Man faces deportation because UK wife "not earning enough"

Can they get dual citizenship in either of those countries?

Both my sons' partners came over here to take degrees and stayed, but neither have British citizenship. They do not want to give up their own nationality unless they absolutely have to, although being European, they should not have to. Who knows what might happen in the next five years?
There's only one place now to get a Danish passport. Spanish ones can be obtained in a few places.

When my daughter's American boyfriend wanted to come here to live with her 17 years ago she had to provide pages of facts and figures about how she would be able to support him. It cost a fortune faxing stuff backwards and forwards to embassies and even after they were married they had to travel to Croydon every year to prove they were really a couple. That went on until he got British citizenship.

Eloethan, you said I think when the chips are down re the EU, as with the Scottish vote, such a scare campaign will be mounted that people will be frightened and stick with the status quo.

It depends on who is in government by that time. It could be the very opposite.

This man has the skills. He is a yacht engineer. Very apt for Cornwall, I would have thought.
I thought so too, Djen, however BIL is a marine engineer who used to do a lot of work in Cornwall but there is not so much work there any more.

I agree with your last sentence, Eloethan.

This is exactly the rule which is keeping DD and her family in Beijing. She is at the moment a full time mum and my SiL a very well respected consultant in the hotel industry. Both would be an asset to GB but 'rules are rules' and at the moment it is impossible for them. I think all we want is for everyone to be treated the same.

I think when the chips are down re the EU, as with the Scottish vote, such a scare campaign will be mounted that people will be frightened and stick with the status quo.

The article says that Mr Engel's craft making business isn't making enough money.

My feeling is that if the principle is accepted that a person must earn this amount of money - which is unrealistic for Cornwall and other areas of the country - then families in this position may never be in a position to live here.

I think the test should be that there is evidence of an established and genuine relationship.

I think it's unfair that all sorts of dodgy characters can enter and reside in this country because they have made billions from goodness only knows what, but conditions are imposed on British people wishing to live in this country with their spouses.

This man has the skills. He is a yacht engineer. Very apt for Cornwall, I would have thought.
You say if Britain remains in the EU. There is rather a question mark over that prospect.

I think you're being a bit alarmist durhamjen. If Britain remains in the EU, it won't affect your sons.

I suppose this condition has been introduced to prevent people coming into the UK who do not have the skills (or possibly the inclination) to support themselves and whose marriage is just a vehicle to enable them to enter and remain in the country.

Surely there must be a way of distinguishing genuine, long term relationships from opportunistic arrangements? This couple met in 2009 and lived together in South Africa for four years and they have a child.

As to the question of benefits, I suppose it could be argued that although benefits aren't being claimed, they may be claimed at a later date.

Despite all that, it seems totally unjust to me that a British person in a genuine relationship may have no choice but to leave Britain if she wishes to keep her family together.

crun I do remember the case that you mention and I thought it was ridiculous at the time given that the person in question had been living here for 48 years since she was two.

Sorry, right word.

Both my sons have EU partners, one Spanish and the other Danish.
What if they lost their jobs?
The son whose partner is Danish is not married to her. If my son lost his job, they would not have enough money as a family on just her salary. He works for the council so has to reapply for his own job every year.

Yes they are both EU so safe for the moment, but what about after the next election?

First they came for the Non-EU and I did nothing............
Then they came for the EU and I did nothing........
Then they came for me and there was nobody to speak up for me.

Obviously I paraphrase, if that's the roght word.

rose I understood that ('re not agreeing).

Hopefully this will be challenged in court and found to be illegal.

I wasn't saying that I agreed with the decision, just trying to point out reasons why I think the rules have been tightened up with regard to Commonwealth and American citizens.

Well I don't either, but there are many similar situations in reverse which have been refused, the reason being, I believe, the one I gave above.

I do agree that there should not be hard and fast rules about income, as long as the UK spouse/civil partner can prove they can support their partner and the partner will not become a burden on the British taxpayer.

rose it is her husband, they are married. Surely that should have some bearing on the case. Also, his threatened deportation is linked to her income. So - UK citizens on lower incomes shouldn't marry people from non EU countries if they want to remain in the country of their birth? Why isn't the decision whether one person in a marriage is kept or supported by the other, theirs and theirs alone? I don't understand it at all.

I am not sure that Zoe Williams has her facts right, but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

So why is this British woman not being treated as an EU national?

She is, but her partner who is applying to stay, is from South Africa.
If he was from the EU there would be no problem at all.

The same rules apply to UK citizens applying overseas other than the EU - it may seem inhumane but it is what is happening to many UK citizens applying for permission to stay in Commonwealth countries.

It is an unexpected downside of belonging to the EU - we have abandoned the Commonwealth and they seem to have tightened up their rules or are implementing them more strictly as a result.
We cannot just go and reside in South Africa without a residency permit.

Jane10 and if you don't get granted a visa because they don't want your particular skills at that particular time, then the Australian Government don't give you the money back (and it runs into thousands and thousands of dollars).

"But we now operate a two-tier system, where those with money have rights as citizens which those without do not. It’s possible that the threshold is set a little too high, taking in highly skilled people who are only temporarily earning low wages, or unemployed for a short time. That’s vexing but irrelevant; the story here is under what lights this could ever be acceptable, for British citizens to have their rights circumscribed on the basis of their wealth.

From this first principle spin many other assumptions and discriminations. There is sex discrimination going on, plainly – 43% of British people don’t earn enough to bring in their spouse, but that rises to 57% of women, against 28% of men. Once you start measuring a citizen’s worth and standing by their financial muscle, women will be disadvantaged, with their pesky career breaks and maternity leave entitlements. Young people also fall on the wrong side of the rules, being less likely to meet the threshold. And there is a totally unjust anomaly – EU nationals living in the UK are allowed to bring in non-EU spouses, since they are governed by European freedom of movement rules.

For practical purposes, your citizenship is now rubber-stamped on the basis that you claim no benefits; using the social safety net de facto puts you outside respectability, turning you into a burden rather than an asset. This is the foundation of many government pronouncements, but nowhere else has it been inscribed into legislation and tested in a court of law."

From Zoe Williams article in the Guardian. An EU national can bring in a non-EU national because of European freedom of movement rules. So why is this British woman not being treated as an EU national? It's inhumane, and shows just how ridiculous this government is getting in changing the law to suit its own purposes.
I hope they can get legal aid to contest this, as the rules on legal aid have been shown to be unlawful today with regard to immigration.

I think you have to pay a huge lump sum to Australian government if you want to stay long term.

But it is the same for UK citizens wanting to emigrate to other countries such as Australia, America and New Zealand.

My, now SIL is from South Africa. He had to jump through all sorts of hoops including being sponsored, promised a job etc. He did it all. There seemed to be a lot of costs involved but I`m not sure what exactly they were for. It was all so difficult that I cant quite understand how anyone manages to move here! He earned a good living for himself (didn't need benefits/tax credits), set up his own business and now employs 10+ staff. He married my daughter after moving here. Their marriage had no bearing on his eventual naturalisation. He is a real asset to the UK. (and as his dreaded MIL I don't have to say that!!)

I think it's absolutely disgraceful.

This thread reminds me of a news story that some might remember from about three years ago.

A woman who was born in the USA, was brought to Britain at the age of two by her English mother after she divorced the American father. Fifty years later she was sacked from her nursing job after the Home Office told her that she was being deported as an illegal immigrant.

She won the right to remain in the UK eventually, but committed suicide about a year later after giving up work again to nurse her terminally ill sister. I recognised her because she was in my class at primary school.