Campaign against proposed change to immigration rules that will split up or exile couples with non-EU partners with low income.
Proposed changes to immigration law will married or civil partnership couples to split or leave the country if they earn less than £25700 - or even more if they have kids. Details here:
As this is a basic human rights issue and the proposed changes are imminent, I believe this campaign deserves to have a high priority.
francesca ammata leigh commented
David Cameron stated verbatim on the 26 July 2012 as the Olympics started "If you’re looking for a great place to do business, to invest, to work, to study, to visit – then look no further than Great Britain."
It seems 'look' but don't 'touch.' Theresa May feels it is a benefit to the country to have children being raised without one of their parents, because...of their nationality? She feels these children will benefit from not knowing 1st hand about their culture, language, traditions, because one of their parent's is not from the EU? She feels that it benefits a family when one of the parents is unable to support their family because they are not able to open a bank account - because they are not allowed to live here?
There are many other 'she feels...it benefits'I can think of but it makes me too angry to write it all. You get the point. It is a particularly damaging hyposcrisy to be celebrating diversity during the wonderful Olympic Games and then a month later actively breaking up families because they are culturally and ethnically rich. What a wonderful benefit to the country that is, and how sad that the government don't give this the value and equality that it deserves.
Many thanks for your time.
Bob Swan commented
Well, Anonymous, when will people like you stop being mean, cold hearted fascists, my wife is a Non EU citizen, whose first language is English, is educated and capable of working without depending upon the state for 'hand outs'.
Why should my wife and her children not be allowed to come and live here and contribute to our society?
I'm sorry, but I have no respect for your view, or anything you have said, as you have not even the decency and courage to say who you are. If you truly stand by your words, then have the courage to stand up and be counted and not hide yourself.
I have no idea why we bothered fighting WWII with the fascist views coming out of this country today! I want my wife here with me me, were she can be happy and safe, and work, and her children can grow up in a safer environment and learn a better way of life. I do not see why we should be parted because I don't earn enough, nor do I see the justification in having to sell everything up and become an exile from my own country just to be with them.
Had I the money I would, I am getting sick and tired of extremists and their right wing views right across the board; life is hard enough without people like you and Theresa May's sick plans, you have no idea of the anger in me at your insensitivity.
It is time we starting to put a halt to immigration and repatriate more immigrants regardless of their income but obviously giving priority to those with large families. Whether or not they are a burden on the state is of concern to some I know, but that is not the main issue.
My concern is now that the Welsh have become and in a few years the Scots will become minority groups when are we going to say. No more the UK is full. Our society is already changing the changes are not reversable but will continue.
I admit I used to think we should have a world without borders and people should be free to go where they want....... then I woke up.
When are the whingers and bleeding hearts going to wake up and smell the coffee?
I know exactly what type of people are going to object to my comment, and even though they would deny me mine they are of course sfree to exercise their freedom of speech ...... whilst they still have it. Sad to say I doubt that the 4th or 5th generation of their decendants will have such a privilege.
Concerning the cut to legal aid for fighting this. For 13 years the political class and the media, and even all the big NGOs, have been hushing up a massive advance in democracy that no one has ever offered any argument against being true, and that makes it possible to abolish unaffordable costs hence all need for legal aid. Why has 38 Degrees not publicised this "court change" either, when the reasons why it is real stand up to scrutiny step by step? The genuineness of this campaign, to all it supporters' serious needs, depends on publicising this:
THE COURT CHANGE: since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party".
It is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 Scottish, parliaments.
The court change follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.
Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.
This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.
The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.
The first fault finding to make, is that all unaffordable legal costs are abolished by how they conflict with the world human rights principle of access to justice. Folks have waited centuries for a chance to say this !!! See how far reaching is the reform the court change can do once it starts?
Then, world trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system. So the court change is of far reaching international interest.
There shall be no ego for me in this, it only originates from my case until there is discovered anyone else who has a case that gets the court change started from an earlier date than mine and with the same geographical reach. Then they take precedence, because attaining the earliest start date for this reform is what matters.
Richard Miles commented
This, sadly is a slow burning campaign, as most people haven't yet understood the implications of this devastating legislation that will seriously undermine marriages and other long-term relationships, do huge damage to families, and will force UK citizens who value their spouses and children into exile from the land of their birth. My daughter works to implement UK government policy in Africa, but fell in love with and married an African man with a good job (in a Commonwealth country). Now, unless she can secure sufficient income from a job in the UK, or amass huge savings, they cannot choose to live here for some of their married life. I am not allowed to sponsor them - so I cannot help them to keep in close touch with their UK family. But if she had married a Pole or Estonian, or German ... - no problem. And if we had all been French, living in the UK - no problem; she could bring in her African husband. But oh dear, we have to go back to 1681 to claim any French family links. She is too British to qualify.
Alastair Sutherland commented
Sadly, this kind of nonsense is typical of a government devoid of intelligence and compassion.
I trust they will not be in power for long.
That is so wrong ,I thought you fell in love with the person not the money they would make.
Lara Berthinussen Sawada commented
And, by the way, there's an official HM Government e-petition, so do sign it!
Lara Berthinussen Sawada commented
I was about to suggest this campaign myself, when I saw it's already been suggested. I'll still post it, too... The proposed changes to the rules are ridiculous, and will do little, if anything, to tackle the wider immigration issue anyway. It's prejudiced in many ways, and it's unbelievable that an EEA nation would more easily be able to live in the UK with their EEA spouse than a British citizen with their spouse if they're non-EEA. I'm a Brit married to a Japanese man, and I have dozens of friends who would also be affected personally.
I've started a campaign against this on FB and on Twitter - BAFE (Brits Against Family Exile) so please "Like" our FB page and follow us on Twitter:
Bob Swan commented
I am married to a US citizen, we marriedhere nearly a year ago, we went through the process of filing the correct forms, the advice we were giving we followed, got our certificate of approval, then they change the rules. We are going through an appeal process that is very stressful, as we thought we did the right thing, just to be told my wife has to leave to get our paperwork in order so that she has the right visa. Now they are changing it again, and because I am unemployed and on DLA (which resticts me from working) and thus on less than £20k, they are hitting way below the belt, and how on earth can they expect me to just say goodbye to my wife, just for being poor?
I am outraged by the amount of calous biggotry, this is my country too, my life has been spent here, how can I be expected to sell up and leave, without a guarantee of being able to settle in the US, what chance do we stand? I am truly upset, frightened and unbelievably angry.
Teresa May might only consider this 'business' and that there is nothing 'personal' about what she wants to do, but it is deeply personal to me and my wife. I haven't even broached the subject with her yet.
To make matters worse, they want to cut legal aid, so how could we ever possibly hope to fight them in a court of law? This so deeply disgusting on every level, this is not a matter of money, this is cruelty for the sake of cruelty, and I feel desperate and don't know what to do.
My uncle fought in WWII to help defeat the Nazis and fascism, how is it that this country that fought to defeat it is becoming just that?
I am trying to build a business, so that I can supporrt my wife, and not be a burden, my wife is an English speaker, it's her native language, she would be able to work. Why must our lives be destroyed because of a cold and mean spirited ConDEm coalition?
I feel sick.
Stephanie Allan commented
This is an outrageous violation of human rights!
Lionel Barnes commented
100% behind you on this. My wife and I fell foul of the English language requirement then after spending hundreds on IELTS test and my wife achieving overall grade 4 they changed the rules so she failed. Her speaking grade was 3 and ukba specify grade 4. I argued that her grade 3 indicated at least level A2 but ukba responded with a letter that basically said in IELTS she must achieve grade 4 in both speaking and listening and they will only recognise it as sufficient if she achieves grade 4, effectively level B1. Now I have put my house on the market and we are looking at moving to Germany although finding work there when neither of us speak German will be a challenge in itself at least we will be together.
Russell smith commented
The changes to these rules are going to ruin people's lives. It's crazy that a non-uk European citizen has an easier time getting a visa to stay in the uk for their non eu spouse than a uk citizen does. The changes will make me and many others economic exiles from the uk and it violates our human rights.