Do you think the new £38K income visa threshold for UK spouse visas is fair?

[zendeveloper]

It is set at the same level as for work visas.

Feels completely crazy to me, but then, I am also an immigrant (although the changes don't affect me), so probably too sensitive to the topic. Would be interesting to hear MN opinion.

Who suffers? The British children who are going to see their mothers and fathers refused visas and booted out. Say their English dad earns £32k a year, foreign mum raises the young ones, can't work a regular salaried job of the kind that counts towards their visa rules, because one child has significant special needs. They don't claim any benefits (not entitled as she on a spouse visa) but they get by.

These new rules will smash up that family. Mum goes "home" (though she's been living here for years), Dad has to quit his job to take care of the kids, who don't understand why their mother had to leave.

If you don't care, you're morally dead.

A lot of those landlords will be taken out of the game in the coming recession, good riddance, this new measure is also going to help crash house prices, so win win for UK society if not for individuals wanting to live and work here.

@shockeditellyou do you not think they will just end up raising postdoc starting salaries or appointing at a higher point on the scale. Starting postdoc salaries are about 35-36k.
there is also the global talent visa. That didn’t have a minimum salary but not sure if that is going to change as well?

Again, we are not discussing work related immigration here. Unless your point is that British people need to ensure before they fall in love with a foreigner, they are sufficiently qualified in the context of British immigration law, and god forbid they stay at home with the children, or anything like this.

But it's not the immigrant who needs to earning that amount it's the British spouse - so the immigrant doesn't technically have to offer anything to the country.

So it's typically women who have taken a break or not progressed in their career because of childcare or other dependent responsibilities are penalised.

Because they need to be finacially prepared if one of them becomes sick, redundant or unable to work for some reason.
£38,700 is not even a lot of money- its more or less the salary of 2 people working on minimum wage on a full time basis

Information on the news on this was a bit scatty.

Er, does it mean it will apply retrospectively the moment it comes into force next year? So employers with sponsorship licence who assigned immigrant workers on £26,200 threshold will have to either up salaries to the new £38,7000 minimum or let the workers go?

Even if they become sick or redundant, they still cannot claim benefits under the current system. It is indeed two full time min wage salaries, but it has to be earned by one (British) person.

Sorry my clumsy wording. I think it is fair that only British citizens who are in higher skilled roles/roles requiring more experience can bring someone in who might become reliant upon them. As a couple you should be contributing something to the country if you want to do that (which the higher paid person is doing) just my opinion. We have enough people not working who are already citizens here.

Surely they could not apply the rules retrospectively to people who are already here? They would face massive legal challenges.

Perhaps they will have to start paying healthcare workers their worth rather than shipping cheap labour in. This only keeps wages artificially low. My friend who is a radiographer had all her extra financial incentives taken off her when they brought in a load of radiographers from abroad. She then had to train and supervise them as well as doing most of the work as they couldn’t cope with the workload.

It happened in the past with immigration rules, more than once, in fact.

But surely if say one brit has sponsored his wife brought her over and he works full time and doesnt earn enough to meet this critera- all she has to do is also find full time work? And the criteria would be met? Then couples wouldn't have to worry about one of them being deported.
Yes I'm aware spouse visa applicants cannot claim benefits- which is why it's even more important that their sponsor has the funds to finacially take care of them

Just out of curiosity, did you have a blog on this where you documented the process?

If the other person who was sponsored and is now a British/permanent uk citizen then no these new rules dont bother them
If the other person still needs to renew their spouse visa and is not a permeant citizen yet then yes, these rules will affect them

@Relaxingweekendmaybe

@Cocacolathanks

That has not been confirmed, but I think it's possible that it will remain at £18,600 for those people. The Home Office historically has had a policy of not retro-actively applying more onerous requirements to those who started on a pathway with certain rules. Unfortunately however until the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules is published it won't be possible to know for certain. The Statement of Changes is, by convention, usually published 21 days in advance of the changes coming into effect, but this Government has recently been overriding this convention and implementing changes with less notice.

The immigration rules change all the time. You can't expect them to stay static or have an idea they will never change. There's plenty on legal precedent on this point. And retrospective extent can also be legal.

My wife is here on a FLR(M) visa.

Thankfully, we both earn above the new proposed threshold when we come to renew the visa.

The govt is planning to raise the visa fee as well as the Immigration Health Surcharge by a large amount next month.

Along with the "STOP THE BOATS" campaign, I believe this to be a policy to appease the xenophobic Tory voters.

There is no recourse to public funds with spouse visas. My wife can't go on the dole or claim housing / disability benefits. We pay our own way.

Upping the financial requirement to £38k will prevent people British people having a family life in the UK. If you think that is right, then shame on you.

I agree. The last 20 years or so has felt like a race to the bottom really 🤔

The point is that he wouldn't be able to sponsor her in the first place. So they will have to live elsewhere (of course, the wife's country must not apply a symmetrical rule, or they need to choose a third country). Feels stupidly harsh for a situation where there are already controls in place in respect of "becoming a burden".

That's my concern too. However, they have always been very draconian with their immigration law changes in the past affecting people already under an existing scheme, so I will not be surprised. The main reason I became a British citizen although as a commonwealth citizen, I already had about 99% rights similar to Brits after living here for 10 years by then. Luckily swearing allegiance to the Queen was uncontroversial as she was already the Head of the Commonwealth and therefore I was already her subject no matter where I lived. That- UK HO changing immigration laws unexpectedly- and wanting a British passport for ease of travel especially within the then EU for short holiday trips.

How many teachers and nurses do you know who have a husband or wife who doesn’t work, yet they don’t claim any benefits?

I'm British by ancestry, although born out of the UK.

I am a University lecturer (and a private landlord) and my earnings (combined!) are nowhere near that figure. I would also probabably fail the citizenship test:

Which king was executed in 1649? ... NO CLUE
Who built the Tower of London? ... NOPE
Which territory is not part of Great Britain? EGH?

Luckily, by an accident of birth, I've a British passport and I live here now.

But what utter madness the whole thing is. Years ago you could just move to another EU country on a whim, and I did. Spent 3 years learning a language, arsing about and volunteering. Why is that not a thing any more?

It's all nonsense.

No idea tbh, don't have that level of insight into my friends finances. I'd say when the children were very young, most of these families had a stay at home parent, as childcare fees were impossible.