UK family visa rules spark outcry as families face forced separation
British citizens are calling on the government to change family visa rules that risk separating them from their partners and children. The demand for reform follows new findings from charities Reunite Families UK and Coram, which show that current visa income requirements are forcing some British families to live apart, as per a report by The Independent.
The UK's
Minimum Income Requirement
(MIR) was raised from £18,600 to £29,000 in 2024 and remains one of the highest among developed countries, according to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). The committee has advised against raising the threshold further to £38,700, the level currently required for skilled workers, warning that it would have a serious impact on family reunification.
David Todd, a 33-year-old British citizen living in Germany, shared how
visa restrictions
could force him to return to the UK without his American wife, Claire, and their soon-to-be-born child. The couple cannot meet the financial threshold required under current family visa rules, which expect the British partner to earn at least £29,000 per year or show savings above £88,500.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency
Planet Spark
Learn More
Undo
Todd said to PA News agency, 'It's like we're second-class citizens because we married someone who fell in love with someone who wasn't British.' He urged the government to either scrap or reduce the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR), which is now under review. Todd and his wife, both classical musicians, had hoped to return to the UK to raise their child near family. However, because his wife's income, though sufficient and earned remotely, does not count toward the visa requirement, they remain stuck.
(Join our
ETNRI WhatsApp channel
for all the latest updates)
The report by Reunite Families UK and Coram concluded that the current rules are financially and emotionally damaging. Families often face long-term separation, and children may suffer psychological harm. The report also noted that the MIR disproportionately affects British women, working-class individuals, and ethnic minorities who are more likely to earn below the threshold.
Live Events
MORE STORIES FOR YOU
✕
UK may ease family visa income rule after 'Tax on Love' criticism
Lowering UK family visa income bar may raise net migration; says advisory panel
«
Back to recommendation stories
I don't want to see these stories because
They are not relevant to me
They disrupt the reading flow
Others
SUBMIT
According to the Independent news report, Caroline Coombs, Executive Director of Reunite Families UK, 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.' She added, 'These rules have become the tax on love. People are suffering and want to be heard.'
The Home Office has not yet responded to the findings or public calls for reform.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
With death clock gone, Khamenei's prophecy lies shattered
Israel conducted on Monday a high-profile airstrike on Tehran, targeting not only military and intelligence assets but also one of the most potent ideological symbols of the Islamic Republic -- the digital countdown clock in Palestine Square. Installed in 2017, the clock was based on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's ominous 2015 prophecy that Israel 'will not exist in 25 years.' Its destruction carries enormous symbolic weight, not only erasing a defiant message embedded in Tehran's skyline but also underlining Israel's growing assertiveness amid escalating confrontation. The origin and ideology behind the doomsday clock The digital clock, unveiled during Quds Day in June 2017, was more than a timekeeping device. It was propaganda incarnate, counting down the days to Israel's predicted demise in 2040. Displaying its message in Persian, Arabic and English, the clock tower loomed over Palestine Square, a location already soaked in political symbolism. Its placement and message were calculated to consolidate Iran 's self-image as the epicenter of the anti-Israel activities. For Iran's hardliners, the clock functioned as a perpetual reminder of their ideological mission -- the eventual eradication of Israel. It was also designed to project ideological resolve to domestic and foreign audiences alike. To supporters, it was a declaration of strategic patience and religious destiny. To Israel, it was a provocation, an unwavering threat that one day Iran's ambitions would be realized. Read More | Israel is not yet willing to touch Iran's most sensitive nerve In July 2021, widespread blackouts across Iran briefly halted the countdown. Though the disruption was due to electricity shortages caused by drought, heatwaves, and crumbling infrastructure, the symbolic impact was immediate. Iranian critics mocked the state's inability to keep its ideological machinery running, while international observers noted the irony that a regime proclaiming the fall of Israel couldn't keep a propaganda clock running. This moment offered a rare window into Iran's fragility. Even as the regime pushed grand ideological visions, it struggled with basic services, facing economic strain from sanctions and internal mismanagement. The clock's failure, however brief, diminished its aura of invincibility and suggested a gap between Tehran's ambitions and its capabilities. Live Events Read More | Fordow underground enrichment site attacked again, says Iranian media, a day after US strikes An ominous symbol is gone but the threat remains Today's Israeli airstrike marks a critical turning point, not just in military escalation, but in the symbolic war between the two nations. Alongside hits on the notorious Evin Prison and IRGC headquarters, Israel deliberately targeted the countdown clock in Palestine Square. This act was not accidental. It was a surgical erasure of a regime's ideological fixture, timed precisely to deliver maximum symbolic impact. The destruction of the clock represented a reversal of narratives. For years, Iran had used the clock as a visual countdown toward Israel's destruction. By physically erasing it, Israel flipped the script, demonstrating that it no longer accepted Iran's psychological warfare and that it possessed both the will and the precision to eliminate even the most guarded symbols of ideological aggression. The clock's destruction coincides with a series of crippling blows to Iran's nuclear ambitions and strategic infrastructure. American B-2 bombers have destroyed Iran's key nuclear site, Fordow, using bunker-buster bombs, which amounts to the de-nuclearisation of Iran. The development marks a significant rollback of Iranian power. For the first time in years, Israel appears to be dictating the tempo of conflict, not reacting to Iran's moves, but preemptively shaping the battlefield. The destruction of ideological symbols like the countdown clock underlines this momentum. However, it would be premature to declare Israel free of existential threat. Iran still retains a vast missile arsenal and asymmetric tools such as drones, cyber capabilities and maritime threats in the Strait of Hormuz. Even a weakened Iran can inflict significant damage through its regional proxies or unconventional attacks. Ideologically, while the clock is gone, the doctrine behind it remains embedded in the regime's DNA. Perhaps the most important shift lies in the realm of psychological warfare. The countdown clock's presence gave Iran a persistent advantage in setting the ideological narrative. Its disappearance, bombed into oblivion by an Israeli strike, reverses that advantage. It suggests that Tehran's grand timelines and theological certainties are no longer sacred or untouchable. Symbolically, this act represents Israel's defiance not just of physical threats, but of the very idea that its destruction is inevitable. It delivers a message to the Iranian regime and its allies that history will not unfold on their terms. By destroying the clock, Israel has shattered Khamenei's prophecy, not only for the people of Tehran, but for a global audience witnessing the symbolic end of the 2040 vision. Bombing of the countdown clock is the culmination of a sustained campaign by Israel and the US to neutralize both the physical and ideological engines of Iran's aggression. While military threats remain and Iran's ambitions are far from extinguished, the destruction of the clock marks a powerful shift in psychological momentum.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Scammers and loan sharks target debt-ridden migrants in UK
Scammers and loan sharks are preying on migrants in Britain, exploiting their desperation to stay in the country as the government clamps down on migration, money experts say. Newly arrived asylum seekers, refugees and temporary workers, who are often unfamiliar with Britain's banking and migration systems, have been targeted with offers of fraudulent debt solutions, private loans and visa help. By the time they reach Britain, many have already accrued debt through visa or overseas recruitment fees, said Joshua Aspden, who works in refugee resettlement at Charnwood Borough Council in northern England. This leaves them in a vulnerable position, often exacerbated by financial exclusion, a distrust of authorities and language barriers. "They might not be fully literate or literate at all in their own language. Some of the people I worked with who got scammed ... didn't know how to read or write," said Aspden, an expert in personal finance issues for migrants. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) "Because ... the debt is overwhelming, they want a quick fix." Live Events Aspden, who has run finance workshops for migrants, said some migrants spend hundreds of pounds on debt management products purchased at offices on the high street, only to discover they were phoney storefronts. Others have paid thousands of pounds for bogus immigration advice, he said. "It might be one of these pop-up offices that somebody's rented for a week. And people have gone back, and the office is not there," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. FINANCIAL EXCLUSION Kate McQueen, community programmes manager at The Money Charity, also runs personal finance workshops for migrants. She said many find it difficult to navigate banking systems. "Some people are coming from countries where there may be issues with people's trust with the banks. Some countries have more informal financial systems," she said. Around 1.6% of the British population, or 900,000 people, did not have a bank account in 2024, according to the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates financial services firms. Of those who did not have an account, a quarter said they did not want to share financial information with banks. Charities say without an accepted proof of address, identification and credit history, it is difficult for people without secure legal status, including asylum seekers and temporary workers, to open bank accounts or borrow money from regulated providers. "Once you're already in debt, it's very common ... to panic and borrow money to pay the original debt. And then, it snowballs," said McQueen. LOAN SHARKS Locked out of formal banking options, many migrants turn to people within their community for loans but are often exploited, said Catherine Wohlers from the England Illegal Money Lending Team, which investigates and prosecutes loan sharks. Around 1 million people in the UK have borrowed from a loan shark, or illegal money lender, according to a 2023 report by the Centre for Social Justice. Wohlers said many migrants have borrowed thousands of pounds to pay for groceries, bills, rent and remittances sent home. She said two Filipino women were prosecuted last year for illegally lending 4.2 million pounds ($5.68 million) to other Filipinos, mostly healthcare workers, and charging exorbitant interest. The shame of being in debt keeps migrants under the control of loan sharks, who also threaten to reveal details to the wider community and immigration officials, which migrants falsely believe could lead to deportation. "That's what keeps them paying above and beyond what they've originally borrowed," Wohlers said. IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN With the government vowing to cut net migration to Britain over the next four years, migrants are increasingly falling prey to scams, charities said. "Refugees desperate to reunite with their child or spouse also face the costs of family reunion visas, legal and travel costs, with very little assistance available," said Penny Sims, a spokesperson at the British Red Cross charity. Migrants are often sent letters or messages from scammers pretending to be from the Home Office, the ministry overseeing immigration to the UK, McQueen said. "It's so cruel, but something that's very specific to refugees and asylum seekers are fraudulent messages claiming to be from the Home Office saying, 'Good news, we're going to give you your status. You just need to pay us and go on this link,'" she said. Zahra, an Afghan immigration legal adviser in the UK, who used a pseudonym for privacy, said several of her clients have paid thousands of pounds for Afghan resettlement schemes even though applications are free. "We received emails from community members saying, 'I paid the fees, but nothing has happened with my application.' We asked them to share the email they received... and it was very clear that the scammers faked (an official) email," she said. Immigration advisor Yuliia Ismail from Settled, which supports European Union citizens and Ukrainians in Britain, said she has seen cases of Ukrainian refugees being charged by scammers for visa applications that were never submitted. Ismail, who offers free immigration advice, said charities like hers are overwhelmed by people seeking visa support. "Scammers do take advantage of how busy advice agencies are. People will want that information anyway, so they will ultimately ask someone for it," said Aspden. "Financial capability for refugees, migrants has been neglected completely. People have been cheated out of funds in many different ways and it's because they have been desperate," he said.
