Theresa May states £18600 Income Threshold

She stated the £18600 income threshold on The Andrew Marr Show today.
She did not say when it would be implemented.

She did say that next year will see new higher level English Language Tests to be introduced in addition with the requirement for a Life in UK test.

It may be available on i-Player and could be worth watching as she also talked about the additional financial requirements that would be applied to children.

May not be what we want to hear but a whole lot better than predicted by the UK media.

Actually £18600 is not too far away from the existing levels of income needed to meet the financial tests.
The only questions unanswered relate to use of Public Funds and to those folks who are unemployed for one reason or another.
No discussion on third party sponsorship or co-sponsorship. Maybe that will be in the detail.

That's always where the "devil" is

Plenty more info to disect I'm sure but at least we know the starting point.

This was the lowest in a range of incomes recommended by MAC

Hope most folks will be able to manage.

the more you converse the better the language becomes is my experience

Theresa May cannot dictate to judges on human rights cases, lawyers warn

Home secretary willing to bring in primary legislation if judges fail to implement rules prioritising deportation over family rights

Leading human rights lawyers have warned Theresa May that she cannot dictate to judges over their interpretation of the rights of foreign prisoners battling to avoid deportation.

The home secretary signalled a renewed showdown with the courts over immigration law on Sunday by indicating that she was willing to bring in primary legislation if judges fail to implement rules giving priority to deportation over the right to family life enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

MPs are to be asked in the next few weeks to approve a Commons motion advising the judges that the right to family life is not absolute and should be overridden if doing so is in the national interest.

May said she would set out on Monday an overhaul of the rules on family migration that will mean UK citizens earning less than £18,600, depending on the number of children involved, will not be allowed to bring a foreign husband, wife or partner into Britain to live with them.

The gross income threshold is lower than the minimum £25,700 figure that May tried to persuade Nick Clegg to accept, according to a letter leaked in March. The home secretary said a minimum gross income of £24,800 would be needed if there were two children involved, with a further £2,200 for each extra child.

It is believed that as many as 25,000 families a year could be affected by the changes.

Critics say British citizens will face a choice of exile or splitting up their families, and warned that it would lead to a string of legal challenges under article 8.

The home secretary first promised action over article 8 at the Tory party conference last year, when she cited the case of a Bolivian man and his pet cat.

On Sunday she told the BBC she was now prepared to bring in legislation if the judges ignored the will of parliament in redefining the right to family life.

"This is not an absolute right. So in the interests of the economy or of controlling migration or of public order – those sorts of issues – the state has a right to qualify this right to a family life," she said. "What I am going to do is actually set out the rules and say this is what parliament, this is what the public believe is how you balance the public interest against an individual's interest.

"We are going to ask parliament to vote on this to say very clearly what constitutes the right to a family life. I would expect that judges will look at what parliament has said.

"If they don't then we will have to look at other measures and that could include primary legislation."

Lawyers warned that ministers could not use secondary legislation such as the immigration rules to dictate to judges or trump their interpretation of article 8.

"Parliament cannot predetermine the results of individual cases, which all depend on careful and compassionate assessment of very different facts. However merciless Mrs May may be, hard cases make bad law and politicians make bad judges," Geoffrey Robertson QC told the Sunday Times.

Sir Geoffrey Bindman said: "Any change is ineffective because ultimately what controls the situation is article 8 as interpreted by the court of human rights and the domestic courts.

"The legal position is that in so far as the immigration rules are incompatible with the human rights convention then the convention prevails."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, told the Guardian that article 8 had always been qualified and allowed the government considerable latitude over immigration control. "The home secretary is far better reviewing immigration rules than bashing the Human Rights Act or the judiciary," she said.

"But given the toxic nature of immigration politics in a recession, it becomes especially important to distinguish – in both rules and rhetoric – between abuse and criminality and anything that splits up genuine innocent families of British nationals."

Source:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/10/theresa-may-human-rights-lawyers

Re: Theresa May cannot dictate to judges on human rights cases, lawyers warn

Yes, I know it's the Guardian again and they were way off the mark last time, but this time it's not just pure speculation.

Re: Theresa May cannot dictate to judges on human rights cases, lawyers warn

Playing politics with immigration

When all else fails, there's always immigration. That is how many people will respond to Theresa May's apparent determination to bounce this perennially toxic issue to the top of the agenda by flagging up ambitious, but probably unworkable, plans to slash the numbers coming into this country through a range of curbs on citizens' rights to bring in non-EU family members and spouses.

The Home Secretary seems positively anxious for a punch-up. Insisting that the right to a family life as interpreted under the European Convention on Human Rights is being abused, and is not an absolute right but requires qualification, she is courting a battle, both with the judges as well as with organisations like the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Ms May is making the most of some notorious cases. Some involve foreigners who have been jailed for crimes and have successfully won the right to remain in this country after their release on the grounds that they have family here, citing Article 8 of the Convention, which declares the right to family life absolute.

Those opposed to Ms May's plans – and especially to the one to introduce a financial threshold for would-be non-EU spouses – are right to point out that hard cases usually make bad law. While moves to ease the deportation of immigrants who are a proven danger to the public have merit, the idea that only the well-off should be able to import husbands or wives from outside the EU will strike most people as unfair.

Meanwhile, it is tempting to see a degree of political opportunism in what appears a calculated attempt to ratchet up the temperature on immigration at a time when, as we report today, the Coalition is dropping further and further behind Labour in the polls.

Ms May has been careless with her brief before out of a rush to grab headlines and sound tough, as we saw in the case of the botched deportation of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. In her eagerness to score quick points with the Tory faithful on immigration we must hope that she does not merely inject a good deal of poison into the subject without having much to offer in the form of useful ideas.

Source:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...laying-politics-with-immigration-7834783.html

just been watching the video, and noticed at the beggining, andrew marr says with an interesting choice of words..

"greatly increase the amount of income you have to have to bring in a migrant husband or spouse or children if you are an immigrant into this country and you want to bring in relatives."

Which I noticed Theresa May did not correct him on, of course that could just be an error or misunderstanding on his part, using the words" if you are an immigrant into this country and you want to bring in"... which would of implied that the income increase is for immigrants into the UK who want to then bring in their partner.. ie. people who have come here and been granted indefinite leave to remain through things like work permits.. rather than being a British born citizen.

Also read on another news site, this phrase,

"Only those British nationals or residents with an annual income "

not Only those British nationals and residents with an annual income but rather using the word "OR"

Another here,

"BRITAIN is tightening immigration rules that will make it almost impossible for Zimbabweans and non-EU citizens to bring to England their spouses and other close members of the family."

it specifically says Zimbabweans and non-EU citizens bringing their spouses to the UK, but doesnt include again british born citizens in the statement.


lol, now unfortunately, im pretty sure these instances are just poor choice of words and phrases.... can only live in hope, guess for some of us, we read things like that looking for hidden hope and meanings.

I certainly do not meet the higher income and because the application has not yet been submitted is looking more likely to be declined with these new changes.

So next question is.. estimates when these changes will go in? as some they said arent going to be implemented until next year, like the life in the uk test for family visas, and possibly stricter language test.

Easy target I guess...

and because it doesnt effect the vast majority of british citizens, most people wont even be aware of what she is doing let alone even care... they will turn a blind eye to it.

which means that its down to us who it does effect, who are in the minority to stand up and fight the ruling.

Yep, I had some concerns on this issue too. The consultation document for the new rules says it will be increased to B1 on the CEFR. I had a look around and found that B1 is equivalent to a score of 120 on the TOEIC speaking test and 285 on the Listening test, which is the test a lot of spouses/fiances have been taking in Manila and Cebu recently. Well, talk about a close call! My girlfriend got a score of 130 and 285! For gods sake Theresa May, no higher please.

And what is the situation with the Life in the UK test? Are they saying that all applications for settlement will have to pass that one too?

I've already wrote off to Chris Byrant, as Free Movement recommend. This is surely an open goal for Labour?

Do you not txt with her? There are some very reasonably priced services around, in this respect. I think it has improved my girlfriend's reading and writing skills, at the very least. Although only one of those is required for the tests, it is nice to see her improving on this front.

If its b1 should be ok here as my fiance also got B1 but I would not expect many Filipinos to get higher than that easily... The B1 is already stated as being more for students who wish to study at a graduate level. So it's already a proficient level of English. More worrying though is they may rewrite the rules on how these things are tested/. So what is now a b1 grade could end up being graded lower in a new test... If I can remember they already did that once.

Also as mentioned the problem is as it doesn't effect the vast majority of citizens, and most assume it only effects asians and rule out American, Australian, Canadian etc.. They either aren't interested in educating themselves on what the government is doing to fellow British citizens.. Or they are turning a blind eye to it saying well it doesn't effect me, immigration is going down which is good.. But apart from that why should I care.

Unfortunately we are in a minority and do know what's going on as it does directly infringe on our human rights under the eu directive.. And it's effectively an exile to those who don't meet the minimum pay requirement.. Which to be honest is not really on, because as Bryant said, people could have a £20k job this week and become unployed next week.. So in that instance it does nothing to reduce the claims made on public benefits.. But let's also not forget that by rights.. If the person is not entitled to those benefits there should also be protections in place to ensure they don't get them in the first place.. In which case income again bears no resemblance to claiming benefits or not.. As you should not be able to claim what you aren't Allowed in the first place.

Funny thing is, I also read that a decade ago she also said this,

"This plan is morally suspect and in breach of manifesto promises, another short-term tactical move that threatens the government's long-term strategy. A decade ago, it was May who warned the Tories they were perceived as "the nasty party" because some members made political capital out of demonising minorities. It is a speech she would do well to remember"

Laughable really...

I have yet to write to Bryant and will do so tonight.

I'm not normally a labour supported to be honest, but at least his idea has sense behind it.

I just took "The Life in the UK" test for a laugh to see how I would get on. I'm British born and bred. I studied history and politics at college as part of an access course and I'm on the 2nd year of a degree in Government and Politics part-time. So some of the questions were right up my street. My result:

LOL! Hay Naku! Where do hand in my British citizenship? I pity the Filipinos that might have to take this test!

Here it is, if you want to have a bash at it: http://www.ukcitizenshiptest.co.uk/