Before you permanently move to the US

[Justine+David 218]

late edit: David has pointed out to me that she said that the current rules WILL apply to military families (I misheard), but that they are looking into changes in the coming months. Okay, so at least she isn't entirely ungrateful of her freedom.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Justine - I really think you should e-mail your thoughts to the Shadow Minister. That was beautifully spoken.

[Justine+David 218]

The part I'm talking about is at around 17:35, if anyone's curious.

[rocks 494]

Where is this impact assessment that she mentions?

[rocks 494]

Nevermind, she said the impact assessment wouldn't be released until after 9th July.

Is it wrong that I'm enjoying her coughing and having a sore throat?

I like how she says she is acting in the best interests of children. She is preventing my child from having any contact with my family ever again. That's in a child's best interests?

Edited June 16, 2012 by rocks

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

There wasn't a specific threshold. The guidance was a couple had to have "adequate reserves" after paying for housing. This was interpreted to be around £110 or so per week (the amount of some benefit a person can get - never paid much attention).

Things were actually way too easy before.

Income support. The benefit "meter" was Income Support.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Today I had the extreme good fortune to be in contact with an ILPA registered attorney from London regarding these matters.

Bill will go before Parliament and there may be some bandying about with the numbers but ..... not a lot will change. Indefinite Leave to Remain is out forever. British public is pi$$ed off about immigration and wants something done. Labour has done a poor job of explaining to the public that these rule changes will not affect EU immigration, although the public is figuring it out.

Expect challenges to the Article 8 aspects of the Rule Changes, but expect them to take years. No one with near future plans should rely on significant change.

Regarding the maintenance requirements, here is an interesting perspective on that issue. It's a bit long winded but here goes.

It's been mentioned earlier that if you don't qualify with a J-O-B job, you can offset your income with savings. This is significant for long term couples abroad who want to return to the UK together and have not found work yet. The proposed requirement to go over this way is £62,500 in the bank. My personal reaction to this was "holy ####### in US dollars that is about $100K!" The gentleman I spoke with was very gracious and said my perspective was very "American" (he said it kindly) and said to me "imagine trying to save up that much money if you were African and made 7 cents a day". (I felt very humbled and sort of ashamed with my first world worries.) At any rate, he said one of the potential challenges to the maintenance requirement will be the amount be set to what one pound sterling "is" in the applicants country of origin. For instance, 7 cents a day in Africa might equate £1000.

I think this is a fascinating perspective and gives us some insight into how Human Rights issues will effect any future changes to the rules.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The fact he looked at it in those terms just highlights how absurd it is, especially since the minimum savings requirements is so hard to achieve for someone from a first world country. And why is the income potential for the non-UKC spouse not considered? With the Africa analogy, a UKC woman who did not work because she is raising children could not ask that her Nigerian husband's earning potential be considered, even if he was an IT wizard, banker or top executive.

How many people live productive, financially sound lives without recourse to public funds with less than $100k in savings? Most people do.

I assume they will be including all assets (property, pension, stocks, etc) and not just liquid savings?

Edited June 16, 2012 by Trompe le Monde

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The fact he looked at it in those terms just highlights how absurd it is, especially since the minimum savings requirements is so hard to achieve for someone from a first world country. And why is the income potential for the non-UKC spouse not considered? With the Africa analogy, a UKC woman who did not work because she is raising children could not ask that her Nigerian husband's earning potential be considered, even if he was an IT wizard, banker or top executive.

How many people live productive, financially sound lives without recourse to public funds with less than $100k in savings? Most people do.

I assume they will be including all assets (property, pension, stocks, etc) and not just liquid savings?

Robin, there's guidance in the Statement of Intent which explains how property, pensions, stocks etc. can be used.

In our conversation we didn't get to the bit about non-UKC spouse earnings or earnings potential. Perhaps in the future.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Today I had the extreme good fortune to be in contact with an ILPA registered attorney from London regarding these matters.

Bill will go before Parliament and there may be some bandying about with the numbers but ..... not a lot will change. Indefinite Leave to Remain is out forever.

Did you happen to find out whether those who have ILR but are non-resident will have it stripped of them?

[Boiler 45,743]

I did not think that that combination was a possibility?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Did you happen to find out whether those who have ILR but are non-resident will have it stripped of them?

Meagan, I realize that when I wrote "ILR is out forever" that I meant to say "the grant of ILR due to a long term marriage abroad is out forever".

I've been digging around on yankee this morning trying to find the answer to your question, but I'm not easily finding it. But then again, I'm easily distracted by the myriad issues swimming around there lately.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I did not think that that combination was a possibility?

Every time I go back in they ask me where I live. I say California right now. Stamp, I'm in. It may be because back in 2005 when I had my ILR stamp moved from an old passport to a new one they accidentally put an ILE one in there. I freaked out a little because I was of course still living there and working there, but I was assured that it had no effect on the fact that I had ILR.

Meagan, I realize that when I wrote "ILR is out forever" that I meant to say "the grant of ILR due to a long term marriage abroad is out forever".

I've been digging around on yankee this morning trying to find the answer to your question, but I'm not easily finding it. But then again, I'm easily distracted by the myriad issues swimming around there lately.

No probs. The likelihood of me moving back to the UK is almost nil unless I got an amazing job in my old field. I've become accustomed to having 70F days in January!

[Shari 6]

Wow! So unreal how much it is changing! There was a chance my English hubby and I would have moved to the UK upon retirement, but obviously there is going to be a slim chance of that now even though his kids live there.

I do have a question though on this:

COUPLES LIVING TOGETHER OVERSEAS FOR FOUR YEARS OR MORE

We will abolish immediate settlement on arrival in the UK for the migrant spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner where a couple have been living together overseas for at least four years and require the migrant partner to complete five years’ probation in the UK (granted in two 30-month periods) before they can apply for settlement. In 2010, 2,055 such settlement visas were granted. It is unfair that a migrant partner who may never have been to the UK or made any tax or National Insurance contribution should get immediate settlement and full access to the welfare system.

So what is this saying - that BEFORE this new law they had immediate settlement and now they are abolishing it? But what throws me is the four year statement. So basically it does not matter if a couple has been married 10 or 20 years in the U.S., the spouse needs to live in the UK for five years to make sure it is a "geuine" relationship?

And obviously if someone were coming to England to retire and didn't have a job because they were, duh, retiriing, the spouse would have to have an unbelievable amount of savings brought with them to enter. I suppose this amount would be offset by the UK citizen's state pension and private pension and US social security and the spouse's US social security?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Wow! So unreal how much it is changing! There was a chance my English hubby and I would have moved to the UK upon retirement, but obviously there is going to be a slim chance of that now even though his kids live there.

I do have a question though on this:

COUPLES LIVING TOGETHER OVERSEAS FOR FOUR YEARS OR MORE

We will abolish immediate settlement on arrival in the UK for the migrant spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner where a couple have been living together overseas for at least four years and require the migrant partner to complete five years’ probation in the UK (granted in two 30-month periods) before they can apply for settlement. In 2010, 2,055 such settlement visas were granted. It is unfair that a migrant partner who may never have been to the UK or made any tax or National Insurance contribution should get immediate settlement and full access to the welfare system.

So what is this saying - that BEFORE this new law they had immediate settlement and now they are abolishing it? But what throws me is the four year statement. So basically it does not matter if a couple has been married 10 or 20 years in the U.S., the spouse needs to live in the UK for five years to make sure it is a "geuine" relationship?

And obviously if someone were coming to England to retire and didn't have a job because they were, duh, retiriing, the spouse would have to have an unbelievable amount of savings brought with them to enter. I suppose this amount would be offset by the UK citizen's state pension and private pension and US social security and the spouse's US social security?

Yes to all.