Integration is not achieved by an artificial financial threshold, a critic said, attacking the government approach to stop citizens or permanent residents to bring partners to UK, depending on their income. In 2012 the government introduced a new requirement that British citizens and permanent residents need to meet an income threshold before being able to bring a partner from outside the European Union.
The minimum earning has to be £18,600, or almost double if children need to accompany. According to the Migration Policy Group, this gives Britain the strictest policy on family unification of 38 rich countries.
The Economist reported that the Migration Observatory in Oxford University has calculated that 41% of British citizens will not meet this financial benchmark, especially women. While almost three quarters of men may clear it, most women don't. Also it depends on the geography. In North East of the UK, twice as many will be ruled out on salary scale than in London. So far the new rules have affected 15,000 children, many even kept apart from a parent.
The government projected in 2012 that 13,600-17,800 people per year would be prevented to coming to Britain as a result of the changes. Though the actual figure of reduction is unknown. The number of spouse visa issued to women have gone down remarkably by three-fourth, especially among Pakistanis.
However, Saira Grant of the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants argues there is no evidence that migrant spouses are a burden to the state. Studies suggest family migrants do have lower employment rates than British average, but more than half work after their arrival.
What the Supreme court may like to examine is whether the foreign spouse's income counts towards the threshold. In fact at present even British expats have had trouble moving back with foreign spouses, even if the partner is a high earner. The court could declare these rules are unlawful but it is unlikely given the situation, Ms Grant added. In the absence of other ways of reducing net immigration, the government would want to cling on to such strict new rules, whether it is for better for worse.
