INCREASINGLY restrictive policies on family migration from the UK government are having a widespread impact across Scotland, says a new report.
And Stuart McDonald, the SNP’s immigration spokesperson, is calling for a reform of the rules which are “unfairly separating Scottish families and damaging Scotland’s economy”.
It follows publication of a joint report - Family Migration: A Scottish Perspective - from the SNP’s justice and home affairs team and the Glasgow Refugee Asylum and Migration Network (GRAMnet), which reveals the impact the spousal visa minimum income threshold – introduced in 2012 – is having on families in Scotland.
Under the rules, any UK citizen who wants to sponsor a spouse to live with them here must earn a minimum of £18,600, rising to £22,400 for a first child, and an additional £2,400 for each subsequent child.
The minimum income must be met entirely by the UK citizen, and no account is taken of the foreign spouse’s prospective earnings, family support, or local wage levels and living costs. The previous salary threshold was £5,500 per year and included prospective spousal earnings.
According to the report, the changes have had a disproportionately negative impact on people in Scotland, as 41 per cent of UK citizens in the country do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse and 53 per cent do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse and child. This compares to 27 per cent and 34 per cent respectively in London.
McDonald said: “This report highlights the urgent need for reform and for devolution of immigration powers, so that we can create a tailored system that meets Scotland’s needs and values. It is unacceptable that the current rules are separating spouses and stopping children from being with their parents. It cannot be right that people who could be united with their loved ones, who would make a valued contribution to society, and a valuable contribution to the economy, are instead being excluded to the detriment of our country. As they stand these unreasonable and inflexible rules are disproportionately affecting families across Scotland, with around half of Scottish people earning less than is now required by the restrictive minimum income threshold that the UK government has imposed.
“The SNP want to see the rules reformed with a lower threshold that reflects the variation in average income and cost of living across the UK, and that allows for the earning capacity of a spouse to be taken into account.”
Written by Helen Baillot, a researcher in forced migration, and former head of integration at the Scottish Refugee Council, Joe Brady, the report said Scotland’s position as a country whose devolved administration recognises the benefits of inwards migration, was being undermined by UK government attempts to “define and control which families merit entry and settlement in the UK”.
“This approach also undermines the supposedly universal right to a family life and instead limits it to only those families who have the economic power to qualify for love,” the authors said. They added that given the impending Brexit negotiations, a review of family migration policy would be timely.
“The many transnational families who have formed during the time of the UK’s EU membership may not until now have experienced the rigours of the family migration system. But the uncertainty created by ‘Brexit’ brings the very real human impact of restrictive immigration controls sharply into focus. For Scotland to remain at the forefront of a human rights-based approach to migration policy issues, and take her place on the world stage, her political leaders must develop policy proposals which seek to remedy the deep economic, social and geographical inequalities that dominate current family migration policy.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here