U.K. to deter family migration from India

In a move that is likely to hit mostly immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, it is proposed to prevent low-income settlers from bringing their foreign spouses to Britain so as to ensure that they don't become a “burden” on the state.

If the proposal, a brainchild of the government's Migration Advisory Committee, is agreed upon, only those whose pre-tax annual earnings are between £18,700 and £25,700 will be allowed to sponsor their family members.

Committee chairman David Metcalf said the current salary threshold of £5,500 appeared “low,” considering the government's desire to ensure that new immigrants were not a burden on the state. “Our recommendations are made purely on an economic basis, and we recognise that family migration is not determined by economics alone. However, our analysis suggests that there is justification for raising the pay threshold,” he said.

Although the new rule will apply to all non-European Union immigrants, critics said that it appeared to target low-earners from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal who comprise the largest group of sponsors of family visas.

“Although the U.S. ranks third in the list of countries of origin of family visas, it is thought most sponsors would qualify under the new salary thresholds,'' The Guardian said, pointing out that under the new criterion up to half of Britain's working population would be banned from bringing a foreign spouse.

Last year, nearly 4,000 family visas were granted to Indian citizens accounting for 10 per cent of all visas under this category. Pakistan accounted for 16 per cent.

The proposal, a part of the Conservative Party's election promise to reduce immigration from “hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands”, follows Prime Minister David Cameron's remarks last month that more than 70 per cent of sponsors of family visas earned less than £20,000 a year.

“When the income level of the sponsor is this low, there is an obvious risk that the migrants and their family will become a significant burden on the welfare system and the taxpayer,” he said.

Critics warned that if the government went ahead with the proposal it could be challenged in court.