**UNITE FAMILIES - FIGHT FOR LOVE** LET'S STOP THESE RULES**

[Khrissy3000]

Please join my forum regarding these rules and how we plan to reverse them - xxxxxxx

Please like my facebook page: xxxxxxxxx

I have been in a long term relationship for over 4 years, we are engaged to be married and are looking forward to our future and having a family together. It is very upsetting that the British government seek to tear loved ones/families apart under these new rules that they have implemented in order to reduce immigration, even if it means abandoning the ECHR. To suggest an income of £18,600 to sponsor a fiance/spouse, just proves that they seek to divide families and the British public (being eligible to sponsor someone, should be based on the money you have left after all expenses have been paid, I may not earn £18,600, but I am able to save more than most people, this is because I do not waste money, I live economically and I save for our future, my savings average £500pm). How would a salary of £18,600 protect the taxpayer, anyone can lose there job or be made redundant, what happens then??? The best way to sponsor someone is in the form of a "bond", where you would pay into the system and whatever you take out is deducted from your balance, I feel this would offer more assurances, it shows that there is an emergency fund in place, but under the current government they are sending a draconian message to the public "you either earn £18,600 or it's tough luck"
Under Article 8 of the ECHR, it states that everyone has a “right to a family life”, which just proves that Theresa May is so determined to excel in her political career, that she is confused with the “LAWS OF THE LAND”.
To think that she can reduce immigration to the 10′s of thousands, is a fools ambition, non-EU family immigration only accounts for a small percentage of net immigration (minus the 47% who won't qualify). If you weigh the damage againt the percentage reduced, it’s not worth breaking families apart for. Visit visas and student visas are proven to be good for our economy, so to cut these visas would just “cripple” our economy. How would Theresa May or anyone supporting these rules feel, to have their family broken apart because of the government? To make matters worse, they increase the minimum income if there is a child/children to be sponsored as well. It would be financially and emotionally difficult for a mother to support her child if her husband is forced away from her, even worse for the child growing up with only one parent.
It's EU immigration that needs to be controlled, "free movement withing the EU" How will Theresa May reduce immigration when it is likely to soar giving the current issues within the EU.

The British government do not care about family values, unless it's their own. Love is what everyone relies on, whether you are rich or poor, love gets you through each day.





---------------------------------

The 'Migration Watch UK' website http://www.migrationwatchuk.com states that the E-Petition entitled "No to 70 million" gathered over 100,000 signatures in under 7 days and that as it exceeds the threshold for possible debate, it has been afforded parliamentary time. There will be a debate in the House of Commons on 6th September 2012.

The British public doesn't like immigration because it's bad for Britain, so Migration Watch UK has been instrumental in bringing this E-Petition to life.
Strange then that their website provides the information to show that their argument for economic migration can't stand up to the facts.

In a section entitled 'Key Facts' there is the line..."68% believe that immigration has a negative effect on Britain, YouGov for The Sunday Times, January 2012"

But is their view justified? Well, according to other sections of the Migration Watch UK site it most certainly is not...

Under the FAQ section we read..."Surely immigrants benefit our economy?

Some do, but their performance is very mixed. The previous Government claimed that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they did not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The previous Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, implies an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week (see White Paper Cm 7414 para 2.5).

The conclusion of the House of Lords study was unambiguous:

We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration (immigration minus emigration) generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population. (Abstract)"

But neither does it bring negative implications.

So, 62p per head of population per week. That's around £2 billion pounds per year benefit from immigration. Now to be fair this was in 2008, but the White paper referred to Cm 7414 is very interesting reading nonetheless. Basically the Government of the day was putting it's case that migration considerably benefits the UK. Students alone bring in £8.6 billion in tuition fees and living costs.


If you want to read the document it's available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/do ... 4/7414.pdf

We are now in 2012 so maybe the recent economic downturn changes the outlook. Well maybe it does, but should we really care?

We are not concerned with the broader category of 'Economic Migrants' although the above document actually supported their numbers remaining uncapped.

We are concerned with Family Migration. Is there a difference? You bet there is. Download the document and read on pages 3 to 4 - and remember this was 'written' by the then Home Secretary.


1.3. Britain’s immigration system is, of course, not exclusively designed for economic migration. Indeed, its objectives are threefold: -

(1) To offer humanitarian protection to people requiring sanctuary and fleeing persecution.

(2) To welcome the loved ones of UK citizens and those with permission to be in the UK who want to be re-united with their families.

(3) To attract those with the skills who can make a positive contribution to the UK, through work and study.


1.4. These objectives reflect underlying values of which Britain can be proud....


Welcoming loved ones is NOT economic migration. It is singled out here as an entirely different category. If immigration overall has a positive net benefit on the economy how can Theresa May claim that allowing partners to settle in the UK damages the UK economy and that to bring a partner puts a burden on the UK Taxpayer.

We must aim to remove the FM rules because they are nothing to do with Economic Migration.

Best regards,

[Khrissy3000]

All,

Theresa May has laid out a minimum income of £18,600 which we all know, she consulted the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) who informed her than £18,600 is a salary where 2 people are most likely to survive without recourse to public funds -
I'm just wondering how they can use this threshold as a "one sixe fits all" if you compare expenses and salaries in London compare to areas like Manchester, you will understand what I mean.

If you earned just short of 18,600, you would need £16,000 in savings and the shortfall will be multiplied by 2.5. e.g £18,000 gross salary - £600 shortfall - 2.5 x 600 = 1500 - so total savings will equate to £!7,500.

It seems like these rules are not aimed at being fair, but aimed at discriminating the majority of people outside of London, as we all know, this government hates those who are old and poor, disabled and unemployed, they class these people as being "burdens".

So in modern day, undemocratic britain, the message is this "we only care about the rich, if you earn less than £18,600 and have no savings of £16,000 or above, we will not care about your rights and freedoms under the ECHR because only the rich have "rights and freedoms".