Andrew Whitehead 
Sometimes politicians act in a way which is simply cruel. What other word is there for a policy which prevents all but well-off Brits from sponsoring their non-British husband or wife to live with them in Britain.
It’s the latest wheeze from Britain’s tired and discredited Conservative government – an act of rank hypocrisy which blanks out on the stories of several of those who sit around the cabinet table, whose partners or parents have benefited from Britain’s customary courtesy towards foreign spouses.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
This unpleasant little slingshot will break-up thousands of families, keep children away from parents and disrupt many romances which could result in life-long partnerships and happiness. I should declare an interest – my wife is not British by birth or passport. The same could be said, of course, for Britain’s prime minister.
So, what’s happened? Well, last week, as a part of a package of measures designed to limit immigration, the government announced that the minimum income required to bring a foreign spouse into the country on a family visa will rise sharply to £38,700 (about Rs 40 lakh) a year. That figure is well above the average income. Outside London, not even one-in-four full-time workers earn that much. So in a nutshell, most Brits will no longer be eligible to sponsor their foreign wife or husband to live, or stay, in Britain.
The change will be introduced, if there’s no rethink, in a few months’ time. At the moment, the threshold for eligibility to get a visa for a spouse is earnings of £18,600 (about Rs 20 lakh) – which nine-in-ten of those in full-time work meet. Those foreign spouses who already have indefinite leave to remain, or have become British nationals, will not be affected by the new rules.
The policy change will not have much effect on the number of migrants – it may cut the number of family visas issued a year by about 10,000. But for many of those affected, misery will ensue. There will be more ‘Skype’ marriages, where husbands and wives are forced to live in different parts of the world. Thousands of kids with two loving parents will grow up with just one. ‘Marrying someone from overseas’, the Economist magazine notes, ‘will be especially tricky for the poor, the young and those outside the south-east’ of England.
Some senior Conservatives have voiced misgivings. Lord Barwell has said it is ‘morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK’. Others have complained that Britain will become a country where ‘only the rich dare fall in love’.
The restriction is all the more surprising given the life stories of senior members of the government. Rishi Sunak met his wife, Akshata Murty, when they were studying in the US; she was born in India and remains an Indian national. Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is married to Lucia Guo from Xi’an in China. The mother of James Cleverly, the home secretary, came to the UK from Sierra Leone and was working as a midwife when she met her British husband.
Jeremy Hunt and his family. Photo: X/@Jeremy_Hunt
It may well be that these marriages would have been unaffected even if the higher earnings threshold was in place at the time – but surely Britain’s leaders can empathise with youngsters who fall in love across national boundaries, and can seek to enable rather than impede international marriages.
The government’s intention is to look tough on immigration in the run-up to next year’s general election. It’s also clamping down on entry for dependants of overseas students. And it’s tightening restrictions on work visas for all except high earners and those with skills, such as in health or social care, which are in great demand.
Net legal immigration to Britain is currently running at 750,000 a year – that’s more than 1% of the current population. The figure is consistently rising at the same time as ministers are pledging to bring it down.
The most contested aspect of the government’s new immigration policy concerns the much smaller number of illegal immigrants – about 30,000 a year – who travel across the Channel on unseaworthy and overcrowded small boats. Sunak is persisting with his plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda in central Africa, even though that’s been rejected by the Supreme Court.
The government is introducing legislation which will sidestep the Supreme Court ruling by declaring Rwanda a safe destination for refugees – as if Parliament voting that the moon is made of cheese means that it really is. One wing of the Conservative Party views this as outrageously illiberal; another is complaining loudly that the government must go further and override the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue could precipitate a government defeat in Parliament which in turn may bring forward the next election.
But for the time being, the advice has to be: if you’re thinking of marrying a Brit, beware!
Andrew Whitehead is an honorary professor at the University of Nottingham in the UK and a former BBC India Correspondent.