journey etc  It doesn't have to be major - can even be something as small as recommended restaurants!

If you have any experience you wish to share or are keen to be a mentor, please let me know.

Amended versions will be uploaded to the BritCits website and http://www.scribd.com/doc/239558037/Surinder-Singh-country-specific-guide  If you have trouble downloading from this website let me know and we will email you the latest soft copy.

Scotland independence referendum

Next week as you're aware is the Scottish independence referendum.  A lot is in the media about what people north and south of the border feel would be best.  Not much however seems to have been said from the perspective of migrants - which is where you guys come in.  You could be the first or second generation migrant; have migrant parents or be the migrant partner.

If this is you, it would be great if you could spend just five minutes this weekend to write a paragraph or two (max 400 words) on the emotions evoked by the words British as opposed to say English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish.  Which one/(s) do you identify with?

This is for Politics.co.uk so please send your contributions to us to forward on, or to them directly, no later than Sunday.

HAGW.

Sonel

For all content on mailers sent out this month, see: http://www.scribd.com/word/document_edit/239570170

Festival of Love, South Bank, London

Author : Steve

http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/festivals-series/festival-of-love

Yesterday evening I took an evening stroll along the South Bank of the Thames (a book club I'm a member of meets there every month, and I was early - a good chance to take in the glorious summer evening). I came across this wonderful festival.

The 'festival of love' explores seven kinds of love as described by the Ancient Greeks. It seems appropriate to explore the links to the divided families campaign :

Agape - the love of humanity - exhibited by human rights campaigners and other true humanitarians

Storge - family love - parents, children, brothers and sisters - many examples on this blog, and on this blog (Family Immigration Alliance), and in this book (Love Letters to the Home Office)

 Pragma - enduring love - love which endures weeks, months, even years of separation - exhibited by Skype families (Skype mummy - Skype papa) 

Hanif Kureishi: The migrant has no face, status or story

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/30/hanif-kureishi-migrant-immigration-1

'The immigrant has become a contemporary passion in Europe, the vacant point around which ideals clash. Easily available as a token, existing everywhere and nowhere, he is talked about constantly. But in the current public conversation, this figure has not only migrated from one country to another, he has migrated from reality to the collective imagination where he has been transformed into a terrible fiction.

'Whether he or she – and I will call the immigrant he, while being aware that he is stripped of colour, gender and character – the immigrant has been made into something resembling an alien. He is an example of the undead, who will invade, colonise and contaminate, a figure we can never quite digest or vomit. If the 20th century was replete with uncanny, semi-fictional figures who invaded the lives of the decent, upright and hard-working – the pure – this character is rehaunting us in the guise of the immigrant. He is both a familiar, insidious figure, and a new edition of an old idea expressed with refreshed and forceful rhetoric...'

'... It is impossible to speak up for the immigrant or, more importantly, hear him speak for himself, since everyone, including the most reasonable and sensitive, has made up their mind that the immigrant is everywhere now, and he is too much of a problem. There is, of course, always good reason to be suspicious of agreement: there is nothing more coercive and stupid than consensus, and it is through consensus that inequality is concealed.'

Well worth a read.

Movement Against Xenophobia: Immigration Act 2014 (with some comments by me)

http://movagxen.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/immigration-act-2014/

'The document below is useful for legal practitioners but also accesible to those of us who are not legally proficient. It is a worrying and discriminatory piece of legislation, MAX will continue to campaign against it, monitor the impacts and challenge where ever possible. We ask the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to pledge to scrap the Act should they form a Government in 2015.'

The end of the right of appeal :

'Appeal rights have been replaced by administrative review. The only rights of appeal still available are in protection claims (where a person is seeking refugee status or humanitarian protection) or where that leave is being revoked or where a person claims breach of human rights.'

Comment: There are numerous cases on this site - and I am aware of many more - where the partners of British citizens have been incorrectly denied visas to the UK, cases which have subsequently been won on this appeal. Ending the right of appeal ends the oversight of an often hostile and incompetent system, and is an assault of natural justice and democratic values.

Effectively this means that there is now no oversight to the many mistakes made when, for example, spousal or other family visas are dealt with.

British citizens and voters NEED TO KNOW that if their sons and daughters fall in  love with a foreigner, their right to start a family is now at the whim of the Home Office - the same Home Office that is in pursuit of an increasingly distant target of net migration.

Landlords as border guards - can we expect to see migrants and indeed 'foreign' looking and sounding people to be forced into substandard, overpriced accommodation?

'All non-British, non-EEA or non-Swiss citizens who require leave to enter or remain in the UK but do not have it are disqualified from entering into a residential tenancy agreement. Landlords have a duty to check a person’s immigration status. If they rent to someone who does not have leave they can be fined up to £3000 per adult by way of a penalty notice. Landlords can object to the penalty notice and do have a right of appeal against it. They are also required to adhere to the Code of Practice which will tell them how to make the checks and how not to be discriminatory. Breach of the code does not carry any civil or criminal liability. '

Comment: 'No dogs, no blacks, no Irish'. Back to the bad old days. Landlords will be reluctant to rent to migrants - including categories such as students and foreign workers - and even British citizens whose skin may be the wrong colour, or who may have the wrong access. This sets the clock back generations.

The end of universal health care.

'This clause provides the Secretary of State with a power, by order, to require migrants seeking leave to enter or remain (or entry clearance) to pay an immigration health charge ... '

'Those ordinarily resident in the UK are not subject to a charge for the NHS. This clause changes the ordinary resident test for the purposes of charging so that all those who do not have indefinite leave to remain can be charged. This includes those who need leave to enter or remain but also those currently living and working here with limited leave.'

Comment: Completely contrary to the principles of the NHS. The category of those who do not have 'indefinite leave to remain' includes those on spousal or fiancee visas leading up to ILR, even if they are resident in the UK. Even if they are working and paying taxes for the NHS.

A nurse from the Philippines, whose husband is British, on a spouse visa, will have to pay if she needs care on the NHS - the same NHS  which she works for and pays taxes for. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.

Attack on employment rights.

'This clause amends the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 with regards to appeals by employers against penalty notices for a breach of the illegal working provisions in the Act. The effect is that the employer must first give a ‘notice of objection’ to the Secretary to State who will determine the objection by way of administrative review. The aim is to negate the need of an appeal.'

'... The purpose of this clause is to make it easier for the Secretary of State to recover penalties from employers by removing the need for court proceedings (which allows the employer to raise a defence ). The amendment will allow the Secretary of State to enforce the penalty as if it were a debt under a court order, register it with the civil court and take enforcement action immediately.'

Comment: In much the same way as the attack on the right to housing, this provision will drastically limit rights to employment. Indeed, employers without the access to big legal or HR departments will be reluctant to hire migrants - maybe even those with ILR - maybe even British citizens with the 'wrong' complexion or who speak the 'wrong' way. Because those employers will lack the resources to know what to check,  and will therefore be open to huge fines with limited redress.

'No dogs, no blacks, no Irish' - again. This kicks the door wide open to abuse and discrimination.

Undermining the right to marry or form a civil partnership.

'There are several detailed provisions with regard to the conduct of the investigation and information that needs to be provided by couples but the main changes are that all marriages following civil preliminaries and all civil partnerships in England and Wales will be subject to a 28-day notice period (currently 15 days) from when notice is given to the registration official.'

'Where the Home Office has reasonable grounds to suspect that a referred marriage or civil partnership is a sham, it will be able to extend the notice period to 70 days in order to investigate the genuineness of the couple’s relationship.'

Comment: This is an authoritarian, intrusive and grotesquely offensive assault on the right to marry.
A fiance visa is for six months; the timeline from granting the visa, to getting married, to applying for the next visa (the spouse visa) is tight enough already. This provision makes it harder, more uncertain and more stressful. All to tacks a problem which research has shown -does not really exist-.

See Free Movement blog on sham marriages : http://www.freemovement.org.uk/sharp-increase-in-sham-marriage-convictions/
There were only 229 convictions related to sham marriages in 2011.

This was from last year - 'Bungling immigration officials crash genuine wedding' :
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/bungling-immigration-sham-wedding-london

This provision undermines the rights of families to be together by manufacturing a problem which doesn't exist.

The Act attacks the rights of families in these ways: right to housing; right to health care; right to earn a living; access to justice; and right to exist and be together at all. It is an outrage.

The Act will inevitably greatly affect -everyone- in the UK - not just migrants, or indeed those British citizens who are the partners or children of migrants. It will affect our economy, our society, our relations with the outside world. It is insidious and immensely damaging.

FIGHT XENOPHOBIA.
JOIN MAX.
http://movagxen.wordpress.com/
https://twitter.com/NoXenophobia
https://www.facebook.com/groups/512975785463442/


Read on... 
Open Democracy : 'Academics speak out against the UK Immigration Bill' 
http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/tom-vickers/academics-speak-out-against-uk-immigration-bill

Airport chaos after UK immigration computer failure

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/01/airport-chaos-uk-immigration-computer-failure

'Airline passengers faced disruption on Wednesday night and into Thursday morning as computer problems caused extended queues at immigration desks. Lengthy lines started forming at airport terminals across the country after a fault on UK Border Force computers earlier in the afternoon.

'Extra staff were drafted in to try and reduce the queues. A government spokesman said: "We are currently experiencing temporary IT problems which may add to the time taken to conduct passport checks...'

Coincidentally, Los Angeles Airport experienced systems problems (halting departing flights) within the same 24 hour period :
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101630540

At least one technology commentator has pointed out that this coincides with the end of support for the Windows XP operating system :
https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/461633939908464640

"Them" and "Us": The damaging rhetoric of immigration 

Guest post by Judith Vonberg

Judith on Yashika Bageerathi and the immigration debate : http://www.migrantvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=528:judith-vonberg-yashika-bageerathi-and-the-immigration-debate&catid=124:judith-vonberg

Where do we get our ideas about other nationalities, other religious groups, other ethnicities? It’s a complex question with no less complex answers. My current research looks at British and German popular culture just after the Second World War. I wanted to know what ideas about the former enemy were in circulation in each culture and how those ideas changed as the conflict retreated.

I’ve recently made a curious discovery. The ideas about Germans that dominated popular culture and popular opinion in the 1950s are strikingly similar to the ideas and opinions currently dominating British views about migrants.

It's not just the wage limits that hurt people

by Tim

'Hi,

I am from Bristol and moved back there to be with my family but have had to move to Cardiff to get a job to meet the income requirements. I wrote this the other day and submitted it to your site. Here is my story, please feel free to share it.

It's not just the income restrictions that hurt families from the July 2012 revision to Spouse visa. I am a British Citizen and one who is fortunate enough to receive a salary that exceeds the minimum income requirements. I have been living in the US with my American wife for over 6 years. We decided to move back to Bristol last year.

When is a migrant no longer a migrant?

By Sonel

There has been considerable discussion of migrants in the UK recently. Whether you think they’re a burden on the taxpayer as the government would have you believe, or whether you place faith in data demonstrating migrants are net contributors, the question remains - at what point do you stop being a migrant? For my part, I was born in India, raised in Australia and ‘grew up’ in the UK. 

I was born where my mother went into labour.  Were it not for a quirk of fate, I would have been born in the USA.  But would I truly have been able to call myself American simply because I was born there?

11th October 2013

By Sonel

The government justifies the cut in the 50p tax rate for the very high-earners by stating that when taxation requirements are made too stringent, people finds means to evade paying tax altogether.  

They seem to conveniently overlook this theory when it comes to family immigration.  An attempt to wave a flag saying “look, we’ve reached our net migration target”, however short-term this may be for comes at the expense of the public purse as more and more families are finding alternative means to living in their home country with their family.

UK’s immigration rules

Non-EEA family members granted the right to enter or remain in UK under our immigration rules have no recourse to public funds as a condition of their right to live here.

Immigration rules brought in on 9 July 2012 attack British citizens and residents who wish to simply reside here with these very same non-EEA family members, still with no recourse to public funds.

These rules are an attempt by the government to attack those who have the right to claim benefits (whether they actually do claim or not is not assessed), but also in what is an open secret, an attempt to reduce net migration by making the environment in the UK hostile to discourage immigration and encourage emigration.  This is the only way the government can attempt to reach its net migration target of under 100,000 without closing our borders.  (That a net migration target is nonsensical in the first place is another subject altogether.)

The government even put together a group to achieve exactly this aim, naming it the Hostile Environment Working Group, with no pretence at being anything remotely noble.

The government, and more specifically the Home Office, seem to think that British citizens/residents will give up and meekly or not, exit the UK eventually rather than be separated from their families.  They are half right.  We will not let ourselves be separated from family.   However the government has spectacularly underestimated the strength of the family bond and the natural human instinct to preserve it.

Impact

BritCits has followed the response of impacted British citizens and residents to UK’s immigration rules with great interest over the last 12 months.  Generally, the response falls into one of the following categories:


a)    A resignation by British ex-pats to living in exile and never being able to return home to raise children (who may also be British) or look after elderly British parents.

Impact: Denying all the benefit of British citizenship, denying minors the right to a British education and upbringing and forcing British elderly to rely on social care rather than the dignity of being looked after by family.

b)   British citizens/residents leaving the UK to join their non-EEA family members in another country.

Impact: Loss of tax revenue by way of income tax and VAT, as would have been paid by the British citizen/resident and their family members.  NHS and businesses also impacted as those with skills very much in demand are now making the move out of the UK to countries with more family friendly rules in order to look after elderly parents.  This has been evidenced by British Medical Association.


c)    British citizens/residents living apart from their non-EEA family member, often at the detriment of British children.

Impact: British children are forced into a single parent upbringing and denied access to grandparents.  Studies show access to both parents and grandparents actually leads to a better quality of life for the child.

d)   British citizens exercising treaty rights afforded to them by the EU by living in another country within the region with their family members.  This tends to involve no language or income requirements, nil application fees and respect for the right to be with your family.  Usually this route allows the British citizens to move back to the UK with their family members without any of constraints of UK’s immigration rules.


Surinder Singh

British citizens are increasingly refusing to either be separated from family or give up their right to live in the UK.  By making family immigration rules so onerous, more families are rejecting the first three routes above and looking at d), a route that has been open to us as EU citizens for over 20 years but one we have not needed because previous rules were for the most part, fair.

This is despite the fact that living and working in another country is neither easy nor cheap.  It tends to involve significant upheaval, could threaten career progression and job security, is expensive and stressful and can be traumatic, especially if there are children involved.

However it is a route which has minimal interference from the Home Office and therefore, preferred by people who may have borne the brunt of Home Office incompetence.

By returning home after living and working in another EU country, citizens are making use of the Surinder Singh ruling, allowing citizens the right to live in UK with non-EEA family members and also allowing these very same family members recourse to public funds.

By making it harder for British citizens and residents to sponsor family members who would have no recourse to public funds and pay application fees up to £2000; by using no common sense and finding ridiculous reasons to refuse visas; by encouraging our citizens to move countries even though they would eventually be able to live in the UK with family members who would have recourse to public funds and pay only £55 in application fees, it is the Home Office which is the drain on the public purse.  Not hardworking Brits just wishing to live with their family without interference from the state.

The lies that prop up the family immigration rules.

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/09/06/lies-prop-family-immigration-rules

'In the reams written on the Family Immigration rule changes of July 2012 (a fair proportion of which appears on this website), there have been a number of lies exposed. We thought it might be of service to our readers to provide a little piece with most of them lined up for inspection. Obviously we’re not going to get every single lie and you’re welcome to add to our little list in the comments below, but this is for starters...

'... Again, a quote from Theresa May in the introduction to the consultation document on these rules. Try telling that to Andy and Molly and their 2 young boys who lost a year of their marriage to the rules, to Richard and Kate, to Lizzie and Alexander and their one year old daughter, to Kev and Barbara, to Megan and Max, to Del and Valery, to Katie and Cliff and to Stacey and Yoshi all couples who made the grave error of being born in different places deemed unacceptable by the UK’s Government.

'Tell these people they have no legitimate right to be together in the UK, tell them to their faces. Because that’s not what Theresa May or her Home Office staff do, they keep things abstract, they keep things impersonal, they don’t comment on individual cases. They avoid the question of love, of family life and concentrate on the financial side of things. They tell glib lies to justify their pursuit, by any means at their disposal, of lower immigration statistics. They make a claim for ‘fair but robust’ policies. They split up in real life, real loving families.

'To achieve that, they lie.'

https://twitter.com/JCWInews

Home Office announces that it will appeal the recent adverse decision on family migration income threshold.

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/news/2013/home-office-announces-it-will-appeal-recent-adverse-decision-family-migration-income-thres
---

The Home Office says :
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2013/july/51-min-income
'However, we believe matters of public policy, including the detail of how the minimum income threshold should operate, are for the Government and Parliament to determine, not the Courts. We also believe the detailed requirements of the policy are proportionate to its aims. We are therefore pursuing an appeal against the judgment.

One significant issue with the rules is the undemocratic way they were introduced per http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/introduction.html

As many are aware, the rules were brought in initially via secondary legislation, and then (when the courts ruled against this), there was an emergency debate which a handful of Lords attended (the Commons having gone into recess), discussing something the majority of them really didn't understand (with some honourable exceptions).

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/07/19/new-immigration-rules-brought-in-immediately/

This hasn't been scrutinised properly by Parliament, and the APPG goes some way to remedy this.

The rules were introduced undemocratically, without a true debate as one would understand it, and yet the Home Office blabbers hypocritically about 'the will of Parliament'.
---

I was at a meeting (organised by a church group) in Westminster a couple of nights ago; on the agenda was family migration, the rules, their impact and an update on the campaign. One question was - how did the rules came in, how on earth did they get through? My explanation of the sequence of events caused a palpable ripple of shock in the room (not the only thing they found shocking; the sheer numbers of people affected - 47%  at least, and maybe much more if you consider the impossible evidential requirements - was shocking to many. That people could be asked to leave the country after 2 1/2 years was shocking too (I quote from Lord Taylor of Holbeach's letter to Baroness Smith - 'Where a couple cannot meet the financial requirement at a later application stage, for example because of redundancy, the migrant will no longer qualify... [and] will be required to leave the UK). The discriminatory nature of the rules - the impact falls on everyone, but some more than others. And on and on.


I also had to explain to a woman who approached me at the end that it may be advisable for her adult son to postpone starting a family in case he fell foul of the rules which have an additional income requirement for children. Inhuman.

The undemocratic nature of the rules does make people sit up. We come back to the point that it is important to lobby politicians because - as we've seen with family migrations - the government can be very devious about bringing in radical changes under the radar.

---

In the meantime, grassroots campaigning, hearts and minds, lobbying politicians and persuading people to lobby, and providing support to those affected is key.

This should serve as a caution for those involved in other campaigns (such as legal aid, and NHS care) for how devious and ruthless this government can be.

A confused government -  by Sonel Mehta

David Cameron has spent a great deal of public money and time wooing Indian citizens to work and study in the UK; asking them to bring their business, money and skills.  ‘We’re open for business’ he said, in an attempt to allay the concerns, held rightly so, of UK’s unwelcoming attitude towards migrants.  Even where the migrants were temporary (e.g. student visitors) whose impression of UK had already been tainted by the London Met fiasco and tales of international students having to line up overnight to register with the police;  and news of those legally resident here and even our own citizens being sent text messages telling them they were here illegally and therefore must leave!

Just when maybe the UK’s reputation as open for business was seeping through, came the Home office announcement of a £3000 bond for visitors from select countries (including India and unsurprisingly countries which just happen to be all non-“white”).  A policy which so clearly flirts with racial discrimination I’d like to think it has not been thought through – it has become very much a case of one step forward, ten steps back.   Australians are notorious for violating the conditions of their visa, especially those on a working holiday.  I’m Australian myself - I don’t want it to apply to us. But are we spared because we are a “white” country? Hmm.

Even putting aside the issues around liquidity and currency fluctuations associated with such a bond, I question the competence of a government which makes announcements (surely, but surely, Cameron didn’t approve of it) so frequently requiring backtracking and qualification... bedroom tax, landlord checks on migrants, fracking, open source software and even immigration.   Almost as if statements are rushed out to assess their viability based on the media response.

There have since the initial announcement, been murmurs from the government that this policy will only apply to “high-risk visitors”,  in response to outrage from the selected countries including a tit-for-tat policy and accusations of racism.   

As a pick’n’mix policy I don’t see how it could work.  A “high-risk” visitor is unlikely to obtain a visa to enter UK in the first place. If they do manage to do so, £3000 is a small price to stay here illegally.   So will the £3000 bond actually apply to anyone or is it just another disastrous, or successful depending on how you view the net migration target, PR move to deter migrants from coming to the UK?

Just when I thought it couldn’t get worse..that they’d realise the error of their ways, we were greeted with another announcement by the Home Office on their contracting of vans carrying billboards encouraging undocumented migrants to leave the country. How?  Such people must sms a number for information on how to leave the country, else risk facing arrest.  They state that the government ‘could’   (note the use of a conditional word) provide financial help in the return home.    It screams of a government wanting to appear to be tough, rather than one actually having a policy which works; a fair policy with a positive impact on our economy and people.

Those in the UK illegally wishing to return to their home country, could do so easily. There are no exit checks and even if there were, why would they prevent anyone from leaving?  Those wishing to return home are unlikely to wish to flag their situation to the government by sending them an sms.  If they wanted to leave, and wanted help doing so, there was nothing preventing them from going and turning themselves in to the authorities.

I’m just bemused.  I'm curious to see what information is provided to people who respond, but if I send an SMS to this number will I be hounded on how I must leave the country or risk facing arrest? Will UKBA officers turn up at my door (my phone is registered to my home address) even though I am a British citizen?  Would those who use the number constantly need to be wary of a tap on the shoulder? Surely, if they send an sms they’re just alerting the authorities to their presence here, which they could easily do by turning themselves in, if they really wanted to leave? Does compliance with this prevent the 10 year ban overstayers are threatened with? Would it not be worth just waiting out for the amnesty after 20 years residence, be it legal or illegal?

What is the Home Office thinking with this strategy, or is it just that they have such an exceedingly high budget they’re looking to supplement the splurging of appealing judicial decisions to overturn UKBA visa refusals, where the rules are found to be onerous or applied illegally, by now wasting our money on moving billboards reminiscent of 1984?

Government accused of dismantling equity laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/14/coalition-accused-of-assault-on-equality

Fawcett Society report says coalition has been reversing and dismantling equality laws.

Includes a picture of our protest on 9th July 2013 -
'Protests outside the Home Office on the anniversary of the UK's new family migration policy, which prevents UK citizens and refugees earning less than £18,600 from bringing non-EU spouses to live in the UK.'

Equality campaigners have accused the government of a systematic assault on measures designed to protect women and minorities, amid fears that a key requirement to end discrimination is to be scrapped.

In a report out this week, the Fawcett Society accuses the coalition government of "weakening the legal and institutional measures concerned with equality".

https://twitter.com/fawcettsociety :
Preview of our new report out tmrw http://bit.ly/13bLfMM  'Red Tape Red Lines warns of 'dismantling of equality law'

Let's be clear. As recently as the end of June, the government (in the form of Mark Harper, Immigration Minister) said : “the Government is satisfied the minimum income requirement is working as intended” ( via http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/07/attacks-house-lords-and-high-court-build-momentum-family-migration-campaign ) :

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-06-25a.161167.h :

Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian, Labour):
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will review the effects of the minimum income requirement for UK citizens to bring a spouse or partner of non-European Economic Area nationality to settle in the UK.

Mark Harper (Forest of Dean, Conservative) :
The Government is satisfied the minimum income requirement is working as intended. However, as with all new policies, we will keep the impact under review in the light of the published immigration statistics and other sources of information available. These will include the information and representations provided by those affected by the rules, such as are contained in the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration published on 10 June 2013.

One may reasonably conclude that discrimination was an intended consequence. As Migration Observatory warned last year ( 'Women, young people and non-Londoners are most affected by changes to family migration policy' - http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press-releases/women-young-people-and-non-londoners-are-most-affected-changes-family-migration-polic ) :
             61% of women and 32% of men will not qualify to bring in a family member. 

(In addition to regional, class and race discrimination - The areas of England with the lowest eligibility are Merseyside, where 56% of people will not be eligible, North West England (53%) and Yorkshire and Humberside (52%). There's also a strong ethnic element to this - see the Middlesex University submission to the APPG inquiry 'Divided families but some more divided than others' : http://www.ctbi.org.uk/pdf_view.php?id=862


Ethnicity                       Male median wage        Female median wage
UK population              £24,000                      £15,000
British                           £24,000                      £14,600
Other White                 £22,000                      £15,600
Pakistani                       £15,500                      £9,700
Indian                           £23,000                      £18,000
Bangladeshi                  £8,400                        £10,700
Chinese                        £20,000                       £19,000
Other Asian                  £18,000                      £13,200
Black Caribbean           £20,800                      £19,200
Black African                £19,500                      £15,600
Other Black                  £19,800                      £16,900
White & B Caribbean    £28,000                     £18,000
White & B African         £24,000                     £15,600
White Asian                   £26,400                     £19,200
Other Mixed                  £22,000                     £17,500

Clearly women, and especially women from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, are hit hard by these rules.

'Can't buy me love' - 'As of 9 July, the UK will have one of the world’s highest income requirements for people to reunite with their family.' : http://www.mipex.eu/blog/cant-buy-me-love

It's also worth noting the underhand way the rules were brought in in the first place ( http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/introduction.html ). The rules, which have been so far-reaching and had such dramatic, life-altering consequences for so many people ( http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/stories ) was brought in through secondary legislation. Through no vote in Parliament. When the courts forced the government to do something about that ('Alvi' - http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/07/18/analysis-of-alvi/ ), there was a somewhat lacklustre debate in the Lords (as the Commons had gone to recess - http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/07/19/new-immigration-rules-brought-in-immediately/ )

Life-altering for many, yes. Even for me. I -meet- the requirements but might not have done under slightly different circumstances. I'm a placid kind of fellow. It takes a lot to get me this wound up, for so long - every day for over a year now.

https://twitter.com/BaileyYamamoto :
Votes for Women! - ooops sorry that was last century, this century - Family Life for Women!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/14/coalition-accused-of-assault-on-equality

9th July

Tuesday 9th July plan of action.

All the details are here :

http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/divided-families-day-of-action.html
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/events/2013/divided-families-day-action
http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/06/24/streets-come-westminster

The order of events is as follows :

 4pm - Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
    Afternoon demonstration outside the Home Office with speakers and street performers - bring a banner!!

  We'll meet outside the Home Office and start the protest on the dot at 4 pm. There's a great selection of speakers, bring a banner. Examples of flyers you can use or amend are here - http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/flyers - but be creative.
   
  It's close to Westminster, St James's Park and Victoria Tube. Map here :
  https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=2+marsham+street&ie=UTF-8&ei=zDPYUfb0K8TK0AXq-4HYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg


   6pm - Parliament, Committee room 10, London SW1A 0AA
    Evening meeting in Parliament chaired by Baroness Ruth Lister bringing together campaigners, supporters and parliamentarians to hear about the impacts of the new rules. The meeting will welcome valuable supporters including Maggie Atkinson, the Children's Commissioner for England, and will be a chance for families to share their stories and build the campaign for a change in the rules.

  Again, a very good selection of speakers.
  There's a bit of a space issue (we're way over capacity) as there has been so much interest - so bear that in mind and do attend the 4 pm protest in any event.

---

 Why attend the protest?
 
On 9th July 2012, the government introduced rules which set an income threshold so high that 47% of British people could not live with their spouse, if their spouse or partner came from outside the EEA. At the same time, they did a lot of other things as well: closing the route for elderly dependants; drastically raising the bar on the language requirement; increasing the time to indefinite leave to remain from two to five years - thereby setting people up for failure by reducing the employability of foreign partners, for no good reason; discounting the income of the foreign partner, therefore locking even middle- or high- income families into exile; horrendously complicating rules for the self-employed, so that even the comfortably off will struggle; forcing working class women and men into single parenthood.

They did this without a proper debate in Parliament; they introduced this through secondary legislation. When challenged by the courts, a perfunctory debate was held in the Lords. Harsh, draconian rules which divide the families of British citizens were introduced without the knowledge of most people, or even many parliamentarians, in this country.

These rules are yet another attack on the rights of migrant communities. But they are also an attack on British citizens' rights. The right to fall in love, to marry and settle with whom you choose. The right of children to be with their parents, the right of people to be with their loved ones. Maybe more important than rights, they represent an attack on our values; the value of family, the value of marriage, the value of childhood itself. This is an attack on British citizens on the basis of income maybe unprecendented since the era of the workhouse. It must be challenged.

We had a great result in the courts last week, and we've had a great result with the APPG report and parliamentary debates, as well as media interest. The pressure needs to be maintained.