Spain, immigrants leaving the country because of economic crisis
Data on the current population, revealed by the National Institute of Statistics (INE), confirm the reversal of the trend highlighted by earlier estimates: for the first time in the last ten years, the first 9 months of this year showed a negative balance in immigrant population.
From January to September 2011, around 317,500 migrants arrived in Spain, while about 356,700 were those who decided to return to their countries of origin, with a negative balance of more than 39,200 foreigners.
According to the INE, the exodus is occurring to a greater extent among men than among women, a fact which indirectly confirms the tragedy of the loss of work behind the choice of returning to their country of origin.
And now, bring your under-21 foreign spouse to UK
The judgment is significant as the age limit was raised from 18 to 21 in 2008. explaining the rationale behind the move, the Home Office had claimed it was an attempt to prevent forced marriages.
But, the Supreme Court was not convinced. It held the rule breached article 8 of the ECHR.
Lord Wilson said the number of forced marriages which the rule deterred was “highly debatable”.
Lord Wilson added: “What seems clear is that the number of unforced marriages which it obstructs from their intended development for up to three years vastly exceeds the number of forced marriages which it deters.
“Neither in the material which she published prior to the introduction of the amendment in 2008 nor in her evidence in these proceedings has the secretary of state addressed this imbalance – still less sought to identify the scale of it.
“Even had it been correct to say that the scale of the imbalance was a matter of judgement for the secretary of state rather than for the courts, it is not a judgement which, on the evidence before the court, she has ever made.”
Lord Wilson made it clear the home secretary has failed to prove the amendment was no more than essential to accomplish her objective or that it struck a fair balance between the rights of the parties to unforced marriages and the interests of the community in preventing forced marriages.
Lord Wilson said: “On any view it is a sledgehammer but she has not attempted to identify the size of the nut”.
“At all events she fails to establish that the interference with the rights of the respondents under article 8 is justified.”
“On any view it is a sledgehammer but she [the secretary of state] has not attempted to identify the size of the nut”
As Lord Wilson turned down the home secretary’s appeal, Lords Phillips and Lord Clarke agreed that the home secretary had violated their rights under article 8 by refusing to grant marriage visas to the claimant couples.
Lord Brown, however, dissented while describing forced marriages as an “appalling evil” which all too often occurred within the immigrant community.
“The extent to which the rule will help combat forced marriage and the countervailing extent to which it will disrupt the lives of innocent couples adversely affected by it is largely a matter of judgment,” Lord Brown asserted.
“Unless demonstrably wrong, this judgment should be rather for government than for the courts.
“Still more obviously, the comparison between the enormity of suffering within forced marriages on the one hand and the disruption to innocent couples within the 18-21 age group whose desire to live together in this country is temporarily thwarted by the rule change, is essentially one for elected politicians, not for judges.”
Lord Brown insisted article 8 was a “difficult provision” leading to some “highly contentious, not to say debatable, decisions”.
“In a sensitive context such as that of forced marriages it would seem to me not merely impermissible but positively unwise for the courts yet again to frustrate government policy except in the clearest of cases.
“To my mind this cannot possibly be regarded as such a case. I would allow these appeals.”
In December 2010, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, with the support of The AIRE Centre, the Southall Black Sisters and the Henna Foundation, successfully challenged the 2008 law.
The case fought was that of British citizen, Amber and her Chilean husband, Diego Aguilar-Quila, a young couple of who met at school whilst Diego’s mother was studying at University in the UK.
Responding to the verdict, the JCWI said: `They married, with the support of both families, but were denied a visa for Diego due to the new law. Amber and Diego were just one of many couples denied the right to live together, when it was universally accepted, including by the Home Office, that the relationship was genuine.
The ruling should act as a warning to the Home Office, that the making of knee-jerk policy without adequate research is unacceptable’.
JCWI Chief Exec Habib Rahman said: “This is a fantastic victory, our thanks goes to the judges who had made a considered and intelligent judgment. This is a great day for the right to a family life in the UK. This was a law introduced on the hoof, which had no discernible effect on forced marriage, but infringed on the rights of UK citizens to live in the UK with their partners. We are delighted to see it consigned to the scrap heap of misguided legislation.
“We now ask the Government to consider other policies they are generating on family immigration. They habitually frame such policy as helping the welfare of migrants and others, whereas in truth their rules are solely aimed at limiting immigration. Theresa May should rethink these attacks before some of them meet a similar fate”
UK to curb immigrant rights (especially Indians) to settle permanently?
The Conservative Party-led coalition government will abandon a rule that gives foreign workers the right to live permanently in Britain, after working here for five years. It will also limit the rights of their family members to join them.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is working out modalities for a new obstacle for immigrants that would prevent most of them from gaining the right to remain here indefinitely.
More than half of those permitted the right to stay in Britain in 2010 were from Asian countries such as Pakistan and India, and 27 per cent were from African countries. More than 7,000 Iraqis and 8,401 Iranians were given the right to settle.
Civil servants are drawing up measure for a further test that would be applied before a permanent right to remain is granted.
It is expected to be based on immigrants' ability to support themselves and their families. It would also check qualifications and whether they are working in professions where there are shortages of trained Britons able to fulfill the role.
Those on high incomes, businessmen and millionaire investors would be excused because the government believed they would create jobs.
Already, it is evident that May and Damian Green, the immigration minister, want to break the link between working and settling in Britain.
The Home Office will also look at limiting the right of immigrants' spouses to a British passport if they stay here long enough.
Under the plans, to be announced later this year, foreigners will still be able to gain a visa to work in Britain. But they will no longer be able to stay by advantage of remaining legally for five years.
People from outside the European Union, who came to Britain as asylum seekers and have worked in the country for years, possibly illegally, are also to have their right to remain restricted.
About 51,000 people were given the right to settle in Britain in 1997, but the figure rose up to a record 241,192 last year. EU nationals who have a right to live in the UK would not be affected.
In August, net migration rose by 21 per cent to 239,000, partly owing to the number of EU migrants coming to Britain and to a fall in the number of people leaving the country to live abroad.
If anyone Leaving or entering UK with over £1,000 cash? You need to explain
7th October 2011: Leaving or entering the UK with more than £1,000 in cash? You need to provide evidence of the source, and intended use, of the money.
The assertion by the UK Border Agency came soon after a man from Stoke-on-Trent, who tried to leave the UK carrying over £40,000 in cash that he could not account for, was ordered to forfeit the money.
UKBA assistant director Malcolm Bragg said: 'Stopping the flow of money that has not been acquired legitimately is an important part of the work the UK Border Agency carries out to protect our border.
'Anyone leaving or entering the UK with more than £1,000 in cash must provide evidence of the source, and intended use, of the money.
'If there is evidence that the money has not been earned legitimately they face having it confiscated.'
Giving details of the case, the UKBA said: Malcolm Brown, 51, of Boon Avenue, Penkhull was stopped our officers at Birmingham airport in July 2010, before he was due to board a flight to Bangkok via Dubai.
`Brown was found to be carrying £42,980.
`Brown told officers that most of the cash came from his late mother who had died a few days earlier and the remainder from the sale of a car.
`The money was detained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
`At Solihull Magistrates' Court on 20 September a judge ordered the forfeiture of £40,980 plus costs.
`The judge accepted Brown's account about the cash from the sale of a car and ordered the return of £2,000,’ the agency asserted.
UKBA assistant director Malcolm Bragg said: 'Stopping the flow of money that has not been acquired legitimately is an important part of the work the UK Border Agency carries out to protect our border.
'Anyone leaving or entering the UK with more than £1,000 in cash must provide evidence of the source, and intended use, of the money.
'If there is evidence that the money has not been earned legitimately they face having it confiscated.'
Giving details of the case, the UKBA said: Malcolm Brown, 51, of Boon Avenue, Penkhull was stopped our officers at Birmingham airport in July 2010, before he was due to board a flight to Bangkok via Dubai.
`Brown was found to be carrying £42,980.
`Brown told officers that most of the cash came from his late mother who had died a few days earlier and the remainder from the sale of a car.
`The money was detained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
`At Solihull Magistrates' Court on 20 September a judge ordered the forfeiture of £40,980 plus costs.
`The judge accepted Brown's account about the cash from the sale of a car and ordered the return of £2,000,’ the agency asserted.
New UK National Minimum Wage rates: 1st October 2011
27 September 2011. From 1 October 2011, new rates and entitlements will be introduced to the National Minimum Wage.
The new National Minimum Wage rates will apply from 1 October 2011.
Workers who are aged 21 and over will be entitled to the main National Minimum Wage rate.
The new rates will be:
• ADULT NMW: £6.08 per hour
for workers aged 21 years and over (up from £5.93, qualifying age 22, in 2010-2011)• DEVELOPMENT NMW: £4.98 per hour
for workers aged 18 to 20 (up from £4.92 in 2010-2011)• MINORS NMW: £3.68 per hour
for workers aged 16-17, that is over compulsory school leaving age (up from £3.64 in 2010-2011)• APPRENTICE NMW: £2.60 per hour
for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first yearof their apprenticeship (up from £2.50 in 2010-2011)
Nearly all workers in the UK are entitled to be paid at least the National Minimum Wage (NMW). If you are a worker entitled to the NMW, your employer is breaking the law if they aren’t paying it.
You are entitled to the NMW even if you sign a contract agreeing to be paid at a lower rate. This is regardless of whether you sign of your own free will or because your employer persuades or makes you. The contract will have no legal effect and you must still be paid the proper rate.
You will be a worker who is entitled to the NMW if:
• you have a contract of employment
• you have a contract to perform work or provide services personally for your employer
• you are not self-employed under the contract
The contract does not have to be in writing, it can be oral or implied.
Being registered as self-employed for tax purposes does not necessarily make you self-employed for NMW purposes.
If you are a worker from outside the UK and you are legally working in the UK you are entitled to the NMW. It doesn’t matter how long or short a time you stay here or whether your employer is based in the UK or somewhere else.