Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to negotiating table after US strikes

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

North Wales Chronicle

26 minutes ago

North Wales Chronicle

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

David Todd, 33, is calling on the Government to reform the policy, including to scrap or lower the minimum income requirement (MIR) for British citizens to bring their partners to the country, as ministers mull over updating the visa route. His plea comes as charities Reunite Families UK and Coram published reports on Monday documenting the 'significant emotional and psychological harm' to families from the policy, particularly for children who grow up under long separation from one of their parents. Mr Todd had hoped to move back to the UK from Germany with his American wife, Claire Todd, 32, before the birth of their first baby which is due in October. But the couple are facing being split up for Mr Todd to return to the UK alone to build up enough income proof as the British citizen in the relationship, or raise savings of more than £88,500 dictated by the visa rules to allow them to return as a family. Mr Todd told the PA news agency: 'There's been lots of times where I've stayed awake at night worrying about it and how it's all going to work out, because you feel completely helpless. 'It's like we're second class citizens because we married someone who fell in love with someone who wasn't British.' Earlier this month the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set an MIR for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. It warned against raising the threshold for family visas to the same level for skilled workers, as planned by the previous government. Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for family visas. The UK's current £29,000 threshold, which was set in 2024, is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. It was previously set at £18,600 since 2012. Mr Todd, from Solihull, West Midlands, added increasing the level to £38,700 would be 'devastating'. 'Even with this MAC report now, we don't know what the Government's going to do, how they're going to react,' the classical music conductor said. 'It's this feeling that you're kind of helpless, you're stuck in limbo, and you're desperately trying to contort yourself into this position where you can make it work just because you want to live with your wife or husband.' The couple, living in Wurzburg, Germany, first left the UK after Ms Todd's student visa ended and moved to the European nation so they could be together seven years ago. After building 'good careers' as classical musicians on the continent, the couple began trying to make a return to the UK up to a year ago, wanting to be near family as they start their own. For Mr Todd, he said the Government should at least make the ways to prove income easier, and to include the spouse's salary to contribute to the income threshold. He said it is 'ridiculous' his wife's income cannot be used to meet the salary requirement despite her remote job as a content creator paying enough to mean they 'could move to the UK tomorrow'. Mr Todd said he wants to 'avoid at all costs' the prospect of being separated from his wife and child, adding: 'It just feels wrong, am I going to have to turn to my child when she's older and say to her: 'Well, sorry, the reason I wasn't with you for the first year of your life was because I was trying to get work for the family to move.'' British father Ed Moon, currently living in Taipei with his Taiwanese wife Amber Moon and four-year-old daughter Maya, is also applying to the family visa route to move back to the UK as Maya reaches school age. He told PA the most difficult thing is the 'extremely extensive' documentation you need to provide with any errors meaning the visa is denied and the process must be started again, with visa fees costing around £2,000. 'We're having to dip into every ounce of our savings to do this,' the 36-year-old from High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, said. 'You feel just unwanted by your country essentially. It's been especially tough, really like from a personal perspective.' The journalist also said it is a waste of money for the taxpayer for him to grow up and be educated in the UK, to then not let him and his family live there, adding: 'I want to be able to contribute to the UK.' The research by Reunite Families and Coram found that British citizens face exile, increased financial pressure and separation from their partners often for long periods of time from the family visa policy. For children separated from one of their parents, the charities warned they can face life-changing trauma and distress. The report also highlighted how the rules particularly discriminate against those including British mothers, who are more likely to experience hardship, working class and low income partners and black and ethnic minority workers, who are more likely to earn less than their white counterparts. Reunite Families UK executive director Caroline Coombs said 'simple and practical changes' from the Home Office could make significant differences to families, starting with scrapping the MIR and simplifying the rules and application process to stop the need for expensive legal advice. 'These rules have become the tax on love. People are suffering and want to be heard.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We understand the minimum income requirement for family visas needs to balance a respect for family life while also maintaining the UK's economic stability, which is why the Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course.'

Leader Live

40 minutes ago

Leader Live

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

David Todd, 33, is calling on the Government to reform the policy, including to scrap or lower the minimum income requirement (MIR) for British citizens to bring their partners to the country, as ministers mull over updating the visa route. His plea comes as charities Reunite Families UK and Coram published reports on Monday documenting the 'significant emotional and psychological harm' to families from the policy, particularly for children who grow up under long separation from one of their parents. Mr Todd had hoped to move back to the UK from Germany with his American wife, Claire Todd, 32, before the birth of their first baby which is due in October. But the couple are facing being split up for Mr Todd to return to the UK alone to build up enough income proof as the British citizen in the relationship, or raise savings of more than £88,500 dictated by the visa rules to allow them to return as a family. Mr Todd told the PA news agency: 'There's been lots of times where I've stayed awake at night worrying about it and how it's all going to work out, because you feel completely helpless. 'It's like we're second class citizens because we married someone who fell in love with someone who wasn't British.' Earlier this month the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set an MIR for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. It warned against raising the threshold for family visas to the same level for skilled workers, as planned by the previous government. Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for family visas. The UK's current £29,000 threshold, which was set in 2024, is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. It was previously set at £18,600 since 2012. Mr Todd, from Solihull, West Midlands, added increasing the level to £38,700 would be 'devastating'. 'Even with this MAC report now, we don't know what the Government's going to do, how they're going to react,' the classical music conductor said. 'It's this feeling that you're kind of helpless, you're stuck in limbo, and you're desperately trying to contort yourself into this position where you can make it work just because you want to live with your wife or husband.' The couple, living in Wurzburg, Germany, first left the UK after Ms Todd's student visa ended and moved to the European nation so they could be together seven years ago. After building 'good careers' as classical musicians on the continent, the couple began trying to make a return to the UK up to a year ago, wanting to be near family as they start their own. For Mr Todd, he said the Government should at least make the ways to prove income easier, and to include the spouse's salary to contribute to the income threshold. He said it is 'ridiculous' his wife's income cannot be used to meet the salary requirement despite her remote job as a content creator paying enough to mean they 'could move to the UK tomorrow'. Mr Todd said he wants to 'avoid at all costs' the prospect of being separated from his wife and child, adding: 'It just feels wrong, am I going to have to turn to my child when she's older and say to her: 'Well, sorry, the reason I wasn't with you for the first year of your life was because I was trying to get work for the family to move.'' British father Ed Moon, currently living in Taipei with his Taiwanese wife Amber Moon and four-year-old daughter Maya, is also applying to the family visa route to move back to the UK as Maya reaches school age. He told PA the most difficult thing is the 'extremely extensive' documentation you need to provide with any errors meaning the visa is denied and the process must be started again, with visa fees costing around £2,000. 'We're having to dip into every ounce of our savings to do this,' the 36-year-old from High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, said. 'You feel just unwanted by your country essentially. It's been especially tough, really like from a personal perspective.' The journalist also said it is a waste of money for the taxpayer for him to grow up and be educated in the UK, to then not let him and his family live there, adding: 'I want to be able to contribute to the UK.' The research by Reunite Families and Coram found that British citizens face exile, increased financial pressure and separation from their partners often for long periods of time from the family visa policy. For children separated from one of their parents, the charities warned they can face life-changing trauma and distress. The report also highlighted how the rules particularly discriminate against those including British mothers, who are more likely to experience hardship, working class and low income partners and black and ethnic minority workers, who are more likely to earn less than their white counterparts. Reunite Families UK executive director Caroline Coombs said 'simple and practical changes' from the Home Office could make significant differences to families, starting with scrapping the MIR and simplifying the rules and application process to stop the need for expensive legal advice. 'These rules have become the tax on love. People are suffering and want to be heard.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We understand the minimum income requirement for family visas needs to balance a respect for family life while also maintaining the UK's economic stability, which is why the Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course.'

Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.

NBC News

40 minutes ago

NBC News

Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Presidents testing limits Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. The U.N. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.'

Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to negotiating table after US strikes

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.

Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to negotiating table after US strikes

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

British father-to-be feels like ‘second class citizen' over family visa rules

Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.

Get Started Now: Download the App