The new Conservative government must be serious about tackling Europe; the electorate will never forgive a half-baked package in this historic moment after so much effort has gone into bringing about change.
As part of this, and as has been well documented, Britain’s visa rules for non-EU spouses – which are fundamentally unfair, unjust and destructive – need to be reviewed. They are an insult to a country that prides itself on fair play. Restrictions in EU law have influenced the government’s designing of a system that punishes families.
The days when a spouse could receive citizenship via marriage to a British citizen quickly and simply are long gone. In part this is due to valid concerns about abuse of the system and a desire to control immigration; but rather than rectify the situation by introducing marriage-dependent citizenship – reprievable should the couple divorce or cease living together – instead we find the UK’s closest allies and strongest supporters (such as American, Canadian and Australian citizens who marry Britons) being punished, and obstacles being placed that serve to shatter families.
While two Belgians who speak no English can legally move to the UK and find work without a visa, a British man who has married an American woman must prove to the UK authorities that he is earning, and has been earning, over £18,600 annually for at least the last six months and has ‘adequate’ accommodation for both of them (not drawing on the state in any way) before his wife can receive indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
Woe betide them if they have children. The threshold rises to £22,400 if they have one child, and to £24,800 for two (increasing £2400 for each extra child).
On top of this, if the UK citizen only earns £18,600, he/she must additionally show £16,000 of savings to bring in their spouse. Only if the UK citizen has a salary of £25,000, and has had this for the last six months, does the savings requirement fall to zero.
This means that a British man who, for example, works for an international company in Kiev but who receives his salary in Ukrainian hryvnia, would now not be able to bring his wife and two children to the UK because his salary will have devalued below the £18,600 threshold. He would have to either separate the children – British passport holders – from their mother and abandon her; or he would have to leave his family behind and leave them temporarily fatherless.
In other words, British immigration policy breaks up families if one member is not from within the EU. This is not a theoretical rant: nearly 18,000 families are believed to be affected by these rules.
An American man who marries a British woman would not be able to come to the UK and settle and find work if his wife earned less than £18,600, despite speaking fluent English, having a similar cultural background, likely having a large number of British ancestors, and being a citizen of Britain’s most important international partner. Likewise for an Australian man married to a British woman; he too would not be able to settle, despite the cultural affinity between our nations and his membership of the Commonwealth.
If the British half of the relationship can earn above the threshold, then the spouse can receive a probationary visa, which should then convert into ILR, providing that there are no pressing circumstances advising against the granting of ILR. Alternatively, sometimes ILR is granted immediately if the couple married and registered officially with the authorities up to and over four years ago, have been together for the four years, and are now transferring to the UK.
The earnings requirements effectively discourage commitment and young marriages. In an age when finding jobs and income is so hard, it becomes financially more logical to keep relationships at a distance and avoid commitment instead of making a decision to stay with one person for your life: precisely the healthy conditions needed for a child to grow up in; conditions that promote natural population growth.
James Brokenshire MP has had to answer for these unfair rules, but his hands have been somewhat bound by Britain’s EU partners. When it was pointed out that a Slovakian, with the right to live in the UK, could bring in his spouse whereas his native British neighbour could not, Brokenshire had to admit he was powerless and would need to consult with the EU.
The Prime Minister has a historic opportunity to go to Europe with an electoral mandate and the authority of a majority government to get a result. Britain needs to fundamentally take back powers from Europe and control who can and cannot live in this country. Either our citizens can be trusted to make the right decision when building their lives; or we need a system that judges each case on its merits and brings to the UK the skills the country needs and people who are going to adapt to British community life. Allowing the EU’s laws – designed to create a common European ‘people’ by encouraging the mixing only of the nations of Europe to diminish national identity – to punish families unfairly is a lose-lose situation.
