New salary threshold of £38,700

[LUPR]

Someone said it hasnt changed in 10 years
However if you add 3% (24k) or even 6% inflation that will only take it to 31k
In order to earn the requirement it will be 187% more than min wage.. so thats 21.50 an hour. very unlikely in today or even previous economic climates

Does this rule apply to those extending spouse applications or applying for ILR?

It is quite the rise... I do wonder how they got to this figure.

It's not yet known if this will affect renewals. There have been conflicting messages from government on this regard. We might need to wait a while to be sure.

[Casa]

In my honest opinion, the pre-July 2012 Immigration Rules regarding the financial criteria for spouse settlement visas was fairer for all. It required the sponsor to demonstrate that they met the minimum weekly income level remaining after mortgage or rent and council tax had been deducted from gross earnings. Admittedly, the minimum income level would be higher now, but the principle is the same.

This took into consideration that earning levels and other living costs would be lower in certain areas of the country than others, such as London.

[AmazonianX]

In my honest opinion, the pre-July 2012 Immigration Rules regarding the financial criteria for spouse settlement visas was fairer for all. It required the sponsor to demonstrate that they met the minimum weekly income level remaining after mortgage or rent and council tax had been deducted from gross earnings. Admittedly, the minimum income level would be higher now, but the principle is the same.

This took into consideration that earning levels and other living costs would be lower in certain areas of the country than others, such as London.

On the basis of the above, prior to implementation, do you see a situation where the £38,700 ( though lower than Priti's £46,000) will be reduced to be in line with relatable realities?

[Casa]

In my honest opinion, the pre-July 2012 Immigration Rules regarding the financial criteria for spouse settlement visas was fairer for all. It required the sponsor to demonstrate that they met the minimum weekly income level remaining after mortgage or rent and council tax had been deducted from gross earnings. Admittedly, the minimum income level would be higher now, but the principle is the same.

This took into consideration that earning levels and other living costs would be lower in certain areas of the country than others, such as London.

On the basis of the above, prior to implementation, do you see a situation where the £38,700 ( though lower than Priti's £46,000) will be reduced to be in line with relatable realities?

Unfortunately, I feel the reality of variable incomes/cost of living throughout the UK may be long forgotten. Hence the July 2012 change to the Immigration Rules.

In the case of the proposed income level of £38,700 (especially for family settlement visas), this will only be achievable in the main, for those employed in skilled or highly qualified roles. Many manual, retail and office admin workers for example earn far less. The average annual pay level for teachers is between £24,000 - £35,000, still insufficient to qualify for a visa.

[Frontier Mole]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

[vinny]

What should UK employers make of the government’s five-point plan to reduce immigration?

[Casa]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

i can understand the reasoning behind the salary hike for the work-related applicants, but what part do you feel this plays in relation to the spouse settlement route with the same figure? Apart from reducing the overall migration numbers.

[FXR_1340]

What should UK employers make of the government’s five-point plan to reduce immigration?

Quite simply, as I see it, if an employer has to increase the wages/salary to secure the staff required. Isnt that in itself Inflationary? For example, a Restaurant requires the skills of an authentic chef which is not already available in UK. The Employer will no doubt want to pass the cost to the customer?

On the otherhand it may simply lead to even more illegal immigration?

[FXR_1340]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

i can understand the reasoning behind the salary hike for the work-related applicants, but what part do you feel this plays in relation to the spouse settlement route with the same figure? Apart from reducing the overall migration numbers.

Casa, i had not thought of this debacle in that way. What if its a retired couple who have, say an annual pension of 25k. They too are screwed? Am I missing something here, as anecdotally, a pensioner is more likely to vote Tory?

Clearly there must be another way for this imaginary couple. However, as time passes and times become even more straitened, I am sure this Couple may like the option of working should it become necessary??

[ChugaLuvMe]

My wife would apply for ILR in 2026 - we have childcare commitments and have lived comfortable for 3 years so far, with me earning 33k a year (previously) and now I earn 26k per year - it's still enough that we are comfortable. My wife works part-time once or twice a week, sometimes no weeks at all through an agency, and other times works self-employed as a teacher.

It has been determined by the government that despite living here for 3 years, our income is no longer enough to "support" my wife - who has lived here for 3 years already? Who also IS NOT entited to a single benefit and has already paid £4k+ in NHS fees. Ok then....

If we weren't so close to the end stage of citizenship, I would happily leave as this is most cruel. I absolutely feel for those in worse positions than us.

[Casa]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

i can understand the reasoning behind the salary hike for the work-related applicants, but what part do you feel this plays in relation to the spouse settlement route with the same figure? Apart from reducing the overall migration numbers.

Casa, i had not thought of this debacle in that way. What if its a retired couple who have, say an annual pension of 25k. They too are screwed? Am I missing something here, as anecdotally, a pensioner is more likely to vote Tory?

Clearly there must be another way for this imaginary couple. However, as time passes and times become even more straitened, I am sure this Couple may like the option of working should it become necessary??

Realistically, retirees may find it a considerable challenge to secure a position that meets the minimum £38,700 salary level. It almost certainly not going to be a part-time role and also depends on their health/fitness

[Araif]

Hello,

I have a question regarding one of the new rules being implemented in Spring 2024.
I myself am a British citizen and have a British passport however I recently joined a care home so currently work as a carer. Would this new law surrounding care workers not allowed to bring their dependents apply to me? Or just oversea carers?

[AmazonianX]

Hello,

I have a question regarding one of the new rules being implemented in Spring 2024.
I myself am a British citizen and have a British passport however I recently joined a care home so currently work as a carer. Would this new law surrounding care workers not allowed to bring their dependents apply to me? Or just oversea carers?

It's to overseas carers, yours will be on spouse/ family route/visa not health care visa.

[Casa]

Hello,

I have a question regarding one of the new rules being implemented in Spring 2024.
I myself am a British citizen and have a British passport however I recently joined a care home so currently work as a carer. Would this new law surrounding care workers not allowed to bring their dependents apply to me? Or just oversea carers?

It's to overseas carers, yours will be on spouse/ family route/visa not health care visa.

Further to AmazonianX's advice, you will however have to meet the proposed minimum income level of £38,700 p.a Note that this isn't a 'done deal' yet.

[FXR_1340]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

i can understand the reasoning behind the salary hike for the work-related applicants, but what part do you feel this plays in relation to the spouse settlement route with the same figure? Apart from reducing the overall migration numbers.

Casa, i had not thought of this debacle in that way. What if its a retired couple who have, say an annual pension of 25k. They too are screwed? Am I missing something here, as anecdotally, a pensioner is more likely to vote Tory?

Clearly there must be another way for this imaginary couple. However, as time passes and times become even more straitened, I am sure this Couple may like the option of working should it become necessary??

Realistically, retirees may find it a considerable challenge to secure a position that meets the minimum £38,700 salary level. It almost certainly not going to be a part-time role and also depends on their health/fitness

Would this ficticious retired couple need to have a Salary of £38,700 or would the £25k Pension income form part of the £38,700? The balance of £13,700, as you say, may remain to be quite a challenge. Lets hope the Pension Income would form part of the £38.7k.

[Casa]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

i can understand the reasoning behind the salary hike for the work-related applicants, but what part do you feel this plays in relation to the spouse settlement route with the same figure? Apart from reducing the overall migration numbers.

Casa, i had not thought of this debacle in that way. What if its a retired couple who have, say an annual pension of 25k. They too are screwed? Am I missing something here, as anecdotally, a pensioner is more likely to vote Tory?

Clearly there must be another way for this imaginary couple. However, as time passes and times become even more straitened, I am sure this Couple may like the option of working should it become necessary??

Realistically, retirees may find it a considerable challenge to secure a position that meets the minimum £38,700 salary level. It almost certainly not going to be a part-time role and also depends on their health/fitness

Would this ficticious retired couple need to have a Salary of £38,700 or would the £25k Pension income form part of the £38,700? The balance of £13,700, as you say, may remain to be quite a challenge. Lets hope the Pension Income would form part of the £38.7k.

One would expect (hope) for the pension income to be included. However, not all retirees have company pensions and the new State Pension currently only equates to around £10,600 p.a. Also for those on the basic State Pension, the income would be reduced to £8,903 p.a. and not even meeting the current £18,600 minimum income level.

This is one reason behind my comments regarding the pre-July 2012 Rules being fairer when considering living costs.

[FXR_1340]

The figure of £38,700 was the bottom end of the upper 25th percentile of earnings. In essence it basically aimed at forcing the minimum non heath related migrant salaries to a position that sponsors would be better off employing a U.K. settled person or citizen in all bar the higher earning job roles.

It is a simple matter of governing the system through fiscal means rather than actually having a true point’s based system like Australia. Crude but effective would be the best possible way to describe it.

i can understand the reasoning behind the salary hike for the work-related applicants, but what part do you feel this plays in relation to the spouse settlement route with the same figure? Apart from reducing the overall migration numbers.

Casa, i had not thought of this debacle in that way. What if its a retired couple who have, say an annual pension of 25k. They too are screwed? Am I missing something here, as anecdotally, a pensioner is more likely to vote Tory?

Clearly there must be another way for this imaginary couple. However, as time passes and times become even more straitened, I am sure this Couple may like the option of working should it become necessary??

Realistically, retirees may find it a considerable challenge to secure a position that meets the minimum £38,700 salary level. It almost certainly not going to be a part-time role and also depends on their health/fitness

Would this ficticious retired couple need to have a Salary of £38,700 or would the £25k Pension income form part of the £38,700? The balance of £13,700, as you say, may remain to be quite a challenge. Lets hope the Pension Income would form part of the £38.7k.

One would expect (hope) for the pension income to be included. However, not all retirees have company pensions and the new State Pension currently only equates to around £10,600 p.a. Also for those on the basic State Pension, the income would be reduced to £8,903 p.a. and not even meeting the current £18,600 minimum income level.

This is one reason behind my comments regarding the pre-July 2012 Rules being fairer when considering living costs.

Indeed.

The Pension Income figures, which are considered "adequate" for every day living, like the minimum wage, yet fall far short of the £38.7k. Perhaps the £38.7k notification will lead to significant increase to State Pension? (Please forgive my sarcasm)

£38.7k on Min Wage (£11.44) is a 65 hour week?

[AmazonianX]

It was in the news that an aide to the PM came to state that for those on family route on renewal the 38,700 should not apply. When asked about contradictions between what the minister said and the update from said aide, stated that things still being fleshed out.
So as stated repeatedly, its still an unfolding or developing situation. Changing the rules of an ongoing game doesn't sound reasonable.....but who knows.

[secret.simon]

£38.7k on Min Wage (£11.44) is a 65 hour week?

That suggests that it is eminently doable. During the early part of my immigration journey, when I also faced a hike in income thresholds, I managed to work ~80 hours per week across two jobs, working 12 hours a day and not taking a single day off for the entire year before the application submission (I took my days off at one job and worked at the other).

Even nowadays, I work five day shifts of 12 hour each. It is doable. One of my work colleagues is white English, 60+ and also works the same 5*12 hour shift. So it is not an age thing either.

Would this ficticious retired couple need to have a Salary of £38,700 or would the £25k Pension income form part of the £38,700? The balance of £13,700, as you say, may remain to be quite a challenge. Lets hope the Pension Income would form part of the £38.7k.

You may be failing to understand the rationale behind immigration. Immigration by itself is not wildly popular among the public, except perhaps among community of migrants themselves. The reason that immigration is provided for by government is that the UK is short of and needs working age people to provide for the elderly. Immigration policies are therefore aimed at working age people, not at retirees. Spouses of working age people are likely to be of working age themselves. And their children will also come of working age eventually. But retirees and elderly parents will never (well, not in the foreseeable future) become younger and of working age. So I suspect that appealing to them is not on the government's list.

Not to mention that the list of retirees who would be impacted would be tiny compared to other categories.

[FXR_1340]

£38.7k on Min Wage (£11.44) is a 65 hour week?

That suggests that it is eminently doable. During the early part of my immigration journey, when I also faced a hike in income thresholds, I managed to work ~80 hours per week across two jobs, working 12 hours a day and not taking a single day off for the entire year before the application submission (I took my days off at one job and worked at the other).

Even nowadays, I work five day shifts of 12 hour each. It is doable. One of my work colleagues is white English, 60+ and also works the same 5*12 hour shift. So it is not an age thing either.

Would this ficticious retired couple need to have a Salary of £38,700 or would the £25k Pension income form part of the £38,700? The balance of £13,700, as you say, may remain to be quite a challenge. Lets hope the Pension Income would form part of the £38.7k.

You may be failing to understand the rationale behind immigration. Immigration by itself is not wildly popular among the public, except perhaps among community of migrants themselves. The reason that immigration is provided for by government is that the UK is short of and needs working age people to provide for the elderly. Immigration policies are therefore aimed at working age people, not at retirees. Spouses of working age people are likely to be of working age themselves. And their children will also come of working age eventually. But retirees and elderly parents will never (well, not in the foreseeable future) become younger and of working age. So I suspect that appealing to them is not on the government's list.

Not to mention that the list of retirees who would be impacted would be tiny compared to other categories.

I am truely astonished at some of your responses!

Firstly, if UK requires "working age" immigrants, I doubt very much if there will be many who will meet the £38.7k income threshold. This being the case, this Govt is surely Shooting itself in the Foot? Thus provision to increase tax income is seriously diluted? Perhaps you are focusing too much on the FICTICIOUS Retired Couple I exampled?

I do agree with your point "...I suspect that appealing to them is not on the government's list...." however, I would extend your point and suggest this Govt is ONLY wanting to placate the Right Wing of the Party. However, that point is not for this forum. Your final paragraph mention the relatively small list of retirees. However, as mentioned previously in this thread, this group tend to vote Tory? Again, Shooting itself in the foot comes to mind as the day is coming when this ghastly Govt will need every vote it can get!

Having said all that, I wonder how many other Countries in the world sets such a relatively high income requirement? Perhaps UK is just getting in line?

With regards the number of hours and jobs you worked I would say 2 things. Firstly good for you. Well done. However I cant help but feel we are in a more enlightened age where, as govt has stated, frequently, Work-Life Balance is so important?

[secret.simon]

I am truely astonished at some of your responses!

I have been told I am full of surprises

Joking aside, I think it is over-simplistic to imagine that all migrants think the same or that they have the same approach to the issue(s) of migration. I understand from some of your previous posts (and I could well be wrong) that you are located in the US. If so, you would be aware that Cuban Latino/a/x voters behave differently from, say, Mexican Latino/a/x voters, in spite of the fact that both are Latino/a/x and migrants. Not all migrants work, think or behave in the same manner. There are cultural and other differences within that broad category.

Firstly, if UK requires "working age" immigrants, I doubt very much if there will be many who will meet the £38.7k income threshold. This being the case, this Govt is surely Shooting itself in the Foot? Thus provision to increase tax income is seriously diluted? Perhaps you are focusing too much on the FICTICIOUS Retired Couple I exampled?

I specifically addressed the "FICTICIOUS Retired Couple" to highlight the irrelevance and secondary nature of that argument. With regards to the government shooting itself in the foot, I am in agreement with you on that point and I fully expect the requirement to be watered down.

I do agree with your point "...I suspect that appealing to them is not on the government's list...." however, I would extend your point and suggest this Govt is ONLY wanting to placate the Right Wing of the Party. However, that point is not for this forum. Your final paragraph mention the relatively small list of retirees. However, as mentioned previously in this thread, this group tend to vote Tory? Again, Shooting itself in the foot comes to mind as the day is coming when this ghastly Govt will need every vote it can get!

I'm not sure if you are keeping in touch with the news on this side of the Pond, but most of western Europe is moving rightwards, from the rise of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands to the rise of the AfD in Germany to the Meloni government in Italy.

I would point out that it is not just the right-wing of the Conservative Party, but the opposition Labour Party that have said that they will support the government if there is a vote on these increases.

The mood music of most of Western Europe, not just the UK, with regards to immigration, is moving rightwards.

With regards to retirees voting Tory, I would point out that the number of retirees that would be affected (because they have foreign spouses) would be minuscule and they would have likely voted Labour anyway.

With regards the number of hours and jobs you worked I would say 2 things. Firstly good for you. Well done. However I cant help but feel we are in a more enlightened age where, as govt has stated, frequently, Work-Life Balance is so important?

Thank you for the compliment.

I would suggest that when one is starting a new life in a new culture and place and conforming to the immigration requirements, work-life balance can go by the wayside. Any Asian mother would tell you that you can relax when you are on your deathbed. Till then, it is hard work all the way. There is a reason that Asian economies are overtaking European ones.

[FXR_1340]

I am truely astonished at some of your responses!

I have been told I am full of surprises

Joking aside, I think it is over-simplistic to imagine that all migrants think the same or that they have the same approach to the issue(s) of migration. I understand from some of your previous posts (and I could well be wrong) that you are located in the US. If so, you would be aware that Cuban Latino/a/x voters behave differently from, say, Mexican Latino/a/x voters, in spite of the fact that both are Latino/a/x and migrants. Not all migrants work, think or behave in the same manner. There are cultural and other differences within that broad category.

Firstly, if UK requires "working age" immigrants, I doubt very much if there will be many who will meet the £38.7k income threshold. This being the case, this Govt is surely Shooting itself in the Foot? Thus provision to increase tax income is seriously diluted? Perhaps you are focusing too much on the FICTICIOUS Retired Couple I exampled?

I specifically addressed the "FICTICIOUS Retired Couple" to highlight the irrelevance and secondary nature of that argument. With regards to the government shooting itself in the foot, I am in agreement with you on that point and I fully expect the requirement to be watered down.

I do agree with your point "...I suspect that appealing to them is not on the government's list...." however, I would extend your point and suggest this Govt is ONLY wanting to placate the Right Wing of the Party. However, that point is not for this forum. Your final paragraph mention the relatively small list of retirees. However, as mentioned previously in this thread, this group tend to vote Tory? Again, Shooting itself in the foot comes to mind as the day is coming when this ghastly Govt will need every vote it can get!

I'm not sure if you are keeping in touch with the news on this side of the Pond, but most of western Europe is moving rightwards, from the rise of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands to the rise of the AfD in Germany to the Meloni government in Italy.

I would point out that it is not just the right-wing of the Conservative Party, but the opposition Labour Party that have said that they will support the government if there is a vote on these increases.

The mood music of most of Western Europe, not just the UK, with regards to immigration, is moving rightwards.

With regards to retirees voting Tory, I would point out that the number of retirees that would be affected (because they have foreign spouses) would be minuscule and they would have likely voted Labour anyway.

With regards the number of hours and jobs you worked I would say 2 things. Firstly good for you. Well done. However I cant help but feel we are in a more enlightened age where, as govt has stated, frequently, Work-Life Balance is so important?

Thank you for the compliment.

I would suggest that when one is starting a new life in a new culture and place and conforming to the immigration requirements, work-life balance can go by the wayside. Any Asian mother would tell you that you can relax when you are on your deathbed. Till then, it is hard work all the way. There is a reason that Asian economies are overtaking European ones.

Yes Sir full of surprises! To reference anyone as "White. English..." to me smacks of irrelevance. More importantly it smacks of the RAC word! Had I refered to anyone of colour and the Country they come from, I would be ashamed of myself and could do nothing but accept being vilified!

On the last points you make, I can only disagree. If "Asian Economies are overtaking European ones" and have little regard for Work/Life Balance then they to will eventually become enlightened.

I have no more to share with you. The White, English was enough!

Enjoy your stay in MY country of birth. I can but hope that its not too far off when My Country is not a part of UK.

[secret.simon]

To reference anyone as "White. English..." to me smacks of irrelevance. More importantly it smacks of the RAC word! Had I refered to anyone of colour and the Country they come from, I would be ashamed of myself and could do nothing but accept being vilified!

It had nothing to do with RAAC and it was relevant. I was making the point that even people who are not impacted by these requirements in any way can and do work 5*12 hour work shifts and that such work is doable, even at that age.

If "Asian Economies are overtaking European ones" and have little regard for Work/Life Balance then they to will eventually become enlightened.

Whence the next set of "unenlightened" economies, not constrained by virtue signalling, will take their place. The "unenlightened" economies will always have a competitive edge, not encumbering themselves with niceties, but focusing on building themselves with a full utilisation of all resources, including human resources.

Enjoy your stay in MY country of birth.

I don't reside in the country denoted by the flag on your profile.

I can but hope that its not too far off when My Country is not a part of UK.

The country denoted by the flag on your profile will a choice of belonging to either the European Union or to the United Kingdom. Either way, it will be in a union of which it will be a numerically small member. And keep in mind that politics will keep changing in the EU as well. It won't remain as virtuous/pious as it has been in the past. Who knows, your country might regret that membership as well.

[Nellyb1979]

To reference anyone as "White. English..." to me smacks of irrelevance. More importantly it smacks of the RAC word! Had I refered to anyone of colour and the Country they come from, I would be ashamed of myself and could do nothing but accept being vilified!

It had nothing to do with RAAC and it was relevant. I was making the point that even people who are not impacted by these requirements in any way can and do work 5*12 hour work shifts and that such work is doable, even at that age

actually it would work out as 5x13 hour days = 65hours.
but to that you need to add at least 1 hour unpaid for lunch and breaks. so reality its a 14hour day.
lets not even mention the working time directive laws.

then not costed but if you allow 30 mins each way for travelling, makes it a 15 hour day.

everyone needs to sleep will say 61/2 hours sleep. leaves you with 2-3 hours spare.

As you say doable! and Bravo to you for doing it.
Realistic, reasonable / fair to all, i dont think so.

[THO]

This latest Policy is clearly having huge impact........
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67630258

What a cruel, insular, Right Wing Fascist govt the UK now suffers. A Plague on ALL their houses!!

I'm in the same boat, NHS Nurse trying to bring my Ecuadorian wife who is a Doctor to the UK. At this point I honestly feel the UK doesn't even deserve us. I have Australian Permanent residency so may just start the process for my wife to join me there. This country is absolutely disgusting.

Is this the same Australia that has a Rwanda style illegal immigration policy in place? Is it the same country that has very selective points based immigration rules that means they only take people they need? Is this the same country that has a population of around 27 million and is about 30 times the size of the UK?

So, not all countries just let all and sundry in, and it's not unreasonable that they need to be able to support themselves, and 18.6K is nowhere near enough money to live on these days. Perhaps your wife could get sponsored for a job that starts when she arrives? I thought the UK needed Doctors and so she could maybe she would qualify as a skilled professional?

My issue is that the immigration rules don't apply to everyone equally, i.e. those that have arrived recently but have ILR, can bring someone they simply don't know to the UK, if they earn just 18.6K p.a. And a British, through and through, person who has a 3 year, very costly long distance relationship, has to jump through fiery hoops to prove the relationship is not false, as well as meeting all the other criteria.

There will always be people who feel the immigration rules are unfair, just because they go against what they want to be the reality. On another thread, one person was moaning it was so unfair because her husband who had come here on the back of a lorry, twice, married her in the UK (how is a mystery), and now he is not able to just change to a spouse visa.

No one has come up with a better suggestion to curbing the vast increase in population, just said raising the level of income required is unfair.