Immigration Rules should protect indigenous citizens!

I am a 71 year old indigenous citizen of the UK and an old age pensioner. I was widowed in 2002, and met and married a Russian widow in 2004 who was living in this country. I have a 27 year old stepson who has been receiving our financial support since we sent him back to Russia six years ago having been brought into the UK illegally by his elder brother when a 17 year old shortly after the death of their natural father.We have been trying to get the young man back to the UK to live with me and his mother as our dependant (and with NO resorting to welfare benefits) for the last three years trying to use the legal channels – i.e. visa applications etc.. It has all been a waste of time and cost a lot of money from my pensions!Attending immigration appeal tribunals is like being in a foreign country, with NO participant with any understanding of my own indigenous culture!

The Immigration rules as they are today were never meant by the legislature to break up the families of genuine indigenous citizens who marry foreigners and take on the family commitments associated with such a covenant. Their real reasons were to prevent mass colonisation of the UK by foreign families particularly from past  'Empire' states in Africa and Asia. However, in order to be 'just in a democratic society', the rules are applied to an indigenous citizen equally with no discrimination, despite the fact that the non-indigenous citizen does have a choice of domicile, usually another continent with definitely better weather! In all the New World countries, laws are passed which DO discriminate in favour of indigenous citizens where appropriate. Examples of this can be seen in the whole of the North and South American continents as well as Australia and New Zealand. 

Presently I am living in another European state and I have residential status there. I have abandoned my fully paid up home – except, of course I must still pay the Council Tax etc.., and I have rented a small apartment. The reason for this is that in other parts of the EU they are not so strict with their immigration rules and DO have such things in their statutes as 'Family Visit' or 'Family Re-unification' visas which permit family members to visit without the Gestapo techniques and prejudices visited on us by the UK Home Office. I have even taken up my Irish nationality(my father being born there), as I feel so strongly against the UK after over six years of battling with the Home Office, firstly with my wife, who was deported 6 months after our marriage, and then trying to get our son back to live with us. My wife has jumped through all the new hoops and is now a naturalise UK citizen! She is 55.

The Immigration Laws need to recognise that an indigenous citizen marrying a foreigner has the right to live in peace in his own country with his, albeit new, family without interference by the state. This is, after all, an Article 8 of the ECHR directive, and is, sadly, broken continuously by the UK Home Office.

Why is this idea important?

I am a 71 year old indigenous citizen of the UK and an old age pensioner. I was widowed in 2002, and met and married a Russian widow in 2004 who was living in this country. I have a 27 year old stepson who has been receiving our financial support since we sent him back to Russia six years ago having been brought into the UK illegally by his elder brother when a 17 year old shortly after the death of their natural father.We have been trying to get the young man back to the UK to live with me and his mother as our dependant (and with NO resorting to welfare benefits) for the last three years trying to use the legal channels – i.e. visa applications etc.. It has all been a waste of time and cost a lot of money from my pensions!Attending immigration appeal tribunals is like being in a foreign country, with NO participant with any understanding of my own indigenous culture!

The Immigration rules as they are today were never meant by the legislature to break up the families of genuine indigenous citizens who marry foreigners and take on the family commitments associated with such a covenant. Their real reasons were to prevent mass colonisation of the UK by foreign families particularly from past  'Empire' states in Africa and Asia. However, in order to be 'just in a democratic society', the rules are applied to an indigenous citizen equally with no discrimination, despite the fact that the non-indigenous citizen does have a choice of domicile, usually another continent with definitely better weather! In all the New World countries, laws are passed which DO discriminate in favour of indigenous citizens where appropriate. Examples of this can be seen in the whole of the North and South American continents as well as Australia and New Zealand. 

Presently I am living in another European state and I have residential status there. I have abandoned my fully paid up home – except, of course I must still pay the Council Tax etc.., and I have rented a small apartment. The reason for this is that in other parts of the EU they are not so strict with their immigration rules and DO have such things in their statutes as 'Family Visit' or 'Family Re-unification' visas which permit family members to visit without the Gestapo techniques and prejudices visited on us by the UK Home Office. I have even taken up my Irish nationality(my father being born there), as I feel so strongly against the UK after over six years of battling with the Home Office, firstly with my wife, who was deported 6 months after our marriage, and then trying to get our son back to live with us. My wife has jumped through all the new hoops and is now a naturalise UK citizen! She is 55.

The Immigration Laws need to recognise that an indigenous citizen marrying a foreigner has the right to live in peace in his own country with his, albeit new, family without interference by the state. This is, after all, an Article 8 of the ECHR directive, and is, sadly, broken continuously by the UK Home Office.

marriage visa age back to 18

I don’t quite agree with the British marriage visa law that was changed to 21 in 2008. I got married at the age of 19 and am 20 now its been a full year full of hardship for me and my husband as we are separated by the law. I have waited a full year for the law to change and have been abroad 2 times in one year to visit my husband. but now its too much for me I am pregnant carrying complication and the least good that can happen is for my husband to be by ma side when I need him the most. The only communication I have had with my husband since I have been back is on the phone. I was patient until now thinking that the British law is fair. After hearing that the visa age for HM forces has lowered to 18 I am sorry to say but I don’t agree with the law it should be same for all civilians. We also are human and need our partners and miss them as much as others. it would be grateful if the law could change back to 18 because this is not going to stop force marriages and also parent have become much aware of what their children require in life and force marriages is something of the past. If the law was to change I thing, as well as may other people would agree, it should have changed for all civilians and if not then it should have remained same for all.

Why is this idea important?

I don’t quite agree with the British marriage visa law that was changed to 21 in 2008. I got married at the age of 19 and am 20 now its been a full year full of hardship for me and my husband as we are separated by the law. I have waited a full year for the law to change and have been abroad 2 times in one year to visit my husband. but now its too much for me I am pregnant carrying complication and the least good that can happen is for my husband to be by ma side when I need him the most. The only communication I have had with my husband since I have been back is on the phone. I was patient until now thinking that the British law is fair. After hearing that the visa age for HM forces has lowered to 18 I am sorry to say but I don’t agree with the law it should be same for all civilians. We also are human and need our partners and miss them as much as others. it would be grateful if the law could change back to 18 because this is not going to stop force marriages and also parent have become much aware of what their children require in life and force marriages is something of the past. If the law was to change I thing, as well as may other people would agree, it should have changed for all civilians and if not then it should have remained same for all.

It should be as illegal for first cousins to marry as it is siblings.

People should not marry their first cousins, no more than they are  currently allowed to marry their own siblings.  Offspring of such unions have such a high incidence of life threatening and or crippling genetic abnormalities that not to legislate against this practise is morally wrong.

Why is this idea important?

People should not marry their first cousins, no more than they are  currently allowed to marry their own siblings.  Offspring of such unions have such a high incidence of life threatening and or crippling genetic abnormalities that not to legislate against this practise is morally wrong.

Re-write the Matrimonial Act 1986

Limit the time that maintenance is paid to an ex-spouse after divorce – e.g. 10 years – rather than an on-going benefit for life. Make it retrospective. At present, the ex-spouse receives this until such times that they re-marry or die, regardless of whether they co-habit or earn sufficient to support themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Limit the time that maintenance is paid to an ex-spouse after divorce – e.g. 10 years – rather than an on-going benefit for life. Make it retrospective. At present, the ex-spouse receives this until such times that they re-marry or die, regardless of whether they co-habit or earn sufficient to support themselves.

Assimilate civil partnership with marriage

As a happily married heterosexual I am disconcerted that my homosexual friends' partnerships cannot be described in law as a 'marriage'. (No doubt because there are some minor differences between the two forms of legal status.)

I would like to see civil partnerships put on exactly the same basis as conventional marriage from a legal point of view.

Such a change need not affect the rights of the religious to continue to confine the term 'marriage' to whatever they want, but that is a matter for them and need not concern the rest of us.

Why is this idea important?

As a happily married heterosexual I am disconcerted that my homosexual friends' partnerships cannot be described in law as a 'marriage'. (No doubt because there are some minor differences between the two forms of legal status.)

I would like to see civil partnerships put on exactly the same basis as conventional marriage from a legal point of view.

Such a change need not affect the rights of the religious to continue to confine the term 'marriage' to whatever they want, but that is a matter for them and need not concern the rest of us.

Remove need for reading of Banns in church (the Marriage Act)

Remove the requirement for Banns to be read out for 3 consecutive Sundays when getting married in a church. Replace it with a notice displayed in the church (similar to required if getting married in a registry office).

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement for Banns to be read out for 3 consecutive Sundays when getting married in a church. Replace it with a notice displayed in the church (similar to required if getting married in a registry office).

Family Law: reform needed for divorcing partners

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Extend the right to marriage to same-sex couples

I would like to extend the right to get married in civil ceremonies to same-sex couples, so that the civil liberties of families are no longer divided in 'separate but equal' and discriminatory  states depending on their sexualities

Why is this idea important?

I would like to extend the right to get married in civil ceremonies to same-sex couples, so that the civil liberties of families are no longer divided in 'separate but equal' and discriminatory  states depending on their sexualities

Abolish Marriage

Marriage is outdated and irrelevant, a bizarre and restrictive body of red tape. Of no value except to keep bean counters and form sifters in a job, ticking boxes or adjusting payments on the basis of who has signed a bit of paper with who. This is 2010 not 1010, let's grow up. I propose each individual be given the right to nominate one person as the non-taxed recipient of their worldy gods or pension in lieu of a spouse. It could be your brother, sister, daughter, lover or friend.

Why is this idea important?

Marriage is outdated and irrelevant, a bizarre and restrictive body of red tape. Of no value except to keep bean counters and form sifters in a job, ticking boxes or adjusting payments on the basis of who has signed a bit of paper with who. This is 2010 not 1010, let's grow up. I propose each individual be given the right to nominate one person as the non-taxed recipient of their worldy gods or pension in lieu of a spouse. It could be your brother, sister, daughter, lover or friend.

Allowed to marry at home

Couples should have the right to have their wedding in their home or parents home, as in Scotland.  A registrar is currently only allowed to marry a couple in a registered venue, including a register office.  This adds unnecessary expense, and encourages couples to add even more expenses, with the idea that a wedding day should be some sort of elaborate theatrical  spectical, rather than a life long commitment.

Why is this idea important?

Couples should have the right to have their wedding in their home or parents home, as in Scotland.  A registrar is currently only allowed to marry a couple in a registered venue, including a register office.  This adds unnecessary expense, and encourages couples to add even more expenses, with the idea that a wedding day should be some sort of elaborate theatrical  spectical, rather than a life long commitment.

Family Values, Children and Government Expenditure

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Why is this idea important?

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

freedom to marry anywhere in england without living in area

To remove the restrictions that require someone from Scotland/NI having to set up residency for 8 days in the English/Welsh district they wish to register their intention to marry. 

Myself and fiance want to get married in England but due to ancient  outdated laws we have to live there for 8 days and register our intention on 9th day. We are having a registry wedding in a hotel. You should be able to get married outdoors also.

Why is this idea important?

To remove the restrictions that require someone from Scotland/NI having to set up residency for 8 days in the English/Welsh district they wish to register their intention to marry. 

Myself and fiance want to get married in England but due to ancient  outdated laws we have to live there for 8 days and register our intention on 9th day. We are having a registry wedding in a hotel. You should be able to get married outdoors also.

Allow same sex marriage ceremonies in places of worship

Recently representatives of some religions such as the Quakers and Unitarians campaigned to be allowed to perform same sex ceremonies at their places of worship.

This was vetoed with the argument that it would be the start of a slippery slope ending with the church being forced to do the same.

The rule denies the religious freedom of these religions in purely internal affairs. The couples can have their partnerships under current law, but are forbidden to do this at their own place of worship and forbidden to use anything religious in their service.

The church has recently argued about the importance of religious freedom to defend its priviledges where they conflict with legislation and win an ammendment to equalities legislation. Religious freedom must always take into account the effects on others, but in this case it is hard to see how allowing a Quaker same sex couple to marry at their own place of worship rather than going to the registry office can be seen as damaging to others.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7715806/Equality-minister-Lynne-Featherstone-says-full-gay-marriage-a-step-nearer.html

Since 2005, same-sex couples in Britain have been allowed to take part in civil partnership ceremonies. These give them similar legal rights to married spouses, but the law required the events to take place in register offices or approved venues such as hotels and stately homes. The ceremony itself has had to be secular, with no hymns or Bible readings, in order to preserve the historic definition of religious marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Why is this idea important?

Recently representatives of some religions such as the Quakers and Unitarians campaigned to be allowed to perform same sex ceremonies at their places of worship.

This was vetoed with the argument that it would be the start of a slippery slope ending with the church being forced to do the same.

The rule denies the religious freedom of these religions in purely internal affairs. The couples can have their partnerships under current law, but are forbidden to do this at their own place of worship and forbidden to use anything religious in their service.

The church has recently argued about the importance of religious freedom to defend its priviledges where they conflict with legislation and win an ammendment to equalities legislation. Religious freedom must always take into account the effects on others, but in this case it is hard to see how allowing a Quaker same sex couple to marry at their own place of worship rather than going to the registry office can be seen as damaging to others.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7715806/Equality-minister-Lynne-Featherstone-says-full-gay-marriage-a-step-nearer.html

Since 2005, same-sex couples in Britain have been allowed to take part in civil partnership ceremonies. These give them similar legal rights to married spouses, but the law required the events to take place in register offices or approved venues such as hotels and stately homes. The ceremony itself has had to be secular, with no hymns or Bible readings, in order to preserve the historic definition of religious marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

modernisation/ reform of marriage laws

 I propose that the current laws concerning where couples are allowed to marry be reviewed and changed so that people have the freedom to have a civil or religious ceremony in the place of their choosing… ie in their homes/back gardens etc.

Why is this idea important?

 I propose that the current laws concerning where couples are allowed to marry be reviewed and changed so that people have the freedom to have a civil or religious ceremony in the place of their choosing… ie in their homes/back gardens etc.

Don’t introduce the English test for spouses of UK citizens

The Government plans to introduce an English test before a spouse of a UK citizen is allowed a visa to enter Britain. We already have a strict citizenship system that includes language proficiency.

We should not introduce this costly and ineffectual test – it is yet more red tape.

Why is this idea important?

The Government plans to introduce an English test before a spouse of a UK citizen is allowed a visa to enter Britain. We already have a strict citizenship system that includes language proficiency.

We should not introduce this costly and ineffectual test – it is yet more red tape.

simplify changing your name

When we get married we have to take all legal documents – proof of identity, proof of residency, proof of divorce etc to the registrar who checks and agrees they are legal, enters the information onto their computer system and then legalises the marriage and issues the marriage certificate.

 

Following the marriage some individuals want to take their partners name. So far I have had to inform 22+ separate organisations and agencies of my name change, send original certificates by recorded delivery (get the certificate back by recorded delivery), send certified copies of my marriage certificate to other organisations. I had an on-line form to complete for the tax office (good and sensible) but had to write separately to the national insurance office!

 

My idea is that once formally married (marriage certificate issued) a USB s given to the married couple (same sex or different sex) and that is all the proof needed. On line forms could then easily be completed with a check system completed by the receiving organisation e.g. the passport office would put the usb through their system and ot would confirm or not whether the marriage was valid and the change of name legitimate

Why is this idea important?

When we get married we have to take all legal documents – proof of identity, proof of residency, proof of divorce etc to the registrar who checks and agrees they are legal, enters the information onto their computer system and then legalises the marriage and issues the marriage certificate.

 

Following the marriage some individuals want to take their partners name. So far I have had to inform 22+ separate organisations and agencies of my name change, send original certificates by recorded delivery (get the certificate back by recorded delivery), send certified copies of my marriage certificate to other organisations. I had an on-line form to complete for the tax office (good and sensible) but had to write separately to the national insurance office!

 

My idea is that once formally married (marriage certificate issued) a USB s given to the married couple (same sex or different sex) and that is all the proof needed. On line forms could then easily be completed with a check system completed by the receiving organisation e.g. the passport office would put the usb through their system and ot would confirm or not whether the marriage was valid and the change of name legitimate

Married Couples Tax Allowance

This tax allowance can only be claimed by pentioners even though it is called 'married couples allowance'. It should be scapped or be extended to include all married couples, regardless of age .

Why is this idea important?

This tax allowance can only be claimed by pentioners even though it is called 'married couples allowance'. It should be scapped or be extended to include all married couples, regardless of age .

Allow British citizens living abroad to enter into Muslim marriages

Allow British citizens living abroad to enter into Muslim marriages without restriction

In order to get married in Egypt you have to have a statement of no objection from your Embassy, basically stating you are free to marry. However the Embassy also insist that your partner is free to marry under British law. In Egypt the Ministry of Justice will not marry a British citizen without this paperwork. This means that a British Muslim woman wishing to marry an Egyptian Muslim man who is already married cannot do so.  Even though this is legal in Egypt and allowed under Islam. I think the law should replaced with one that says you only have to obey the British laws if you want your marriage to be registered in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Allow British citizens living abroad to enter into Muslim marriages without restriction

In order to get married in Egypt you have to have a statement of no objection from your Embassy, basically stating you are free to marry. However the Embassy also insist that your partner is free to marry under British law. In Egypt the Ministry of Justice will not marry a British citizen without this paperwork. This means that a British Muslim woman wishing to marry an Egyptian Muslim man who is already married cannot do so.  Even though this is legal in Egypt and allowed under Islam. I think the law should replaced with one that says you only have to obey the British laws if you want your marriage to be registered in the UK.

Restore Marriage

Repeal the laws that undermine marriage such as Labour's taxes and civil partnerships. Repeal the Divorce reform act which brought in untold misery by allowing selfish people to destroy their's children's lives. Annul civil partnerships which do not qualify as marriage.  Basically restore marriage to its rightful position as the bedrock of our society.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the laws that undermine marriage such as Labour's taxes and civil partnerships. Repeal the Divorce reform act which brought in untold misery by allowing selfish people to destroy their's children's lives. Annul civil partnerships which do not qualify as marriage.  Basically restore marriage to its rightful position as the bedrock of our society.