Why is immoral to make sure people earn enough to support a spouse and a child that they will bring with them or have come over?
Is England obligated to take care of non citizens?
US has same rules.
Is England obligated to take care of non citizens?
US has same rules.
Because separating families is immoral. If you don't think causing a parent and child to be separated is immoral then your list of immoral actions must be slim.
> Is England obligated to take care of non citizens?
You call them non-citizens, I call them dependants of UK citizens. Also the rules entirely ignore the spouse's earning potential which is stupid.
> US has same rules.
No it doesn't.
The US does have a minimum income level but firstly it is much lower, and additionally you can get numerous additional sponsors to combine incomes.
So someone in the US could get their parents as co-sponsors, and thus allowing even someone working at Walmart to bring in a foreign spouse and child.
Are spouses of people on this type of VISA allowed to work?
> Because separating families is immoral.
You do know the default answer to that is: "Fine, as paragons of morality, we will hereby no longer allow any foreign workers with spouses who make under XX,XXX to enter the UK, because separating them from their family is immoral."
Proviso: I believe in having substantially more open borders than we do today; I just don't think your argument to morality is a very good one.
Yes.
> You do know the default answer to that is: "Fine, as paragons of morality, we will hereby no longer allow any foreign workers with spouses who make under XX,XXX to enter the UK, because separating them from their family is immoral."
You completely misunderstand what is even being discussed.
We're talking about UK NATIONALS who if they earn below the threshold cannot bring in a foreign spouse or child.
We are NOT talking about foreign nationals on work visas and their ability to bring in other foreign nationals.
To use a specific example: If a UK national moved to the US, got married, and had a kid. If all three of them wanted to move to the UK, they would be separated for years. The UK national would have to move to the UK alone, get a job, earn 23K/year, and only then could they apply to bring the other two over. This ignores how long the visa process takes or how many years of work-history you need to get approval!
I mean, once the passport office finishes rejecting their paperwork because "it was printed on US letter paper" or "your cosigner's signature is too big" or "their signature was in blue ink". (I had to mail it all in four times.)
I live in the far east, in order to qualify for a residency visa, i have to show assets of at least $50,000. In fact i have to bind that in an accredited savings account. So minimum asset determinatiins for residency qualification is common and not a vile abnormality as sugested.
You have that backwards. British citizens are the ones it harms, they're the ones who cannot see their spouse or child.
> Are we saying that non citizens have the same rights of entry as citizens?
Dependants of British nationals should have the same rights, yes.
> So minimum asset determinatiins for residency qualification is common and not a vile abnormality as sugested.
We are talking about visas to bring a spouse or child into the country, you're talking about something else entirely. I don't see the connection. I also have no idea what country or visa type you're even referring to.