Jade’s story

I am a British Citizen and live in the UK with my 16 month old son, my husband has missed out on over half of our son’s life. We are married and have been together for over 5 years. After a visit visa to the UK we applied for a settlement spouse visa; this whole process took 6 months and I even appealed in court. I was told my rights to a family life were not being interfered with as I could take my son and go live with him abroad.

Is that the answer for all British Citizens with foreign partners? It must look good for statistics and bring down the number of foreigners entering the UK if we (the partners) all just left! I am not giving up a fight. This is our life, but just an application in a pile at an office. I will continue to support migrants rights as my family is affected. One rule for the rich and another for the rest of us.

The figure: £18,600 …. Is that the price to put on a family life?

Advertisements

13 Comments on “Jade’s story”

  1. Exiled Expat says:

    Hi Jade.

    It’s shocking the court said that you and your son don’t have a right to a family life in the UK as British citizens with a non-EU partner/father because you can have it outside. Did they really say that?

    And, if you don’t mind me asking, what was the reason for the spouse visa refusal?

    • jade says:

      Hi.

      yes i was told in black and white in my judges determination letter after standing up in court last october.
      Not only was i told I should take my son and move abroad to join my partner but I was even told my son would be better off abroad as he will grow up learning a second language, my argument was that i have no worries that my son will grow up bilingual as his parents are different nationalities, my son does not need to live abroad for that to happen.
      Also When i said in court i shouldn’t have to leave my 66 year old dad on his own, their response was well take him abroad aswel then you can all be a happy family together! i was told my father would also be better off abroad than in the UK (his home country)
      comes down to they suggested 3 british citizens should leave the UK rather than give my foreign husband the chance. (i feel us leaving would help their statistics)

      Only reason for refusal seems to be me on benefits, my arguement is i hate the label attached to being on benefits but feel i had little choice being a single mum with a baby, now ready to return to work, i am not flexible on hours as reliant on childcare. if my husband was given the chance to join his family then as a couple we are more flexible to except work opportunities as can juggle family life and work between us. They seem to think allowing him entry will put further drain on the country, although i don’t see how as he is not entitled to any help for 5 years anyway. if they really think about it, i am more likely to be reliant on ‘help’ for as long as i am a single parent. allowing my husband to join his family, i feel i can come off benefits sooner and go to work and be a normal family.

      • dave says:

        if you receive housing benefit and your husband lives with you he is also obviously receiving benefits. i agree with the judge. why should i pay tax to support you and your husband

      • The problem is not that Jade receives benefits rather, that she wouldn’t necessarily have to if her husband was able to come and work – therefore supporting the family, rather than forcing them onto benefits while she has to care for her young child. This is a key argument against the rules – the counter intuitive impact they have on the benefits system; driving young mothers in particular onto benefits and depriving them of the support of willing and able family members.

      • That is not my point. The rules prohibit the most fruitful opportunity for the family to itself by keeping the spouse out. At the moment, like it or not, taxes will pay for benefits. Removing the income threshold presents an opportunity for this to cease where other means are possible. Even if the spouse did not find work, you’ll still have to pay the sponsor’s benefits but, as has always been the case, never for their spouse.

      • david says:

        where would the spouse live? in the property supplied by tax payer money. who would pay for his food? the taxpayer. maybe the judge is right and she should move abroad. alternatively perhaps she should have been more careful and not got pregnant when she was not in a position to support a baby. also if her father is 66 he is probably retired and could look after the baby. so she could work and meet the minimum. alternatively if he can not she could still work and pay for child care like other people have to.

      • jade says:

        May i add. I am Jade! the woman in this story who’s life you are talking about. I do work, may only be part time but I am willing to work, I want to work, I took the first job opportunity that was offered to me. My point which i have mentioned on various occasions is, I am more flexible on work patterns and job opportunities if I have my husband with me. If he is unable to find work straight away,( I am being realistic as I understand him being foreign has fewer opportunities than me being British) but I need my husband here for me to be able to work more, At the moment I am completely reliant on childcare opening times. It is just me caring for my son. I am qualified to work in the care industry, However all the work available in my local area is night shifts. How am I expected to take a job like that in my situation, Where does my son get considered in that scenario. If my husband were ALLOWED to join his wife, then nothing is stopping me taking a night shift job, far better pay than i am on at the moment therefore even less reliant on ‘the system’ Both me and my husband are ready and willing to work early mornings and late nights, However we need to be a team for this to be possible. When we are together we are far more flexible to juggle work around the care and needs or our son, taking the work load in shifts. Our son is our priority.
        May i just say my husband would be following the rules of no recourse to public funds. Therefore if at all a fraction of a drain on the state compared to Single mothers who carry on having 7,8,9 ,10 children completely reliant on benefits with no intention of work. Should people not be worrying about tax payers money supporting cases like that?
        Just my thoughts and opinions as everyone else is entitled to theirs.

  2. dave says:

    there are plenty of single parents that work and do not receive benefits £18600 is less than a binman is paid so i do not agree with all the people on this website saying it is a high salary and difficult to attain

    • Well this, along with many other instances on the blog, is an example where this has occurred, due to their being deprived of their migrant spouse supporting her. And further details of Jade’s lifestyle and income are somewhat beside the point, since she actually has a husband willing and ready to support her (whether that be through existing savings or income when here). Benefits or otherwise, she is in a situation that his presence could avoid, don’t you agree?

      The point is that Jade shouldn’t have to face benefits with childcare, or full time work without, when if she was allowed a full family life like any other British person, her spouse could provide. There are any number of alternatives to this income threshold; even under the old rules the migrant spouse still had no recourse to public funds. What we have here is forced separation with no demonstrable benefit to the public purse, that the old rules didn’t already provide – this income requirement simply stops the spouse coming here at all, and thrusts their family in Britain into needless separation and as we see in this story, hardship.

      • david says:

        that is nonsense. She is on benefits. her benefits would not immediately stop if her husband came to the uk. therefore he would also be getting support from uk citizens tax money. perhaps you also feel his flight should be payed for by the taxpayer.

  3. frank says:

    Listen just because some one is on benefits doesn’t mean she can’t have a child or marry. Looking at these replies makes me sick they are no different from the law makers a bunch of ignorant spoilt children who have never experienced difficulty in their lives. This is real modern day prejudice basically the ones who are rich can marry and the ones on welfare can’t. Who comes up with this nonsense? The primary unit of any society or government is a family, destroying this means a slow collapse of the nation. First we killed religion now we are killing families. Hope there is a special place in hell reserved for you so called policy makers in UkBA

    • david says:

      no one has said she can not get married. just that she should be able to support herself. she can go and live in her husbands country, or alternatively get a job.
      i suppose you are of the opinion that the taxpayer should fund her husbands airfare as that is where her money comes from.

  4. James says:

    Am I correct in understanding Jade’s non-EEA spouse, whilst not entitled to claim benefits for himself, would have no impact on Jade’s benefits either? That is, she would receive NO INCREASE in benefit in recognition of the fact she was supporting another adult as well (even though more than likely they will need less government support not more, but if they did). If that is the case, then what kind of stupid illogical person can say that UK taxes are supporting her husband when they would be supporting her to the same sum whether he existed or not?
    I note the Statement of Intent: Family Migration says of “Right to private and family life” this is qualified and must be balanced in the interest of the wider public. Then it mentions exceptional circumstances. The implication being that in exceptional cases the individual may have a greater claim than the wider public. But surely also, in exceptional cases (like this) the wider public interest has a much lesser or no claim – because the arrival of the spouse would be of benefit to the country in any conceivable way – and so article 8 should prevail anyway?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s