It goes without saying that every British voter will be affected by the outcome of the General Election today. The impact of future policies will be felt by everyone, depending on their interests, priorities and personal struggles. I imagine some, like me, are waiting to hear the outcome in order to make decisions which will affect them for the rest of their lives...
Quick recap: On July 9th 2012, the coalition government introduced new rules pertaining to family migration. The most noticeable change involved the introduction of a financial threshold which British citizens with non-EU partners were required to meet in order for their partner to be able to reside with them in the UK. This threshold was set, based on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 per year. This figure is well above minimum wage and can only be attained via a paid salary. No other forms of financial assets are valid, other than savings above £16,000. Third-party support was disregarded. Assets such as land or property were disregarded. By the government's own estimates, these rules prevent a significant proportion of the population from falling in love with and marrying someone born outside the European Union if they wish to remain in the United Kingdom.
The new rules were rationalised by the suggestion that they would "ease the cost to taxpayers of migration". As family visas are issued with the words "NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS" written clearly across them, this is nonsense. The real motivating factor behind these rules was David Cameron's arbitrary net migration target. As the government is powerless to control EU migration, other migration routes were targeted, primarily international student and family migration. When it was announced, as expected, that the government had failed to meet this target, the optimistic part of me thought that perhaps the new rules would be revised, particularly as they have already received significant criticism at a number of levels. It was not to be. After following the stories of thousands of international families who have been divided by the British government, I have come to the conclusion that the rules and the numerous caveats with which they are applied are designed to make it impossible for nearly half the population to marry a foreigner. They are designed to prevent international relationships and reduce net migration by encouraging British citizens to leave the country.
Coming back to today and my own personal situation. As the wife of an Egyptian and a recent graduate, even with savings, I do not meet the requirements. My husband works for a prominent airline and cannot even contribute one penny. I resent my marriage being flagged as a potential "burden" on the taxpayer just because I had the audacity to marry someone who is not British while studying for an Arabic and Art History degree. As a result, my husband is in the Gulf and I am in Cornwall working two jobs. But it's not enough and if the Conservatives get back in to No. 10 after today, it will never be enough. But I'm tired of trying to attain "enough", for reasons which I'll detail in another post at a later date.
Following the stories of the hardships faced by thousands of divided families, irregular immigrants and even those entering the country legally, I have come to the conclusion that I agree with UKIP on one critical point: the government is absolutely not in control of immigration. I abhor UKIP for contributing to the vile rhetoric that has caused the government to actively clamp down on all routes of positive immigration* to this country, which as a result has caused misery to thousands. They have done this in attempt to present the picture that they are in control and working to fix a broken immigration system when in reality, they have made it much, much worse.
I am terrified of the prospect that by allowing the Conservatives back into No. 10, this mess will be allowed to continue. Thousands of families will remain separated, tourists and foreign family members will continue to be unjustly harrassed at airports and the exorbitant costs of the visa process will continue to rise. If Theresa May gets her way, the financial threshold will also rise. In my constituency, the difference between the Conservative candidate and the Liberal Democrat candidate is too close to call. I still haven't forgiven the Liberal Democrats for their u-turn on tuition fees, or for hooking up with the Conservatives. However, to my local MP's credit, he has been very sympathetic and actively voiced his opposition to the financial threshold and the inflexibility of the family migration rules. If I don't vote for him, I will never forgive myself if the Conservative candidate wins. If I do vote for him, I will never forgive myself for not voting with my conscience and boosting the Green Party vote. The FPTP system is not fit for purpose.
Until I get to the polling station, I will remain undecided. At the risk of sounding as drastic and pathetic as Katie Hopkins (who is reason enough to vote Labour): if the Conservatives win the next election, I will be leaving the country.
* This does not mean I believe there is also "negative immigration".
Quick recap: On July 9th 2012, the coalition government introduced new rules pertaining to family migration. The most noticeable change involved the introduction of a financial threshold which British citizens with non-EU partners were required to meet in order for their partner to be able to reside with them in the UK. This threshold was set, based on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 per year. This figure is well above minimum wage and can only be attained via a paid salary. No other forms of financial assets are valid, other than savings above £16,000. Third-party support was disregarded. Assets such as land or property were disregarded. By the government's own estimates, these rules prevent a significant proportion of the population from falling in love with and marrying someone born outside the European Union if they wish to remain in the United Kingdom.
The new rules were rationalised by the suggestion that they would "ease the cost to taxpayers of migration". As family visas are issued with the words "NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS" written clearly across them, this is nonsense. The real motivating factor behind these rules was David Cameron's arbitrary net migration target. As the government is powerless to control EU migration, other migration routes were targeted, primarily international student and family migration. When it was announced, as expected, that the government had failed to meet this target, the optimistic part of me thought that perhaps the new rules would be revised, particularly as they have already received significant criticism at a number of levels. It was not to be. After following the stories of thousands of international families who have been divided by the British government, I have come to the conclusion that the rules and the numerous caveats with which they are applied are designed to make it impossible for nearly half the population to marry a foreigner. They are designed to prevent international relationships and reduce net migration by encouraging British citizens to leave the country.
Coming back to today and my own personal situation. As the wife of an Egyptian and a recent graduate, even with savings, I do not meet the requirements. My husband works for a prominent airline and cannot even contribute one penny. I resent my marriage being flagged as a potential "burden" on the taxpayer just because I had the audacity to marry someone who is not British while studying for an Arabic and Art History degree. As a result, my husband is in the Gulf and I am in Cornwall working two jobs. But it's not enough and if the Conservatives get back in to No. 10 after today, it will never be enough. But I'm tired of trying to attain "enough", for reasons which I'll detail in another post at a later date.
Following the stories of the hardships faced by thousands of divided families, irregular immigrants and even those entering the country legally, I have come to the conclusion that I agree with UKIP on one critical point: the government is absolutely not in control of immigration. I abhor UKIP for contributing to the vile rhetoric that has caused the government to actively clamp down on all routes of positive immigration* to this country, which as a result has caused misery to thousands. They have done this in attempt to present the picture that they are in control and working to fix a broken immigration system when in reality, they have made it much, much worse.
I am terrified of the prospect that by allowing the Conservatives back into No. 10, this mess will be allowed to continue. Thousands of families will remain separated, tourists and foreign family members will continue to be unjustly harrassed at airports and the exorbitant costs of the visa process will continue to rise. If Theresa May gets her way, the financial threshold will also rise. In my constituency, the difference between the Conservative candidate and the Liberal Democrat candidate is too close to call. I still haven't forgiven the Liberal Democrats for their u-turn on tuition fees, or for hooking up with the Conservatives. However, to my local MP's credit, he has been very sympathetic and actively voiced his opposition to the financial threshold and the inflexibility of the family migration rules. If I don't vote for him, I will never forgive myself if the Conservative candidate wins. If I do vote for him, I will never forgive myself for not voting with my conscience and boosting the Green Party vote. The FPTP system is not fit for purpose.
Until I get to the polling station, I will remain undecided. At the risk of sounding as drastic and pathetic as Katie Hopkins (who is reason enough to vote Labour): if the Conservatives win the next election, I will be leaving the country.
* This does not mean I believe there is also "negative immigration".
