Immigration: It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Bring Home Your Spouse

You can’t put a price on happiness. Says who? I’m willing to wager £64,000 with anyone who disagrees, or at the very least an employment contract worth £18,600 per annum (but an interview or personal meeting may be difficult before my first day as I currently reside in Asia).

I have never been much of a Tory enthusiast; they’re thinking has always been too rigid for my taste, whether it be dogmatic economic solutions, dated family views or an almost paternal disapproval of anything that doesn’t fit their deontological perspectives. But one of their more famous soundbites “get on your bike” made perfect sense to me. As a mid-twenties university graduate with future employment prospects as promising as that of Syria’s President Assad, it was time to look further afield than little old Britain. I wanted a place that could offer money, excitement, stability and possibilities…I found Asia. Within five short years I had settled down, gotten married, started a business, cleared my debt and had a deposit on a house saved. I was ready to come home – I had got on my bike and was ready to return victorious. Or so I thought.

It seems that my victory ride was over before it began. Her Majesty’s Immigration Service seems to have adopted an irrational suspicion of anyone trying to bring his or her spouse back to the United Kingdom. A general suspicion of immigrants has always been alive and kicking in the political arena, even more so in the Conservative Party — but rarely has this ever trickled down into the ranks of the Civil Service and actual policy. One can almost imagine the BBC’s fictional head of the civil service Sir Humphrey pacing the halls of Number 10 at the sheer cheek of the Prime Minster, Jim Hacker for daring to think he had any influence on policy.

Immigration is always a tough topic to debate and as such I have always stayed well clear of debating friends and colleagues. It seems if you support a more relaxed immigration policy you were either pro-business and able to see the benefits of a low-paid work force or you were labelled a PC fanatic – consequently, if you favour a stricter policy on immigration you risked being thrown in with the UKIP lot, or worse the EDL (this seeming to depend on how much the debate participants liked each other). It always seemed safer to stay well clear of such abstract debates, blissfully ignorant – that is, until now.

My wife is an American – she speaks perfect English and is well educated – we don’t have any children. We have held well paid jobs in one of the world’s most work-orientated nations for 5 years. We have savings that would be considered healthy for a couple a decade older than ourselves. But despite this it is going to be a colossal task getting my wife a settlement visa to reside in the UK.

Before the election the Conservatives had vowed to sort out soft touch Britain, and as a party of Government they point to figures that show that net migration from outside the EU has fallen by 100,000 by 2012. But the Conservatives, like any moderate party were never proposing closing Britain’s doors, but rather only keeping the doors open to the right people. So how did Cameron at al ensured that the UK has only kept the country’s doors open to the right spouses? The new approach is as original as it is puzzling – a spouse of a British citizen is almost obsolete in the visa process, that is to say their personal attributes (other than being able to speak English and not being a criminal) cannot affect the outcome of their settlement visa at all. Having near to no criteria for the person trying to obtain a visa certainly is a fresh approach to ensuring that the right people are entering the country, maybe this is an example of progressive conservative thinking?

The immigration policy for Settlement Visas is now being dictated by one consideration and it sadly and somewhat enigmatically doesn’t possess that humanistic quality one would expect from a party that has claimed to champion the institution of marriage and protect the family unit. The financial credentials of the sponsoring spouse (UK Citizen) is the only consideration that is of interest to the Government, and as with most Tory policies there is no Plan B (or a Plan A+, or a U turn) on the horizon. The requirements are as such: one must have held a job (in the UK or abroad) earning in excess of £18,600 (more depending on the amount of children they have) for 6 months; and if a person is returning to the UK they must have an employment contract matching that amount before they enter the UK, or have savings to the tune of £64,000+. If they don’t meet either of these requirements they may want to start considering how much their spouse really means to them, as Britain just closed its doors.

But the policy can seem pretty reasonable if you assume one lives in the UK, after all £18,600 isn’t an unattainable salary – but what if someone is returning to the UK after working abroad for a extended period of time with their new spouse? This complicates matters due to the high value of the British Pound. According to the OECD’s list of country’s average wages – only 23 countries meet the £18,600 threshold set by the government. So if one was unlucky enough to be earning the average wage in one of the other 171 countries of the world they would not be able to bring their spouse back into the country. They would be required to return to the UK alone, gain employment to the tune of £18,600, work for 6 months then apply for the settlement visa – a process that would take a minimum of 9 months (assuming that there was no delay in finding employment, a bold assumption in today’s economy). This raises some uncomfortable questions for the Conservatives – this is a party that openly venerates the idea of seeking employment wherever one can find it – but is seemingly punishing those who are returning to the UK after finding employment where they could. The Conservatives are associating themselves with all the advantages of the idea of actively seeking work wherever one can find it, while simultaneously disassociating themselves with consequences of this idea.

But even if one earns over £18,600 in their job overseas (like myself), the odds of returning home with their spouse are still stacked against them. One would need a promise of employment 4 months in advance, before they apply for the Settlement Visa. If anyone was wondering how many jobs are advertised 4 months in advance in the UK, it’s about as many as planned Government cock-ups. But let us assume a suitable job has been found (after all Government cock-ups are pretty frequent – planned or not), attending an interview is almost impossible for someone that lives and works abroad in a professional job. A digital interview would need to be arranged, except the employer probably has 30 applicants already in the country with the same qualifications. The chances of getting an interview would be pretty slim, let alone the job (even if it existed).

The Government has bought into its own hype – immigrant spouses are considered suspicious as a matter of policy. Even the figure of £18,600 is telling – £18,600 is the level at which eligibility for State benefits are restricted and that a family pays as much towards services as it receives. This cold economic calculation coupled with a suspicious lack of investigation into the migrant spouse could be construed as Conservative policy being made on the assumption that all migrant spouses will be a burden on the State; even for Conservative policy makers this seems a little harsh. Any number of additional or replacement policies could have made for a fairer system. Most employment visa’s in the UK are based on a merit system; applicants are required to achieve a certain scores based on a number of indicators in different fields such as education, employment and health – surely such a system could be used for an immigrant spouse – if the spouse fails, then the current financial regulations could be employed as a secondary suitability measure.

The Government could also offer an opt-out on State benefits to applicants – this would save Government resources and retain family cohesion. Or at the very least the Government could give a grace period for one or both partners to find a job if they are entering the country from abroad and meet the other financial requirements.

Workers are more inclined than ever to work abroad. In a globalized world and a bad economy it makes sense to get on the proverbial bike and see the world while earning some cash. But it should be cautioned that those who do go abroad, much like those who come to the UK to work have a certain set of skills that their host country desires. If we make it difficult (or near impossible) for our own citizens to return we would have lost not only their skills, but also the investment our tax money made in their education. The situation is paradoxical – in an effort to stop people taking advantage of our benefit system and to save tax payer’s money, we risk losing people we have already spent tax payer’s money on and invested in.

I leave you with a thought that my Irish friend left with me with “Sorry to hear about your trouble lad, think about it – as an EU citizen I could marry an Asian lass who doesn’t speak a lick of English and move to the UK tomorrow without a penny in my pocket – how rad is that?” Very rad indeed my friend.

Written by Alun Davies