Bulletguy Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-02 11:11 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-02 10:02 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-28 2:18 PM John52 - 2017-11-28 9:31 AM derek pringle - 2017-11-28 9:29 AM John52 - 2017-11-28 3:46 AM Is it fair that Prince Harry can marry a migrant from outside the EEA, when millions can't? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-harry-meghan-markle-engagement-marry-not-everyone-can-bring-spouse-a8078926.html hi John, On what grounds would he be treated differently to anybody else.? How would the US law interpret this situation,would he be treated differently to other people marrying an american? cheers derek Its explained in the web link I posted I think you will find John that his chosen wife will have to conform to the same rules as any other non-national. As an American citizen she can only stay in the UK for six months after her entry as a visitor. If she want's to enter and remain for longer as a spouse she will have to apply for a spouse visa. The law applies to Harry in the same way as it applies to everyone else. Yes it will be little more than a formality but the law is the law. I think it likely that he can afford to pay the visa fee and he just needs to demonstrate that he can afford to keep her. Just a bank statement from one of his accounts with Coutts would show that. ;-) Correction she will have to apply for a Fiancee visa as I presume she is going to marry him here. Veronica.......something here for both you and John actually which was on this evenings news and relates to what i posted about re. immigration and how families remain split. Naturally Miss Markle is a current example which stirs such people (and thats putting it mildly!). https://www.channel4.com/news/uk-families-affected-by-immigration-laws-campaign Thanks BG. The first lady in the clip who had to quit Turkey because of the military coup with her daughter may have a good case for her husband to be allowed in as her partner on a discretionary basis outside the rules if it can be shown that they cannot live together in Turkey. In February this year our Supreme Court, whilst upholding the principle of the minimum income requirement was critical of the rules as they are currently drafted and government advice to visa officers on how to consider cases outside the rules for not taking sufficient account of the welfare of children affected by the decision not to admit a spouse. It is worth a read because the issues are explained very well. You can find it on this link https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0011-judgment.pdf ...warning it's 40 pages long! Seems to me the lady with the Turkish husband should consult a lawyer (and before Dave P chips in I should say that Legal Aid is not available.Some lawyers will act for free in worthy cases because they are not all greedy self-serving troughers as the Daily Mail seems to want us to believe). If I heard what was said on the Channel 4 clip right the second person, a man was successful in getting permission for his wife to join him. In the third case I could not discern any reason why they couldn't live in the spouse's country of origin. The bottom line is there will be cases, depending on the circumstances, where the income requirement should be waived i.e. when it can be shown that the interests of the family, particularly those of children are such that excluding a spouse is not lawful i.e. the exclusion amounts to a disproportionate interference with their family life. As in life there are exceptions to every rule but in general the rule holds good for the reasons the Supreme Court stated. Don't you just love our Supreme Court...they got it right on Article 50 too. ;-) Veronica Bib.......not quite. Despite the fact his salary "ticked all the right boxes", his wife was refused entry the day after Miss Markle breezed into the UK. Mr Singh then wrote a blog which went viral. Two days later the HO emailed him to say they'd "made a mistake" and his wife could come to UK. Article here; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/satbir-singh-gitanjali-home-office-visa_uk_5a225365e4b03350e0b6eae9 Mr Singh's blog; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/meghan-markle-british-citizenship_uk_5a1ee048e4b01edb1a817cc2 The application has a staggering 1,103 pages to complete so i'm hardly surprised things go wrong. I can also understand the raised eyebrows over Miss Markle too and notice she was working the other day. I wonder if her visa covers that as there are differing tiers. There is also the small, though not insignificant matter of "no recourse to public funds".....so who is paying for her security....the Palace, or the tax payer? Which country a person decides to make resident will vary according to personal circumstance and maybe the lady whose husband was from Ecuador has no family there or both have better jobs here. Either way both were employed so fully contributing into the economy here. One of my nephews is married to a Mexican lady. The both met in Australia where James was working at the time, then relocated to South Africa, then over to Mexico, now back in South Africa. As far as i'm aware he's never applied for his wife to get a visa or citizenship here though they could easily qualify as both work in banking but they enjoy a better standard of living in SA. I will have a read through that pdf link some time.....at least 40 pages isn't as bad as the visa application! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 3, 2017 Author Share Posted December 3, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-12-03 1:31 AM ...so who is paying for her security....the Palace, or the tax payer? Since the tax payer is really paying for the Palace I don't suppose it makes much difference. Understandably all four members of the Social Mobility Board have stood down in protest over laxck of progress towards a fairer Britain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42212270 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-12-03 1:31 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-02 11:11 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-02 10:02 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-28 2:18 PM John52 - 2017-11-28 9:31 AM derek pringle - 2017-11-28 9:29 AM John52 - 2017-11-28 3:46 AM Is it fair that Prince Harry can marry a migrant from outside the EEA, when millions can't? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-harry-meghan-markle-engagement-marry-not-everyone-can-bring-spouse-a8078926.html hi John, On what grounds would he be treated differently to anybody else.? How would the US law interpret this situation,would he be treated differently to other people marrying an american? cheers derek Its explained in the web link I posted I think you will find John that his chosen wife will have to conform to the same rules as any other non-national. As an American citizen she can only stay in the UK for six months after her entry as a visitor. If she want's to enter and remain for longer as a spouse she will have to apply for a spouse visa. The law applies to Harry in the same way as it applies to everyone else. Yes it will be little more than a formality but the law is the law. I think it likely that he can afford to pay the visa fee and he just needs to demonstrate that he can afford to keep her. Just a bank statement from one of his accounts with Coutts would show that. ;-) Correction she will have to apply for a Fiancee visa as I presume she is going to marry him here. Veronica.......something here for both you and John actually which was on this evenings news and relates to what i posted about re. immigration and how families remain split. Naturally Miss Markle is a current example which stirs such people (and thats putting it mildly!). https://www.channel4.com/news/uk-families-affected-by-immigration-laws-campaign Thanks BG. The first lady in the clip who had to quit Turkey because of the military coup with her daughter may have a good case for her husband to be allowed in as her partner on a discretionary basis outside the rules if it can be shown that they cannot live together in Turkey. In February this year our Supreme Court, whilst upholding the principle of the minimum income requirement was critical of the rules as they are currently drafted and government advice to visa officers on how to consider cases outside the rules for not taking sufficient account of the welfare of children affected by the decision not to admit a spouse. It is worth a read because the issues are explained very well. You can find it on this link https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0011-judgment.pdf ...warning it's 40 pages long! Seems to me the lady with the Turkish husband should consult a lawyer (and before Dave P chips in I should say that Legal Aid is not available.Some lawyers will act for free in worthy cases because they are not all greedy self-serving troughers as the Daily Mail seems to want us to believe). If I heard what was said on the Channel 4 clip right the second person, a man was successful in getting permission for his wife to join him. In the third case I could not discern any reason why they couldn't live in the spouse's country of origin. The bottom line is there will be cases, depending on the circumstances, where the income requirement should be waived i.e. when it can be shown that the interests of the family, particularly those of children are such that excluding a spouse is not lawful i.e. the exclusion amounts to a disproportionate interference with their family life. As in life there are exceptions to every rule but in general the rule holds good for the reasons the Supreme Court stated. Don't you just love our Supreme Court...they got it right on Article 50 too. ;-) Veronica Bib.......not quite. Despite the fact his salary "ticked all the right boxes", his wife was refused entry the day after Miss Markle breezed into the UK. Mr Singh then wrote a blog which went viral. Two days later the HO emailed him to say they'd "made a mistake" and his wife could come to UK. Article here; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/satbir-singh-gitanjali-home-office-visa_uk_5a225365e4b03350e0b6eae9 Mr Singh's blog; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/meghan-markle-british-citizenship_uk_5a1ee048e4b01edb1a817cc2 The application has a staggering 1,103 pages to complete so i'm hardly surprised things go wrong. I can also understand the raised eyebrows over Miss Markle too and notice she was working the other day. I wonder if her visa covers that as there are differing tiers. There is also the small, though not insignificant matter of "no recourse to public funds".....so who is paying for her security....the Palace, or the tax payer? Which country a person decides to make resident will vary according to personal circumstance and maybe the lady whose husband was from Ecuador has no family there or both have better jobs here. Either way both were employed so fully contributing into the economy here. One of my nephews is married to a Mexican lady. The both met in Australia where James was working at the time, then relocated to South Africa, then over to Mexico, now back in South Africa. As far as i'm aware he's never applied for his wife to get a visa or citizenship here though they could easily qualify as both work in banking but they enjoy a better standard of living in SA. I will have a read through that pdf link some time.....at least 40 pages isn't as bad as the visa application! Well spotted on Ms M. She shouldn't be working on a visit visa! At the risk of making John's blood boil, if the Royals want us to believe that walkabouts and opening stuff is 'working' then there's issue there. As for the woman with the Ecuadorean husband he isn't allowed to work here on a temporary visit visa so I doubt he is contributing to the economy. The problem lies in them not being able to rely on his potential earnings if he were to be admitted. The Supreme Court agrees with you I believe on how blunt an instrument the rules are in some circumstances. There's a good discussion about the changes to the rules made and the justification the government gave for making changes at the beginning of that case. There was a lot of talk about falling in love with someone and being denied their company by these harsh rules on the clip.I can see where people are coming from. I suspect the government wasn't targeting love matches at all when they changed the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-03 8:58 AM Bulletguy - 2017-12-03 1:31 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-02 11:11 PM Bulletguy - 2017-12-02 10:02 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-28 2:18 PM John52 - 2017-11-28 9:31 AM derek pringle - 2017-11-28 9:29 AM John52 - 2017-11-28 3:46 AM Is it fair that Prince Harry can marry a migrant from outside the EEA, when millions can't? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-harry-meghan-markle-engagement-marry-not-everyone-can-bring-spouse-a8078926.html hi John, On what grounds would he be treated differently to anybody else.? How would the US law interpret this situation,would he be treated differently to other people marrying an american? cheers derek Its explained in the web link I posted I think you will find John that his chosen wife will have to conform to the same rules as any other non-national. As an American citizen she can only stay in the UK for six months after her entry as a visitor. If she want's to enter and remain for longer as a spouse she will have to apply for a spouse visa. The law applies to Harry in the same way as it applies to everyone else. Yes it will be little more than a formality but the law is the law. I think it likely that he can afford to pay the visa fee and he just needs to demonstrate that he can afford to keep her. Just a bank statement from one of his accounts with Coutts would show that. ;-) Correction she will have to apply for a Fiancee visa as I presume she is going to marry him here. Veronica.......something here for both you and John actually which was on this evenings news and relates to what i posted about re. immigration and how families remain split. Naturally Miss Markle is a current example which stirs such people (and thats putting it mildly!). https://www.channel4.com/news/uk-families-affected-by-immigration-laws-campaign Thanks BG. The first lady in the clip who had to quit Turkey because of the military coup with her daughter may have a good case for her husband to be allowed in as her partner on a discretionary basis outside the rules if it can be shown that they cannot live together in Turkey. In February this year our Supreme Court, whilst upholding the principle of the minimum income requirement was critical of the rules as they are currently drafted and government advice to visa officers on how to consider cases outside the rules for not taking sufficient account of the welfare of children affected by the decision not to admit a spouse. It is worth a read because the issues are explained very well. You can find it on this link https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0011-judgment.pdf ...warning it's 40 pages long! Seems to me the lady with the Turkish husband should consult a lawyer (and before Dave P chips in I should say that Legal Aid is not available.Some lawyers will act for free in worthy cases because they are not all greedy self-serving troughers as the Daily Mail seems to want us to believe). If I heard what was said on the Channel 4 clip right the second person, a man was successful in getting permission for his wife to join him. In the third case I could not discern any reason why they couldn't live in the spouse's country of origin. The bottom line is there will be cases, depending on the circumstances, where the income requirement should be waived i.e. when it can be shown that the interests of the family, particularly those of children are such that excluding a spouse is not lawful i.e. the exclusion amounts to a disproportionate interference with their family life. As in life there are exceptions to every rule but in general the rule holds good for the reasons the Supreme Court stated. Don't you just love our Supreme Court...they got it right on Article 50 too. ;-) Veronica Bib.......not quite. Despite the fact his salary "ticked all the right boxes", his wife was refused entry the day after Miss Markle breezed into the UK. Mr Singh then wrote a blog which went viral. Two days later the HO emailed him to say they'd "made a mistake" and his wife could come to UK. Article here; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/satbir-singh-gitanjali-home-office-visa_uk_5a225365e4b03350e0b6eae9 Mr Singh's blog; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/meghan-markle-british-citizenship_uk_5a1ee048e4b01edb1a817cc2 The application has a staggering 1,103 pages to complete so i'm hardly surprised things go wrong. I can also understand the raised eyebrows over Miss Markle too and notice she was working the other day. I wonder if her visa covers that as there are differing tiers. There is also the small, though not insignificant matter of "no recourse to public funds".....so who is paying for her security....the Palace, or the tax payer? Which country a person decides to make resident will vary according to personal circumstance and maybe the lady whose husband was from Ecuador has no family there or both have better jobs here. Either way both were employed so fully contributing into the economy here. One of my nephews is married to a Mexican lady. The both met in Australia where James was working at the time, then relocated to South Africa, then over to Mexico, now back in South Africa. As far as i'm aware he's never applied for his wife to get a visa or citizenship here though they could easily qualify as both work in banking but they enjoy a better standard of living in SA. I will have a read through that pdf link some time.....at least 40 pages isn't as bad as the visa application! Well spotted on Ms M. She shouldn't be working on a visit visa! At the risk of making John's blood boil, if the Royals want us to believe that walkabouts and opening stuff is 'working' then there's issue there. As for the woman with the Ecuadorean husband he isn't allowed to work here on a temporary visit visa so I doubt he is contributing to the economy. The problem lies in them not being able to rely on his potential earnings if he were to be admitted. The Supreme Court agrees with you I believe on how blunt an instrument the rules are in some circumstances. There's a good discussion about the changes to the rules made and the justification the government gave for making changes at the beginning of that case. There was a lot of talk about falling in love with someone and being denied their company by these harsh rules on the clip.I can see where people are coming from. I suspect the government wasn't targeting love matches at all when they changed the rules. Well it's raised questions over how Miss Markle breezed in on what i expect to be a Fiancee visa which wouldn't entitle her to work, neither would she have 'recourse to public funds' meaning her partner must fully support her financially (which we know he can and know she can too), so i'd like to know if the palace, or Harry, is footing the bill for her security. If not then this is wrong. We seem to be pretty good at operating double standards in the UK. Yes what i meant re. the lady with husband from Ecuador is working but can't have her husband here permanently as she earns below the threshold. I'm not sure what his potential earnings could be as they didn't say what nature of work he was in. Also of course on a visitor visa he wouldn't be allowed to work. I felt the report highlighted the difficulties people face bringing a spouse/partner to the country and despite what a few people believe it is not that easy and as i've mentioned before, it's very invasive and unpleasant. Interesting how the HO cocked up (i wasn't surprised to read that actually) on Mr Singhs application and only admitted they'd "made a mistake" after his blog went viral. Myself personally, i don't give a flying fig what country people come from if they come here and prepared to work. They set an example to our home grown scroungers who've made living off the state a 'career'. I remember reading a forum thread some months ago about "Foreigners stealing our jobs". It was full of the usual xenophobic clap trap but one poster came out with an absolute gem. He wrote, "well the foreigners have been doing an excellent job of 'stealing' my nephews job as the bone idle sod has never done a days work in his life since he left school 15 years ago and has no intention of getting a job". Classic!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 hi, I am sure I have heard muted in the past about getting young able Claimants to do some work in order to qualify for Benefits. Think the objection at the time came from Unions who insisted this would undermine the employment of their members. To me the simple answer would be to give these people some work that does not normally carry a "job" title i.e. Charity Work. Retired lady was on tv this morning saying she travels around on free bus's all day to save putting heating on at home.This lady worked most of her life but in Part Time jobs as she had a family to bring up. This results in her receiving reduced Pension due to N.I stamps, yet the claimants like the one in the previous post will have FULL stamp paid. At this time of year a lot of good could be done by getting people to help the Charities. To me it sounds simple but probably not. Enlighten me please? derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 derek pringle - 2017-12-04 9:22 AM hi, I am sure I have heard muted in the past about getting young able Claimants to do some work in order to qualify for Benefits. Think the objection at the time came from Unions who insisted this would undermine the employment of their members. To me the simple answer would be to give these people some work that does not normally carry a "job" title i.e. Charity Work. Retired lady was on tv this morning saying she travels around on free bus's all day to save putting heating on at home.This lady worked most of her life but in Part Time jobs as she had a family to bring up. This results in her receiving reduced Pension due to N.I stamps, yet the claimants like the one in the previous post will have FULL stamp paid. At this time of year a lot of good could be done by getting people to help the Charities. To me it sounds simple but probably not. Enlighten me please? derek WHAT? 8-) .........Make the feckless work? (lol) .........That'll be against their human rights >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 derek pringle - 2017-12-04 9:22 AM hi, I am sure I have heard muted in the past about getting young able Claimants to do some work in order to qualify for Benefits. Think the objection at the time came from Unions who insisted this would undermine the employment of their members. To me the simple answer would be to give these people some work that does not normally carry a "job" title i.e. Charity Work. Derek there is absolutely nothing stopping any from applying for work in supermarkets, diy stores etc and many other industries which don't operate an age limit policy. Guys like this man, whilst admittedly an exception, who retired at 95 after working for 82 years. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-oldest-supermarket-worker-retire-aged-95-sainsburys-cwymbran-south-wales-a7876396.html The moral behind that is he wants to go to work.....so why are school leavers not wanting to work such as the example i quoted? These sort of jobs have been done for years by people from EU countries who by nature are willing and hard working....but Brexiters don't want them. So the question all Brexit voters must now ask themselves is are you going to drag your bone idle lazy Brits from under their duvets and send them out to work? Because soon there won't be anyone left to work your Poundlands and supermarket check outs etc......time for you to get to work. Trade unions rightly protect the interests of their membership, that's what they are supposed to be there for so i have no issues with that at all.Unfortunately in my opinion they haven't worked nearly as hard as they should in fighting for more realistic increases, 1 or 1.5% of not very much is....well, not very much, so over the years incomes particularly on the lower levels, have virtually stagnated. Meantime the other end of the scale, high income earners, have seen pay increases go stratospheric, often bolstered by huge bonuses. Read up on the pay gap and you will see what i mean. Read anything by Nick Hanauer, a Seattle billionaire who really has his finger on the pulse regards the wealth gap and debunks the myth of the 'trickle down factor'. Retired lady was on tv this morning saying she travels around on free bus's all day to save putting heating on at home.This lady worked most of her life but in Part Time jobs as she had a family to bring up. This results in her receiving reduced Pension due to N.I stamps, yet the claimants like the one in the previous post will have FULL stamp paid. At this time of year a lot of good could be done by getting people to help the Charities. To me it sounds simple but probably not. Enlighten me please? Regards how much state pension someone receives whose never worked and thereby not contributed anything, as far as i'm aware they get the basic state pension which according to date of birth, stands at £122pw...or £159pw if born after April 1951 for a man or April 1951 for a woman but would also depend on how much NI credits they received, so they don't all necessarily receive the full amount. It certainly isn't simple as credits, contributions, etc are quite complex, not to mention the raft of varying benefits. UK state pensions are among the lowest in the developed world at just over £7k pa......Spain is around £26k pa. Quite sickening then to see this man trouser £73k pa MEP pension in addition to a state pension who says "why should my family suffer" after he's inflicted no end of suffering on millions of British http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-eu-pension-refuses-give-up-keep-britain-first-rise-far-right-a8089256.html ......i haven't heard any Brexiters objecting to paying his pension....i wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.