Before you permanently move to the US

[Elora & Rob 15]

its my understanding that Obama's health care plan just forces you to get insurance so the cost is only going to go up. reading through it i didn't really see any benefits to anybody thats not dirt poor.

[snapdragon 9]

Okay, here's a wee article I wrote responding to Ms May's response.

Here's the full text from the response to me. Nothing we didn't know already (forgive weird language/spelling as I just scanned and copied words from a pdf). Notice it says the word "burden" three times. My MP did say he'd be interested in my comments...

Thank you for of 25 June on behalf of a constituent about Changes to

the Immigration Rules for spouses and partners.

Your constituent is Concerned that the minimum income requirement of £18,600

to sponsor a spouse or partner under the family migration route would prevent

the couple returning to the UK should they Wish to do so at a future date.

The purpose of the minimum income requirement for sponsorship is to ensure

that family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so that they do not

become a burden on the taxpayer and they can participate sufficiently in

everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society. British citizens and

those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with

whomever they choose, but if they Wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is

appropriate that they should do so on a basis that does not increase burdens on

the taxpayer and promotes integration.

The new income level of £18,600 was set after considering advice from the

independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) who had been asked to

advise on what the threshold should be, to ensure that the sponsor can support

the spouse or partner and any dependants independently Without their becoming

a burden on the taxpayer. The MAC’s report, which was published on

16 November 2011, recommended that the threshold should be set in a range

between £18,600 (the level at which a couple generally ceases to be able to

access income-related benefits) and £25,700 (the level at which the sponsor

becomes a net contributor to the public finances).

Your Constituent asked whether provision is made for instances where the

sponsor is not the main earner and whether co-sponsorship would be possible.

The present or prospective earnings ofthe migrant partner will not be taken into

account when applying for entry clearance. This is because there is no

guarantee they will be able to find employment in the UK, or how long it may take

them to do so. We want to be certain, at the time that the migrant is granted

entry to the UK, that the sponsor is capable of supporting them independently.

However, where the migrant spouse or partner is already in the UK with

permission to work on another migration route, or once they are in the UK as a

spouse or partner on the family route, their earnings from employment here will

be Counted towards meeting the minimum income requirement, togetherwith the

income of their sponsor.

We believe it is right that the person seeking to be joined by their migrant spouse

or partner should be the sponsor, and that they should be able to support their

partner independently. Therefore third party or joint sponsorship is net accepted.

Similarly, offers of support from third parties will not be counted towards meeting

the requirement. We want the sponsor, or the couple if both are already in the

UK, to demonstrate independent financial standing, with adequate resources

under their own control.

Your constituent also mentioned that her husband would need to Complete a five

year probationary period if the Couple returned to the UK, Compared to the two

years required under the American system.

The main aim of introducing a five year probationary period is to better test the

genuine nature of the relationship before the migrant spouse or partner is

granted settlement. However, the Government believes it will also assist migrant

spouses and partners to integrate into British life before reaching settlement.

The longer probationary period does not prevent migrants from taking

employment, or from taking a full and active part in British society.

Full details of the Changes to the family Immigration Rules can be found on the

UK Border Agency’s website...

The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Edited August 6, 2012 by snapdragon

[TracyTN 237]

Blah blah blah as expected.

Wish I could see your blog though - the site won't come up for me for some reason (could be the blocks on sites here at the office).

[snapdragon 9]

Blah blah blah as expected.

Wish I could see your blog though - the site won't come up for me for some reason (could be the blocks on sites here at the office).

Hmm, thanks for letting me know. It might be the blogger template I have. No end of problems with it, going to change.

[rocks 494]

its my understanding that Obama's health care plan just forces you to get insurance so the cost is only going to go up. reading through it i didn't really see any benefits to anybody thats not dirt poor.

That's incorrect.

clearly not the case. just look at peoples teeth and you can see that. genuinely laughed out loud when i heard this.

Americans have bad teeth... Keep your xenophobic ####### to yourself.

[rocks 494]

Blah blah blah as expected.

Wish I could see your blog though - the site won't come up for me for some reason (could be the blocks on sites here at the office).

She didn't address the co-sponsor question at all. Why can't parents co-sponsor? Typical conservative politician.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

its my understanding that Obama's health care plan just forces you to get insurance so the cost is only going to go up. reading through it i didn't really see any benefits to anybody thats not dirt poor.

You need to read up on things a bit more.

Hmm, thanks for letting me know. It might be the blogger template I have. No end of problems with it, going to change.

I'm at home and can see it. Must be the filters at Tracy's workplace.

Okay, here's a wee article I wrote responding to Ms May's response.

Here's the full text from the response to me. Nothing we didn't know already (forgive weird language/spelling as I just scanned and copied words from a pdf). Notice it says the word "burden" three times. My MP did say he'd be interested in my comments...

Thank you for of 25 June on behalf of a constituent about Changes to

the Immigration Rules for spouses and partners.

Your constituent is Concerned that the minimum income requirement of £18,600

to sponsor a spouse or partner under the family migration route would prevent

the couple returning to the UK should they Wish to do so at a future date.

The purpose of the minimum income requirement for sponsorship is to ensure

that family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so that they do not

become a burden on the taxpayer and they can participate sufficiently in

everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society. British citizens and

those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with

whomever they choose, but if they Wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is

appropriate that they should do so on a basis that does not increase burdens on

the taxpayer and promotes integration.

The new income level of £18,600 was set after considering advice from the

independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) who had been asked to

advise on what the threshold should be, to ensure that the sponsor can support

the spouse or partner and any dependants independently Without their becoming

a burden on the taxpayer. The MAC’s report, which was published on

16 November 2011, recommended that the threshold should be set in a range

between £18,600 (the level at which a couple generally ceases to be able to

access income-related benefits) and £25,700 (the level at which the sponsor

becomes a net contributor to the public finances).

Your Constituent asked whether provision is made for instances where the

sponsor is not the main earner and whether co-sponsorship would be possible.

The present or prospective earnings ofthe migrant partner will not be taken into

account when applying for entry clearance. This is because there is no

guarantee they will be able to find employment in the UK, or how long it may take

them to do so. We want to be certain, at the time that the migrant is granted

entry to the UK, that the sponsor is capable of supporting them independently.

However, where the migrant spouse or partner is already in the UK with

permission to work on another migration route, or once they are in the UK as a

spouse or partner on the family route, their earnings from employment here will

be Counted towards meeting the minimum income requirement, togetherwith the

income of their sponsor.

We believe it is right that the person seeking to be joined by their migrant spouse

or partner should be the sponsor, and that they should be able to support their

partner independently. Therefore third party or joint sponsorship is net accepted.

Similarly, offers of support from third parties will not be counted towards meeting

the requirement. We want the sponsor, or the couple if both are already in the

UK, to demonstrate independent financial standing, with adequate resources

under their own control.

Your constituent also mentioned that her husband would need to Complete a five

year probationary period if the Couple returned to the UK, Compared to the two

years required under the American system.

The main aim of introducing a five year probationary period is to better test the

genuine nature of the relationship before the migrant spouse or partner is

granted settlement. However, the Government believes it will also assist migrant

spouses and partners to integrate into British life before reaching settlement.

The longer probationary period does not prevent migrants from taking

employment, or from taking a full and active part in British society.

Full details of the Changes to the family Immigration Rules can be found on the

UK Border Agency’s website...

The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Well my God she actually sent something. Same old regurgitated nonsense though. Migration advisory committee; we think it is right; burden on the taxpayer - really though what else could we expect.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Rebecca Jo

[rocks 494]

Well my God she actually sent something. Same old regurgitated nonsense though. Migration advisory committee; we think it is right; burden on the taxpayer - really though what else could we expect.

It sounds like a transcript of that video you linked before. She might as well have written blah 1000 times and it would have been more informative.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Well, looky here! My husband got a response from Damien Green, who answered after my husband's inquiry to Mark Durkan, his MP. Cut and paste, word for word, some of the same verbage as May's letter to snapdragon.

"Mr Wesley is concerned that the minimum income requirement will prevent him

from retiring to the UK with his wife, who is a US citizen. He has asked why the

Government set the required income at £18,600 and why only savings over

£16,000 may be taken into account towards meeting the requirement.

The purpose of the minimum income requirement for sponsorship is to ensure

that family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so that they do not

become a burden on the taxpayer and they can participate sufficiently in

everyday life to facilitate their integration in British society. British citizens and

those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with

whomever they choose, but if they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is

appropriate that they should do so on a basis that does not increase burdens on

the taxpayer and promotes integration.

The maintenance requirement before the new financial requirement came into

effect on 9 July 2012 meant that any sponsor earning, after tax and housing

costs have been deducted, more than the equivalent of income support for a

couple (around £5,795 a year) was deemed to have sufficient funds to sponsor a

spouse or partner. This is inadequate to prevent burdens on the taxpayer; whilst

the migrant spouse or partner cannot access most welfare benefits before

settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsor's entitlement to

certain benefits, for example, Housing Benefit.

The minimum income requirement was set at £18,600 after considering advice

from the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), who had been

asked to advise on what the threshold should be to ensure that the sponsor can

support their spouse or partner and any dependants independently without them

becoming a burden on the taxpayer. The MAC's report, which was published on

16 November 2011, recommended that the threshold should be set in a range

between £18,600 (the level at which a couple generally ceases to be able to

access income-related benefits) and £25,700 (the level at which the sponsor

becomes a net contributor to the public finances). The MAC's report noted a

number of practical and economic arguments against setting different income

thresholds by region and concluded that there was no clear case for doing so.

The rules make provision for cash savings above £16,000 held by the sponsor,

the applicant or jointly for at least six months at the time of appiication, to be

used towards meeting the requirement. Having savings of £16,000 is the level at

which generally a person would not qualify for income-related benefits. Only

counting savings above that level helps to ensure the sponsor remains selfsufficient

and not reliant on help from the taxpayer. Other income, for example

from investments or property rental, may also be taken into account.

The new rules made specific provision for returning families, such as your

constituent's. In particular we can accept a firm, verifiable job offer or signed

contract of employment to start work within three months of their return at a

salary at the level required to meet the financial requirement. They must also

demonstrate that either they are in employment overseas at the required salary

level at the point of application and have been so continuously for at least the

previous six months, or they have earned the required amount through salaried

employment in the 12 months prior to the application.

Full details of the changes to the family Immigration Rules, including the ways in

which the financial requirement can be met, can be found on the UK Border

Agency's website at:

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontenUnewsarticles/2012/july/15-family-mig"

Damian Green

[TracyTN 237]

That was a waste of time. Basically - we hear you, but we think our rules make sense. Yeah ok.

[rocks 494]

Wow, maybe you should get back in contact with them and call them out on the cut and paste!

[Elora & Rob 15]

can someone direct me to some posative info on Obama's health care plan. I have read some pretty pro demoncratic stuff and it still looks like a load of garbage that doesn't help anybody to me.

[snapdragon 9]

Wow, maybe you should get back in contact with them and call them out on the cut and paste!

It will be cut and paste, exactly. I had to copy and paste letters for a Member of Scottish Parliament as a job once. It was very disheartening, as some people were in dire straits and I couldn't do anything except cut and paste the same old responses.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

can someone direct me to some posative info on Obama's health care plan. I have read some pretty pro demoncratic stuff and it still looks like a load of garbage that doesn't help anybody to me.

I would kindly suggest you ask this question in a separate thread so this one does not go off track.

[rocks 494]

It will be cut and paste, exactly. I had to copy and paste letters for a Member of Scottish Parliament as a job once. It was very disheartening, as some people were in dire straits and I couldn't do anything except cut and paste the same old responses.

Do they have a cut and paste response for people who complain about cut and paste responses?