deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

So, in other words, inconveniencing them.

My aunt just got a new car - her previous car was a 2004 Rover 25. Almost 20 years old and it was ULEZ compliant. If you’re ‘poor’ but still need to own and drive a car, there are plenty of cheap vehicles that meet the standard!

…but it’s not treating them as two individuals. It’s treating them as a family unit and insisting that the person immigrating to the UK can be supported by their spouse.

I see your point and in an ideal world, perhaps you’d be right. With a finite amount of resources, however, it’s simply not realistic.

‘…come back when you’re rich’…? Requiring a household income of £38,500 a year would not be ‘rich’ by any measure. In the south east of England, that’s two people scraping by. It’s also not about, despite you being insistent on suggesting, that we shouldn’t want poor people living here. It’s about ensuring that anyone who comes to live in the UK from abroad can be supported by their spouse until they can find employment. It’s about ensuring that public funds are used for the UK and its own citizens. We don’t live under a one world government and we do not have the resources to care for all of humanity. There is a limit. Each nation needs to care for its citizens basic needs and can’t be expected to do more unless there is some sharing of resources. It just doesn’t add up.

Of course we don’t kick citizens out. I don’t know why you’re mentioning this - why would we? Kicking a citizen out of their home and making them stateless contravenes the universal declaration of human rights. This is a completely different topic than requiring an immigrant to be able to support themselves, or be supported by their sponsor.

The UK does care for all of its citizens ‘at a national level’. However, until a person becomes a citizen, they are not a member of that nation state. My wife, for example, has leave to remain in this country on the basis of our marriage but she is not a citizen and she is not entitled to any public funds. She is, in her home country, of which she is a citizen, but she only has the right to reside and work in this country for the duration of her visa. She may apply for indefinite leave to remain and then subsequently, citizenship, but until that point, the UK has no more responsibility towards her than it does to a Japanese person living in Uzbekistan or a North Korean living in the jungles of Central America.

I think the point remains that our current public finances are crippled (for whatever reason) to the point that we are failing British citizens that are already here. Adding more strain to that, be it large or small, is only going to make things harder. We can’t complain about not getting a doctors appointment quick enough or that we have people living below the poverty line if we are going to admit yet more people that will be a burden on the state.

Like I said, there is another option in these scenarios on almost every occasion. I lived with my wife abroad for a period of time and we made the choice to come to the UK together. People, like us, choose this because things are better here than the alternative in a majority of the situations. Why does the responsibility lay on Britain rather than the other nation?

It’s a lovely ideal to suggest that we can welcome all to the UK with open arms, offer them help, training, work and all kinds of support. Once we no longer have people living in relative squalor who have no other choice but to live in the UK, I will absolutely agree with you.

It definitely is an admission that we have failed with regards to lower incomes and we desperately need a living wage to replace the insufficient minimum wage. This increase in the minimum income to support a spousal visa is an admission that the previous amount was completely unliveable in parts of today’s UK.

I don’t believe it happens often, although I don’t have the numbers, that the system is exploited with fake marriage. From my experience, there are quite a lot of parts to the process that I would imagine being difficult to lie about. Opening the system up to allow all spouses entry without prejudice would absolutely mean it was abused though and while I am all for people bringing their foreign partners to the UK, relying on public money is not right. We simply cannot afford to support the influx of people - we’re failing the people that are already here! How can we manage to support more people that don’t meet these income requirements?

I’m not really surprised. I think that people often liken support of policies/ideas like this one to racism and that clearly isn’t the case.

My wife and I lived together in her country for a time before we decided to come to the UK. We realised we would have a better life here and believed the high costs for her visa were worth the ‘investment’. I understand the desire for people to live in the UK because I have lived in other countries. We often complain that things are bad here and while there has definitely been a deterioration, we are still incredibly lucky. The fact is though, with the public purse already so stretched, adding further strain to it is only going to make things harder/worse for the people that are already here.

As someone who’s wife is currently on a spousal visa (who coincidentally secured her further leave to remain about a week ago), I can see both sides to this, as can she.

As a British citizen, I feel like I have some right to live with my wife in my own country. I’m clearly lucky in that I not only meet the income requirement but can afford the exorbitant visa costs.

On the other hand, it makes sense that I can afford to support my family without recourse to public money and quite frankly, I don’t know how well anyone can support themselves on £18,600, let alone anybody else as well in the part of the UK I live in.

I can understand the argument of this being a ‘tax on love’, but there would always be an alternative to living in the UK - the other country. If living here wasn’t viable for my family, it leaves only the options of living abroad or ending the relationship. Expecting to receive support for my choice from public money doesn’t seem right when there are already so many other areas that need the money for the people already here!

Isn’t that old trope a bit boring by now?

All the talk of Starmer not having personality or leadership seemed to skim over me for the longest time and I thought he was the right man for the job. I liked the way he interviewed and I thought his career of ‘fighting the good fight’ made him just what we needed.

I’m not sure anymore. His handling of important topics recently has been lacklustre to say the least and, although I don’t really like the term, I’m seeing him as a ‘red Tory’ more and more.

I don’t see here where anyone is trying to justify Israel. They’re wrong. So are Hamas. It’s that simple.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I do wonder if it would change if it was your mum or brother or some other loved one that gets killed while minding their own business but whatever. In your mind, Hamas would be justified for it.

All I can say is… 😂😂😂😂

Are you trying to suggest that Hamas were some how justified in intentionally killing innocent civilians?

Not having an answer doesn’t mean you can’t condemn both sides in this.

I’d hoped for more, considering his work on human rights. I suppose it’s just not popular to state the truth on this matter; condemning Israel’s war crimes doesn’t mean you support Hamas’ terrorism and it certainly isn’t antisemitism.