Family Immigration Alliance

Written Submission (2013)

Family Migration Inquiry

APPG on Migration

Page 1 of 4

Family Immigration Alliance

The Minimum Income Requirement: a summary of Family Sponsor testimonies About the FIA The family immigration alliance is a blog, set up in 2011 to promote and present the perspectives of sponsors and spouses in family immigration. In particular this was in order to explore the human impact of the July 2012 rule changes, on the income requirement, length of the probationary period and added restrictions on elderly/dependent relatives; not excluding the pre-existing English language requirements. The blog operates principally as a platform for sponsors to contribute their stories; and serves as a central, publicly accessible web space for them to be viewed in. As such, the stories on the blog are self selecting by those wishing to contribute. Contributors are advised to write between 500-800 words on their situation and they are edited as little as possible in order for them to reflect the diversity of people contributing. Anonymity is at the contributors discretion. All stories freely available to view at: familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com Overview Between in the 12 months from December 2011 December 2012, approximately 50 enquiries were made to the FIA concerning the new rules, 28 of which were published as testimonial pieces. They contain deep insights into the experiences of sponsors, both before and after the rules were implemented in July 2012 and they provide an opportunity to identify common themes and similarities between contributors stories. The majority of British sponsors in the stories submitted so far are women (16), with 12 from men. 13 of the situations also involve children either split apart from one of the parents or facing that possibility. The spouses are from all over the world: 3 from South Africa, 2 each from Canada, Egypt, Tunisia & USA, and 1 each from Albania, Australia, Belarus, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Trinidad & Zimbabwe. The married relationships of contributors span from less than 1 year to over 40 years, with the occupations of sponsors range from students, home makers, temporary and full time workers to people nearing retirement. Many of the contributions received are from very highly qualified individuals; multiple PhD candidates as well as MAs, BSCs and PGCEs among other degree level graduates, not to mention those with professional occupations and experience. The common thread between all the sponsors is the circumstances of their personal finances, which for many reasons do not satisfy the income requirement of 18600, but not necessarily because they are unable support themselves. Before July 2012 Before the rules were implemented stories concerned issues of visa processing, appeals and recently introduced language requirements under the old system, but with a cautious eye towards the imminent changes. Susan1 cited, as a single parent and being unemployed, that she would not be able to meet a higher income threshold, although she was able to under the old rules, in January 2012. Lionel2, who had been made redundant and whos wife had failed to meet the required IELTS standard due to a UKBA discrepancy, also expressed concerns that he would not be able to meet the Migration Advisory Committees proposed threshold of between 18600 and 25700; despite successfully avoiding long term unemployment after redundancy. Indeed before the threshold was introduced, other sponsors reported actually being supported themselves by their Non-EEA spouse. Chris, the South African spouse of a British sponsor, reported being the main provider for his family, then living in Dubai. But he was dismayed that for his employment to date and a degree gained in the UK, that it was his wife a part time childcare worker, who would have to bear the full burden of proving she could support him.3 An anonymous sponsor also said before the changes: I was unemployed at the time but I had significant savings. He came back to the UK in Aug 2011 and again has been working ever since; its me who cant find work at the moment!4 July 2012 onwards

1 2

http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/susans-story/ http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/update-lionels-story/ 3 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/chris-story/ 4 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/a-sponsors-story/

Page 2 of 4

After the rules were announced, it became quite clear that sponsors who were mothers of young children were affected most seriously. With full time childcare commitments, it has sometimes not been possible for these sponsors to get employment and therefore have not been able to meet the income requirement. Lucy said: My partner will not be able to join me until I am earning 18,600, which could be up two years away for me. He will not be able to support me and be there for our child as I qualify [to be a teacher]. A scary prospect for me and a sad one when I think of how his and our babys relationship will be affected. We talked about extending the length of time that we spend visiting each other; 6 months here and 6 months there for the next 2 years but of course that will cost money and as a single parent and a student I dont know how Im going to be able to earn the sort of money that we wil l need and I wont be able to spend long periods outside of the country whilst training to become a teacher. Compounding this problem is the Immigration Rules refusal to acknowledge the assets, savings or present earnings (or job offers in the UK) of the spouse. With 13 of the stories concerning childcare, it has exposed this quite large proportion of contributors to unnecessary hardship; in some cases forcing them to claim welfare benefits themselves. Emma, who has been married to her Indonesian husband since 2002 and with whom she has two children said: I have been on Income Support, and now going onto Job Seekers Allowance in October, still searching for work, and even set myself up to freelance as a designer from home to create an income. I wrote to my local MP explaining the situation and that it was so ironic, because if my husband was allowed to be in this country, our child care problems would cease to exist, and we could both have the shared time to work and care for our family without having to claim any benefit from the state.5 The emphasis on uni-directional support from the sponsor to the spouse fails to adequately account for earning potential as a family; depriving sponsors of much needed, and otherwise available, spousal support. But even where sponsors do manage to satisfy the requirement, an inordinate sacrifice in the relationship can still result. In Sophies case she had to resign from her much loved job as a Learning Support Assistant in order to take up a job earning enough to satisfy the income requirement: After one month of searching, I was finally offered a job. Handing in my notice at my school and explaining why was embarrassing and upsetting... Now, we must wait 6 months before we can apply for the Settlement Visa. In an attempt to find a way to be together in the meantime, my husband applied for a Family Visit Visa which was refused on the grounds that he was not a Genuine visitor and was at risk of overstaying... What I cannot understand is why on Earth would we break the law, knowing the consequences, when we are a young couple starting out our life together? And why it is not genuine that a married couple might want to spend some time together!6 Before 9th July 2012, Non EEA spouses did not have recourse to public funds; as they continue not to. While this did not necessarily prevent abuse of the benefits system where the spouse or even the sponsor is not eligible for them, the income threshold by virtue of the existing arrangement, does not directly tackle welfare system abuse. Rather, it presents an unhelpful obstacle to entry altogether. Another frustrating point for many sponsors has been precisely that the income threshold is overkill, where no recourse to public funds prevents legal entitlement to welfare benefits already. If [a] married couple decide that they can live off of the income that one partner makes that should be their decision, not the governments. And if a person in the UK on a visa with no recourse to public funds stamped across their passport/visa cannot access public funding how does that make a difference to the government?7 The burden or risk to the tax payer has not changed by introducing the income requirement, and this is a point that after repeated enquiries, the FIA and other campaigners have still not received a satisfactory justification for introducing. Emotional impact Nearly all contributors refer to the upset and outright depression they are suffering as a result of the separation they face from their spouses. To those that feel they have abundant means between them for support, but fall outside of the rules, the situation they face seems not only unfair but unnecessary. Another anonymous contributor wrote: My income at the time was 18,000 a year gross, so effectively I was 50 a month short on meeting their threshold. We were told to try and apply anyway, as we would be among the first
5 6

http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/emmas-story/ http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/sophies-story/ 7 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/tonis-story/

Page 3 of 4

people trying to get in under the new regulations and there maybe some flexibility, especially in a case where it is so obvious that once she returns my wife would be more than able to support herself (on top of having a degree in Design Engineering, she has access to more than enough funds to meet the savings threshold of 16k+, but as these are her assets and not mine they could not be included in the official visa application) On 15th October (a day I will never forget) we got the awful news we had been dreading, the visa was rejected on financial grounds. Personally I have never felt so emasculated in all my life.8 A number of contributors even refer to feeling like criminals or prisoners in their own country. They are unable to leave the UK sometimes for fear of poverty, danger, inadequate healthcare or social ostracism in their spouses country, or often simply in the interests of bringing up their children in a safe and prosperous society where they are established in schools, and where they are frequently already citizens. For many sponsors Britain is home. The prospect of not being able to make a family life here is deeply upsetting. Sponsors frequently report crying with their loved ones over the phone/Skype or even just at the discovery of the rules they are required to meet in order to remain together.9,10,11,12,13 What upsets many sponsors is the requirement to demonstrate the income threshold for 6 months, which seems to force well established married couples to have to spend substantial amounts of time apart. Michael reported: I have a full-time permanent job with a salary well in excess of the financial requirement, plus sterling in bank accounts here and even more to be transferred from the sale of our house and cashing-in superannuation in Australia hundreds of thousands of pounds, all up. But my wife was told that she could not apply to enter the UK, except as a temporary visitor, until I had been in employment for six months. The situation is, frankly, bonkers. We have been married for nearly 40 years. My partner lived and worked in the UK between 1973 and 2002. I lived here from birth to 2002 (I am 64) and worked from 1965 to 2002. We both graduated from English universities. We paid tax, have National Insurance numbers and neither of us has any history of claiming benefits14 Conclusion The Home Secretary in the 2011 consultation on family immigration stated that the key themes to our approach are stopping abuse, promoting integration and reducing the burden on the taxpayer15. From the testimonies contributed, neither the Family Immigration Alliance nor any of the sponsors involved are convinced about the integrity or effectiveness of these aims. The income threshold, as described in the experiences above, appears to have no tangible impact on abuse where no recourse to public funds is the pre-existing standard. In certain instances the requirement has even added financial burdens to the tax payer by limiting sponsors options for support. With regards to integration, we find it unsatisfactory to argue that by preventing the entry or residence of a spouse it in some way promotes their integration. By curtailing the opportunity for spouses to be with their UK sponsor, the likelihood of successful integration is slimmer by nature of the restriction. But further to this it begs the question of what the spouse is integrating into; where family life is a technical, bureaucratic privilege, rather than a consistently enjoyed human right.

8 9

http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/a-sponsors-story-2/ http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/alis-story/ 10 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/johns-story/ 11 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/stevens-story/ 12 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/kevins-story/ 13 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/lionels-story/ 14 http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/michaels-story/ 15 Home Office, 2011. Family Migration: A Consultation. Home Office, London. July 2011.

Page 4 of 4