The Minimum Income Requirement for Family Settlement

The Cost of Integration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article addresses challenges and criticisms of the minimum income requirement for partners of non-European nationals, introduced in 2012. The long passage of the case of MM and Others through the courts is considered, with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court judgment. It discusses whether the Supreme Court decision correctly balances the need to control immigration with the right to private and family life of the couples concerned. It considers the changing case of the Secretary of State and how the intentions expressed at implementation of the rules significantly differ from the position conceded in the Supreme Court.It is suggested that the provisions, and the findings relating to their lawfulness, convey a narrow economic focus and that a broader approach to integration and family unification is needed. The attempts to justify the provisions as promoting integration are questioned, given the limited interpretation of such a complex and intricate concept. Further, the impact on access to public funds is assessed, and whether segregating couples is likely to increase, rather than decrease, access to welfare benefits.The amendments to the immigration rules, resulting from the Supreme Court decision, are considered and the difficulties posed to caseworkers having to decipher the accompanying guidance on this matter addressed. Finally, consideration is given to whether the amendments are sufficient to ensure fairness to applicants or whether they are likely to promote further challenge.

This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Public Law following peer review. The definitive published version will be available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages28
JournalPublic Law
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Fingerprint

minimum income
Supreme Court
court decision
costs
amendment
immigration
judgment or sentence
public law
peer review
applicant
fairness
criticism
welfare
interpretation
economics

Cite this

@article{95355e5ad1f447ab96a68ac185e4339d,
title = "The Minimum Income Requirement for Family Settlement: The Cost of Integration",
abstract = "This article addresses challenges and criticisms of the minimum income requirement for partners of non-European nationals, introduced in 2012. The long passage of the case of MM and Others through the courts is considered, with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court judgment. It discusses whether the Supreme Court decision correctly balances the need to control immigration with the right to private and family life of the couples concerned. It considers the changing case of the Secretary of State and how the intentions expressed at implementation of the rules significantly differ from the position conceded in the Supreme Court.It is suggested that the provisions, and the findings relating to their lawfulness, convey a narrow economic focus and that a broader approach to integration and family unification is needed. The attempts to justify the provisions as promoting integration are questioned, given the limited interpretation of such a complex and intricate concept. Further, the impact on access to public funds is assessed, and whether segregating couples is likely to increase, rather than decrease, access to welfare benefits.The amendments to the immigration rules, resulting from the Supreme Court decision, are considered and the difficulties posed to caseworkers having to decipher the accompanying guidance on this matter addressed. Finally, consideration is given to whether the amendments are sufficient to ensure fairness to applicants or whether they are likely to promote further challenge.This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Public Law following peer review. The definitive published version will be available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service.",
keywords = "Minimum Income, Integration, Family Settlement",
author = "Gemma Manning",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
language = "English",
journal = "Public Law",
issn = "0033-3565",
publisher = "Sweet and Maxwell",

}

The Minimum Income Requirement for Family Settlement : The Cost of Integration. / Manning, Gemma.

In: Public Law, 04.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Minimum Income Requirement for Family Settlement

T2 - The Cost of Integration

AU - Manning, Gemma

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - This article addresses challenges and criticisms of the minimum income requirement for partners of non-European nationals, introduced in 2012. The long passage of the case of MM and Others through the courts is considered, with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court judgment. It discusses whether the Supreme Court decision correctly balances the need to control immigration with the right to private and family life of the couples concerned. It considers the changing case of the Secretary of State and how the intentions expressed at implementation of the rules significantly differ from the position conceded in the Supreme Court.It is suggested that the provisions, and the findings relating to their lawfulness, convey a narrow economic focus and that a broader approach to integration and family unification is needed. The attempts to justify the provisions as promoting integration are questioned, given the limited interpretation of such a complex and intricate concept. Further, the impact on access to public funds is assessed, and whether segregating couples is likely to increase, rather than decrease, access to welfare benefits.The amendments to the immigration rules, resulting from the Supreme Court decision, are considered and the difficulties posed to caseworkers having to decipher the accompanying guidance on this matter addressed. Finally, consideration is given to whether the amendments are sufficient to ensure fairness to applicants or whether they are likely to promote further challenge.This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Public Law following peer review. The definitive published version will be available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service.

AB - This article addresses challenges and criticisms of the minimum income requirement for partners of non-European nationals, introduced in 2012. The long passage of the case of MM and Others through the courts is considered, with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court judgment. It discusses whether the Supreme Court decision correctly balances the need to control immigration with the right to private and family life of the couples concerned. It considers the changing case of the Secretary of State and how the intentions expressed at implementation of the rules significantly differ from the position conceded in the Supreme Court.It is suggested that the provisions, and the findings relating to their lawfulness, convey a narrow economic focus and that a broader approach to integration and family unification is needed. The attempts to justify the provisions as promoting integration are questioned, given the limited interpretation of such a complex and intricate concept. Further, the impact on access to public funds is assessed, and whether segregating couples is likely to increase, rather than decrease, access to welfare benefits.The amendments to the immigration rules, resulting from the Supreme Court decision, are considered and the difficulties posed to caseworkers having to decipher the accompanying guidance on this matter addressed. Finally, consideration is given to whether the amendments are sufficient to ensure fairness to applicants or whether they are likely to promote further challenge.This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Public Law following peer review. The definitive published version will be available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service.

KW - Minimum Income

KW - Integration

KW - Family Settlement

UR - https://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?fmt=Journal&recordid=469&searchorigin=0033-3565&productid=30791427

M3 - Article

JO - Public Law

JF - Public Law

SN - 0033-3565

ER -