May’s curbs on foreign spouses are ruled legal
AN immigration crackdown stopping thousands of British citizens bringing foreign spouses into the country is lawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
In a major victory for the Prime Minister, senior judges said rules stating a person must earn more than £18,600 before a husband or wife from outside Europe could settle here were ‘entirely legitimate’.
Britain’s top court said the minimum income requirement – introduced in 2012 to prevent foreign spouses abusing the immigration system – did not violate human rights laws.
Judges threw out an appeal by four families who argued that the rules breached Article 8 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights – which safeguards family life and outlaws discrimination.
But the seven justices criticised the ‘defective’ rules which fail to give more weight to children’s welfare in immigration decisions. And they ruled alternative sources of funding, other than a salary or benefits, should be considered.
Sources said the Home Office was now planning to amend the rules to ensure they complied with human rights laws in ‘exceptional’ cases.
The £18,600 minimum income threshold for Britons who want to bring in a spouse from outside the European Economic Area rises to £22,400 if the couple have a child who does not have British citizenship – and then by an additional £2,400 for each subsequent child.
Previous rules only required a couple to demonstrate that they could live here without state support.
The tightened rules were introduced by then- home secretary Theresa May as part of her drive to bring net migration to below 100,000. They do not take into account the earnings of the overseas partner.
Campaigners claim the rule has meant British families have faced a choice of separation or living abroad. They claim up to 15,000 British children have grown up apart from at least one parent since it was introduced.
In their ruling yesterday, the panel, led by Supreme Court deputy president Lady Hale, said there was ‘no doubt’ that the threshold caused ‘significant hardship to many thousands of couples who have good reason for wanting to make their lives together in this country, and to their children’. But Lord Carnwath
‘Works in the national interest’
said ‘the minimum income threshold is accepted in principle’.
He added: ‘The fact that a rule causes hardship to many... does not mean that it is incompatible with the Convention rights or otherwise unlawful at common law.’
He said the rule was ‘part of an overall strategy aimed at reducing net migration’.
Bella Sankey, director at Liberty, said: ‘It’s disappointing to see the Supreme Court uphold the arbitrary minimum income threshold that has driven so many families apart.’
A Home Office spokesman said the court had endorsed its approach in setting a threshold that prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures migrant families can integrate into our communities.
He added: ‘This is central to building an immigration system that works in the national interest.’