BritCits Divided Family of the Week - Aaron & Kano

“I am being pushed out of my own country by this government because I dared to fall in love, have a baby with, and marry a woman who is Japanese.”

A British citizen, Aaron met his partner, Kano, in Bristol when she was there on a two-year working holiday visa.  Kano is from Japan.

They fell in love, she fell pregnant and they decided to get married. Aaron has invested all his time and energy in Bristol and is keen to make a life with his wife and child there. Bristol is where all his friends and family live. He wants a stable place to mark the height of his child as the years pass; he doesn’t don’t want to live in Britain to claim any sort of welfare benefits.

However, under the new rules, he is unable to give his child the upbringing he so desires in his own country, something which we all as British citizens have and should continue to have the right to.

Aaron’s child is also British. Therefore, in fact, two British citizens have had their basic rights eroded by this government.

-          The right to live with your partner without interference from the State for Aaron;

-          The right to have both your parents looking after you, for their child.

Aaron earns just under the £18,600 mark. Combining his income with that which Kano could earn, they easily satisfy £18,600. But Kano’s income cannot be included, thus highlighting a huge oversight in the rules.

Not only is £18,600 too high, it does not allow for geographical differences and is much higher than the income criteria required to be excluded from qualifying for welfare benefits. It also shows a complete disregard for the potential value of the spouse’s income.

In practice, both Aaron and Kano would work, each earning a salary that would be taxed and relied upon for their living expenses. Why then is the criterion restricted only to Aaron’s income?

Aaron is being pushed out of his own country, by his own government, for no reason other than that its mission is to achieve a poorly selected and arbitrary net immigration target in the 'tens of thousands'.

BritCits newsletter - 16th October

The  most recent newsletter from 16th October is now online, covering:

• High Court judge labels conduct of Theresa May and UK government as 'grotesque'
• Supreme Court rules it unlawful for caseworkers to not exercise allowed discretion
• Adult Dependant Relatives - update
• Complaint to European Commission on UK not abiding by EEA regulations
• Family of the Week - Alex H

Previous versions are available by clicking on 'Past Issues' on the top left hand side at the link above.

If you'd like to receive the newsletters directly into your inbox, please sign up here.

BritCits newsletter - 1st October

The  newsletter from 1st October is now online, covering:

• Display of compassion by Home Office
• Bizarre occurrence of judge having wrist slapped for helping asylum seeker
• Radio documentary by Ben Cowles
• Family of the Week - Nick and Courtney

Previous versions are available by clicking on 'Past Issues' on the top left hand side at the link above.

If you'd like to receive the newsletters directly into your inbox, please sign up here.

BritCits Divided Family of the Week - Alex H

"My grandma is alone in Kazakhstan"

Alex is a British citizen who moved to the UK with his mum about ten years ago, as a child.  His mother is a British citizen and lives here with Alex’s stepfather, also British.

Since living here, Alex and his mum have fully integrated into the UK. It’s their home, they both work full-time, pay their taxes, National Insurance and have revoked their Kazakh citizenships as well.

Their ties with Kazakhstan exist by way of Alex’s grandmother, who at 69 lives alone there. Although Alex and his mum make regular visits to her, and send her money to pay for her living expenses, it’s now how they want her to continue the rest of her life.

Like many kids, Alex spent a lot of time with his grandma when in Kazakhstan.  His mum, a single parent worked long hours for the three of them to have a roof over their heads and food on the table.  When they left the country, the grandma was younger, healthier with an active social life.

Recently though, her entire network of friends and family have left Kazakhstan to live with their own families, or are now deceased.  She has no family or friends nearby, and her health is deteriorating every day, surrounded by loneliness.  She has issues with her pancreas and heart, and while Alex and his mum have been paying for her medication out there, restrictions mean it is not easy to buy food in Kazakhstan to meet the strict dietary requirements imposed by the doctor, as these are simply not available in the town she lives in.

She is not physically able to do essentials.  Some social services help out with the cleaning of the house and shopping, there is no provision to help with regular checks to make sure she is okay.  To help with bathing and cooking.  There are no private companies who offer that service that Alex has been able to locate; and is it really prudent to entrust the care of a vulnerable person to a stranger who knows the only family is in another country?  There are horrific stories of abuse in the UK, despite our stringent standards. What would it be like in another country with fewer regulations?

The family is worried about their elderly relative becoming a target of criminal activity; corruption is rife in the area and they target the vulnerable, especially elderly who it is known have family around.

The family made a settlement application in 2012 before the new ADR rules were introduced, which was refused on some confusing grounds; that there was no evidence of the money being given to the grandma.  The grandma has no income of her own and Alex and his mother provided for her by taking money with them to Kazakhstan on their regular visits.  Because this was not documented in the way the Home Office wanted, the application was refused and unfortunately, the family lost at appeal as well.

The family learnt their lesson and are now documenting the money transfers, although this means incurring extra costs and making it harder for their grandma to access the funds.  However, given the nature of the ADR rules, the family is sure they would still not fulfil UK’s requirements for an ADR visa, deemed as a ban masquerading as a rule.

The family can provide for their grandma, even with private health insurance, without recourse to public funds. They just want to be able to provide a home for her to live in, with her family.  Neither Alex nor his mum can move to Kazakhstan as that impacts their financial security thus affecting their ability to pay for the grandma.   They are now considering becoming yet another family forced to leave UK to live in another EU country in the hope of family reunification, outside of the reaches of Home Office.  A drastic measure, but the only alternative to leaving their elderly relative to die alone, with health, physical and emotional needs not being met.

Immigration appeal hearings delayed (yet again!)

Appeal hearings are being put back as far as next summer

Source :Law Gazette

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/immigration-appeal-hearings-delayed-up-to-nine-months/5051475.article

Scottish Parliament Demo, Edinburgh, 2nd October

What happened in yesterday's event.

I arrived at Edinburgh train station a little bit late due to me missing my earlier train. But luckily, the train runs every half hour to Edinburgh from where I stay and so, I managed to catch the next one.

When I got to the doors of the Scottish Parliament I immediately  spotted a very disappointed member of our group sitting near by. It was already 11.15 am and there was only 2 of us!!
But never mind!

After speaking to a couple of very "confused" Police officers, and sorting out a misunderstanding, we were finally ready to set up.

Shortly after setting up (remember, only me and another member) another member of our group showed up along with a few member of a campaign called ECAP or ACE ( Autonomous Center of Edinburgh)
ACE is an independent group of people who volunteer their time to help those who need a little hand with filling application forms or getting some further advise in all sorts of issues ie : benefits, immigration, housing, etc. Their fundamental point is after all, fight for basic human rights.

The ACE members brought their own banners and displayed them alongside ours. We exchanged leaflets and had a good long chat about our causes. It was fun to meet like minded people.

Lunchtime arrive and it was busy times!( Did I mention how beautiful, sunny and warm it was!)
Some passers by started to approach us and we gave out some leaflets. Spoke to a few people explaining how this rules are affecting thousands of families in the UK. Many seemed shocked as they were not aware of the circumstances of family immigration rules.

We wrapped up shortly after lunchtime.

Despite the small number of members that showed up, we reached a fair number of audience. For that, I am truly grateful.

I feel grateful that we got to meet with more people that are suffering or have been affected by the rules. Because it gave them a platform to express how they feel and the pressure it has put them under.
It has become more clearer to me how unfair and irrational these rules are, and I could see first hand the impact it has on some people, on their daily lives, their emotions, their financial affairs, mental and physical health in some cases.
I never felt so strong about the feel to shout out loud that these rules must be abolished once and for all!

Overall, the Demo was a success, and as I said before, poor numbers, but it didn't affect the message. The purpose was served and that is all that matters.

Special thanks to the members that attended and the member from ECAP. They seemed like a very good pair of like minded people.

My goal now is that, maybe, for the next demo we schedule, we could join forces with similar groups or independent movements. It really does work. Watch this space!
Number of people attending is essential for a next demo any how.

Some pictures from the event below.

Thank you again to those that showed up and made the day possible!

Peace out

Francisca Nicol

Rugby World Cup

Since the government brought in family immigration rules which divide rather than unite families, and it's promotion of an anti-migrant rhetoric, it's likely the ears of many readers perk up at the mention of immigration, with links seen everywhere in our daily lives - from the NHS doctors and nurses who help us get better, to teachers or professors who impart their knowledge on another generation; from bus drivers who take us to work to lawyers who stand up for our rights.

So with the rugby world cup in our backyard, it was hard not to notice the prevalence of migration in the tournament.  All but one of the participating nations is represented by players whose citizenship, place of birth or roots lie other than the team they are playing for. These players whilst not 'local', tend to qualify based on residency or having a parent or grandparent from the nation they now represent.

• Samoa: 13 players born in New Zealand, qualifying through having Samoan parents
• Tonga: 12 players born in Australia, Fiji or NZ
• Wales: 11 players born in England, Australia or Tonga
• Japan: 11 players born in NZ, Tonga, Australia or South Africa
• Scotland: Also 11 born in other nations, including South Africa, England, NZ, Zimbabwe, Spain, USA or Netherlands
• France: 10 born in South Africa, Belgium, NZ, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, Algeria or Fiji
• Australia: 9 born in Saudi Arabia, NZ, Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea or Fiji
• Italy: 9 players born in Argentina, South Africa, Australia or Fiji
• USA: Also 9 players born abroad, in Australia, Ireland, South Africa or Zimbabwe
• Canada: 5 players born in Nigeria, England, Scotland or South Africa
• Ireland: 5 players born in South Africa, NZ, Israel or Spain
• NZ: Also 5 players born overseas, including Australia, American Samoa, Tonga and Fiji
• Romania: 4 players born overseas, in Georgia, South Africa, NZ or Tonga
• England: 3 players are born in NZ, Australia or South Africa. The number would have been double, but for injuries
• Fiji: Also 3 born in Australia or England
• Namibia: 2 born in South Africa
• Georgia: 1 player born in Russia
• South Africa: 1 player born in Zimbabwe
• Uruguay: Also 1, born in Argentina

You can read in more detail who the players are, here.

The only team to have the full squad native-born is Argentina, all other teams can thank immigration for its muscle.

The positives and options brought about by immigration are not unique to Rugby Union though - so many Team GB Olymipans also have foreign roots, but spare no effort in representing our nation.

Yeahie for movement of people - who knows which country some of your own kids will represent when they're all grown up, in whatever field they choose to participate.  With the increasingly global aspect to families, the world is truly our oyster.