The Supreme Court has ruled that controversial minimum income
rules for non-EEA spouses set by the Home Office, which campaigners say have
split thousands of families apart preventing British citizens bringing their
foreign spouse to the UK, are lawful "in principle".
Children's welfare, Judges said, must be protected in
immigration decisions. In their judgement, the Judges conceded that the UK government's
rules had the "legitimate" aim of ensuring "that the couple do
not have recourse to benefits and have sufficient resources to play a full part
in British life".
However, tossing a legal ‘spanner in the works’, they added
the rules fail because they do not treat "the best interests of children
as a primary consideration".
Prime Minister Mrs Theresa May
Since 2012, when Theresa May was Home Secretary, British citizens have been required to earn over
£18,600 ($23,140) before a husband or wife from outside the European Economic
Area (EEA) could be allowed to settle in the UK.
Seven Judges sitting at the highest court in the land rejected
an appeal by families who argued that the rules breached their human right to a
family life, stating that the minimum income requirement was "acceptable
in principle". But said that the rules failed to take "proper
account" of the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when
making decisions which affect them.
Judges want an amendment to the law, introduced to prevent
foreign souses becoming dependent on taxpayer benefits, allowing alternative
sources of funding, other than a salary or benefits, to be considered in a
claim.
The minimum income rises to £22,400 ($27,870) where couples
have a child who does not have British citizenship - and then by an additional
£2,400 ($2,986) for each subsequent child.
Previously, applicants had to demonstrate to the Home Office
that the incoming partner would not be a drain on public resources and that the
couple or family could adequately support themselves.
The Immigration Rule on income, as well as English tests, has
proved controversial throwing up many anomalies, such as a British citizen who
marries a non-EEA person while working abroad for a period of time who then cannot
take their spouse back to the UK because their work contract has ended and they
have no job in Britain, let alone six month pay slips.
The threshold does not apply to spouses from within the EEA
and some British citizens have taken advantage of earlier judgements, such as Surinder
Singh to bring in souses via the EEA without the need to show the minimum
income.
The UK is an attractive place to work, start a business or buy property – no restrictions on foreign buyers - a vibrant mortgage market with record low interest rates.
Learn how you can get involved in the buy-to-let boom with this free CD training programme:
Learn how you can get involved in the buy-to-let boom with this free CD training programme:
2 comments:
This case whilst not what everyone wanted still goes a long way to ensuring we will win the war.
We have kids who need both parents.
We have family who can help us financially.
The Home Office refuse to take account of this and the court have told them that this is unlawful.
In principle we lost with mm, but in reality this is still a strong win.
UK is becoming undemocratic and bully nowadays . How do you expect someone to earn £18,600 per annum whilst you're given a meaGerman rate per hour as low as £7.20. This is like removing your ring through your shoulder.
Post a Comment