Before you permanently move to the US

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

Don't forget also, if you get into your 401(k) early not only are you paying a 10%, the U.S. will hit you with a 20% tax on that money. I have had this happen to me when hubby was laid off for a year and we had to get into our 401(k) a couple years ago. Basically you will end up with 70% of your money.

I don't think this is quite right. You lose a 10% penalty. That money never had tax paid on it so had you not put it in a 401k, then you would have had 20% (or whatever your tax bracket is) taken out at the time of earning. Tax is going to be paid up front or later on the money, so it's not like you lost that 20% because of the 401k. It would have already been gone if not for the 401k. Of course ideally you stash away money while you're in a high bracket (like 28%) then after retirement when your income is lower and maybe 15% bracket you get to take it out and only pay the lower tax figure. And even better is when you work for a company that matches your contribution. That's like free money they give you over your salary. For all you young people out there reading this...it is a really good deal so don't pass up the opportunity if you have an employer who will add to money you contribute.

They wouldn't make you cash it out just to move to the UK. It's an asset that could be used if needed.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

There may be some confusion, here is what I was thinking of doing

- Move my family back home to Northern Ireland, via British immigration rules

- Use the time in Northern Ireland to qualify her for Irish citizenship though the "Island of Ireland" wording on naturalisation requirements (since I have both British and Irish).

In reality, given the job situation, and what I do for a living, nowhere in Ireland is really going to suit anyway, much as I'd love to move home. If you do have any information to clarify for me, that would be appreciated.

Aaaand back on topic

There seems to be some confusion with our friends at UK Yankee as well on how the settlement changes affect naturalising as a British citizen. I placed a call with Borders agency.

Ah OK I misunderstood! I know little about British citizenship and less about Irish. If you've got some info for us, I'm sure it would be helpful.

[rocks 494]

My question is about the citizenship thing too now...is it 3 or 5 years?

I've been doing a lot of reading this last week, trying to get my head around another set of crazy rules.

From what I have seen, the new rules do not say anything about changes to the citizenship process. However, to apply for citizenship you must have ILR. Under the old rules the alien would be eligible for ILR after two years. Under the new rules it is 5 years, so although the citizenship rule is currently 3 years for a person married to a UKC, it doesn't seem that will be possible if they don't have ILR. I would be interested if you could find this out too!

[Glyn and Kathy 288]

I've been doing a lot of reading this last week, trying to get my head around another set of crazy rules.

From what I have seen, the new rules do not say anything about changes to the citizenship process. However, to apply for citizenship you must have ILR. Under the old rules the alien would be eligible for ILR after two years. Under the new rules it is 5 years, so although the citizenship rule is currently 3 years for a person married to a UKC, it doesn't seem that will be possible if they don't have ILR. I would be interested if you could find this out too!

That was my understanding of it too. Since you have to have ILR to apply for citizenship, you would have to wait the 5 years.

All I know is that I'm not leaving the UK this time without my citizenship, it would be practically impossible to come back. We're by no means rich and have spent most of our savings on immigration the last several years, so we would never qualify financially again.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Glyn and Kathy

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press-releases/women-young-people-and-non-londoners-are-most-affected-changes-family-migration-polic

The Government announced today that those people who hope to bring a spouse or other family member from outside the EU to the UK will need to be able to demonstrate that they are have an annual income of at least £18,600, and more if they hope to bring more than one family member.

These changes will mean that, of British citizens in employment:

47% will not qualify to bring in a family member.

58% of people aged between 20 and 30 will not qualify to bring in a family member compared to 35-45% of people aged between 30 and 60.

61% of women and 32% of men will not qualify to bring in a family member. • 48% of people in Scotland will not qualify to bring in a family member.

51% of people in Wales will not qualify to bring in a family member.

46% of English residents will not qualify to bring in a family member.

29% of Londoners will not qualify to bring in a family member.

The areas of England with the lowest eligibility are Mersyside, where 56% of people will not be eligiable, North West England (53%) and Yorkshire and Humberside (52%).

Dr Carlos Vargas Silva, Senior Researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University said: “Essentially what this shows us is that groups who tend to earn less will be affected more by this policy change. Specifically this will include women, those outside of London and people under 30 years old.”

Overall net migration to the UK currently stands at around 252,000. The Government has committed to reducing this to the “tens of thousands” by 2015.

Dr Scott Blinder, Senior researcher at the Migration Observatory added: “The announced income threshold might make for a fairly sharp reduction to family migration, but this is still only a small fraction of the cuts needed to approach the government’s target.”

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.latitudelaw.com/news-the-new-immigration-rules-on-family-migration-and-article-8-echr-initial-analysis-by-ed-mynott-50.html

"Article 8 is a highly fact-sensitive assessment and insofar as any rigid codification provided for in the Rules is incapable of addressing the facts of an individual’s case and insofar as the Rules do not properly express the case law of the UK and European courts, judges on appeal will not simply be reviewing a Home Office decision but will need to make their own assessment of whether Article 8 has been breached.

For those families facing separation because, for example, they do not have the resources to meet the minimum income requirement, Article 8 continues to offer hope of potential success despite the government’s attempts to restrictively codify when it will be breached."

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Even most readers of the Daily Mail don't buy it! *check out the comments section*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156993/New-law-demands-20-000-salary-marry-foreigner.html

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The Economist was of the opinion the new rules would not stand.

You can live a perfectly fine life on less than 18k outside of London, especially when you have a partner who can also earn. I know many, many people who have done so.

[rocks 494]

The Economist was of the opinion the new rules would not stand.

You can live a perfectly fine life on less than 18k outside of London, especially when you have a partner who can also earn. I know many, many people who have done so.

I hope they don't stand! It could take years for this mess to be undone!

If people are unable to live on less than 18k why is the minimum wage set at around 13,000 for a full time job? It's ridiculous to expect everyone to earn this much money. We don't all live in London you know Theresa!

[Holly2234 66]

Is the £18600 for total income? Some people may be eligible for Tax Credits etc. (The UKC since they are the ones working) so they will have an income thats bigger than their salary. Or does that not count?

[Glyn and Kathy 288]

Is the £18600 for total income? Some people may be eligible for Tax Credits etc. (The UKC since they are the ones working) so they will have an income thats bigger than their salary. Or does that not count?

I'm pretty sure I read they don't count.

[Justine+David 218]

David already got a response from his MP and the MP says he wants to bring it up in Parliament, citing our potential case

[rocks 494]

David already got a response from his MP and the MP says he wants to bring it up in Parliament, citing our potential case

Wow, that's good news!

My husband sent an email to Chris Bryant but he still hasn't responded, which is rather disappointing. How long did it take for you to get a reply? Maybe I need to write to him too!

Edited June 19, 2012 by rocks

[Justine+David 218]

2-3 days ! He asked us for more details, so it sounds very promising.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

David already got a response from his MP and the MP says he wants to bring it up in Parliament, citing our potential case

Excellent! I'm so pleased!

Democracy in Action!