Being Forced to Pay Extortion for Love: An Analysis of the Threshold Raise to £38,700 to bring a foreign family partner to the UK

Dr. Suneel Mehmi – LLB Honours in Laws, LLM in Law and Society, PhD in the Law and English Literature

JAI MAA KAALI!

13.01.2023

The Legal Change (FACTS)

From April 2024, the minimum salary requirement for people who want to bring a foreign family member or partner to the UK will rise to £38,700. This is a jump from the current threshold of £18,600.

Comparative Law (FACTS)

Where countries do express the requirement as a minimum income, such as in Belgium or Norway, Library research has so far not found any examples of the threshold being set above or close to £38,700 (the level the UK Government ultimately intends to reach).

Changes to legal migration rules for family and work visas in 2024

SUNEEL’S ANALYSIS: Comparative law shows that this government has to be seen as extorting a price on love compared to every other supposedly civilised Western country in the world. They have deliberately set an unrealistic threshold to counter what they see as the threat of immigration. So, the UK is a pioneer in racism and paranoia over immigration compared to every other country.

The Rationale (SUNEEL’S ANALYSIS)

Obviously, the aim is to cut immigration. However, the unspoken secondary rationale is to construct immigrants as ‘burdens’ on the system who might claim benefits from British people by emphasising that families have to support themselves without any help from the government:

‘Ministers hope the move will cut immigration levels, which have reached record highs in recent years, and ensure families can support themselves’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-67637504

The ministers are constructing immigration as illegal, attaching the label of illegal to the immigrants that have come into the country, as though this is a violation of fairness, ‘the rules’, the law and order. Again, there is the perception that the immigrants are taking over the country, that their entry is ‘unsustainable’, as though this country with all its wealth and resources couldn’t accommodate them:

In a statement to MPs, the home secretary said migration to the UK “needs to come down” and there had been “abuse” of health and care visas for years.

“Enough is enough,” Mr Cleverly said. “Immigration policy must be fair, legal, and sustainable.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67612106

The government is using its own failure in providing infrastructure and services to the communities to justify the action it is taking, pitting us against them to cover up its own failure of duty:

‘People are understandably worried about housing, GP appointments, school places and access to other public services when they can see their communities growing quickly in numbers.’

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-04/debates/921A08A2-F615-48F2-8C56-423A29556F9F/LegalMigration

Conclusion and Suneel’s Personal Comment

While seeming to apply to everyone in a false pretension of ‘universality’, the policy is deliberately targeted at ethnic minority men who are the most likely to marry abroad and to bring a partner from abroad. As such, this legislation has to be seen as an attack on the ethnic minority men and their ability to marry and to reproduce in this country. This is a deliberately racist and sexist policy.

Yes, white British men and white British women can meet people from abroad or that are not UK citizens and marry them. No one is saying that is not the case. However, what is the bigger likelihood about who this will happen to – someone who has deep connections with the people of another country, or people that most likely don’t?

The policy asks the ethnic minority man to become wealthier than the average worker. What is the average wage in this country? The threshold is above it –

According to the ONS, the average salary in the UK in 2023 for all employees was £29,669, a 6.8% increase from 2022. For full-time workers, the average UK salary in 2023 was £34,963, a 5.8% increase YoY. https://standout-cv.com/pages/average-uk-salary

Why should ethnic minority men (or men that want to marry someone from abroad) have to be wealthier than all of the other men in this country to bring someone over? Why do they have to work harder than everyone else? There is no reason for it, except to discourage people from marrying someone from abroad. And to make anyone that can’t earn enough feel like a man that cannot even provide for his family and afford to love someone from a community in a different country, to render them financially powerless and devalue them and their ties and roots.

The ethics of the legislation are horrible. How disgusting is it to put a price on love? How disgusting is it to put up walls around love so that people cannot move within the channels of love? Are other people from other countries – who haven’t been brought up in the privilege and wealth that we have – whose financial problems have probably been caused by us in this country and the Western world – aren’t they loveable? Can they not be the wives and mothers, or husbands and fathers in this country?

The government’s financial control of the family unit – the original economy – is unethical, unfair, unjust and, I would argue, illegal. They are acting ultra vires – everyone has the right to a family irrespective of money. Someone here can marry someone and then claim benefits because they have married a UK citizen. Someone from here can have kids if they can’t afford them and then rely on the government for help. And they do. This ‘problem’ that legislates love is a false problem because the government only sees immigrants as a burden on the system out of racism.

Can I ask you, do you have to buy the right to be a citizen in a country, or to become a wife, husband, father or mother? Do you have to buy these things? Since when? Why do you have to be a wallet to love someone? Is money everything in this world, the only condition for love and the family? How disgusting do you have to be to think this? Isn’t the government supposed to support love and the family? Why is nobody challenging these laws? This law is the mark of a government that only cares about money and keeping its money to itself, that literally sees citizenship and love as expenditure that is not worth having – unless you keep to your own in this country. Endogamy is the practice of only marrying within your own community, clan or tribe. This is the legislation of endogamy which bears striking similarity to those people that make their children marry their cousins so that they can keep the money in the family – a practice only concerned with resources, ownership and a financial distrust of any outsider who will come in and take a portion of the share for themselves.

The Refugee Boat – Some Thoughts on an Alternative History of Transport

10.03.2022

If you go to a transport museum, the likelihood is that you will see ultra-expensive vehicles which were at the cutting edge of technology. These cars, buses, trains and trams would have had all the modern conveniences and would have been fairly safe, even if safety standards in the past were laxer. In terms of production, an entire army of workers would have been involved in the construction, probably an ‘international’ team (by which I mean white Europeans).

The history you would find in such museums would be progressive, a story of increasing rationality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, capitalism, big business. A story the rich tell themselves to celebrate the world that they have created: the globalised, interlinked world of transport convenience. Where, theoretically, there are no physical barriers to community, commuting, connection.

Standing out in stark contrast to this ‘Whig’ version of history is the humble refugee boat.

The refugee boat is fairly inexpensive. It is the mode of transport of the poor, the desperately oppressed seeking a better life in the only way that they can given their losses in the lottery of life and birth. The refugee boat, while not the worst piece of technology ever invented, is still pretty primitive. The standard image is the unpretentious dinghy, clearly unfit for the purpose of a long journey by the sea in dangerous waters. Travel by sea is itself one of the longest, most inconvenient, inefficient and deadly forms of travel, where you are seemingly at the utmost mercy of nature. There are no modern conveniences. Hardly any water to drink, hardly any room for food. No toilet. There is no safety. There is probably more than a 50:50 chance of death. What about the production? The workers that made these products were probably exploited in sweatshops in economically less dominant countries around the globe.

The history of the refugee boat is the unadulterated, unpolished history of transport in our times. History is not always written by the victors. It is also written by the losers. The refugee boat is the testament to the fact that our modes of travel are not objectively the best. They are merely fit for the types of people and the societies that use them. The transport history in museums is the product of capitalism and the reign of the rich. The transport history of the undocumented migrants is the product of those that power has missed out, those that capitalism has downtrodden.

The unvarnished history of the refugee boat – which the media presents as a horrible throwback to primitive times, a history which is now culminating in government interception of such travellers and their lives being thrown away like trash somewhere else, as someone else’s problem – is the real history of travel beyond propaganda, advertisement, embellishment, cultural narcissism. This is the real story of the world that the ultra-rich have created: a world where you can’t even travel from one country to another to try and better your life. A world in which you are tied to the place you were born and the lack of opportunities there. Why can’t anyone tell this history?

Jesus, The Man of Difference and the Revolution

25.12.2021

Today, the world celebrates the birthday of Jesus Christ. When we look back at thousands of years of Christianity, it is easy to reduce all the complexity of that system of thought and the identity of its founder. One almost automatically thinks of how the religion was tied to war, imperialism, racism and the state in modern times. One thinks of the immorality and authoritarianism of organised religion and the Church. The feminist arguments against patriarchal monotheistic religions come to mind too. In this view, Jesus becomes the origin of oppression and conservatism. Because of such ideas, and the relentless march of a scientific reason which denigrates religion, I don’t think I am exaggerating when I say the hostility to religion in general, and to Christianity and Christ in particular, has almost become insurmountable.

However, let us try to be just to Christ. Historically, Jesus was a revolutionary. In many ways, the early version of Christianity was the religion of resistance. Christ went against the Roman state, the biggest superpower in the Western world at the time. This was his achievement, his badge of valour and the reason he holds the place in the minds of men that he has today. Today, this is how I choose to remember him. In many ways, Jesus is the model for the revolutionary consciousness. Against the state, which held the monopoly of power, wealth and men, which monopolised thought and being, Jesus and his small band offered an alternative world. This was a world in which success did not mean territorial expansion, being rich and subjugating other populations. Christ’s world was not an empire. This was an independent and non-materialistic world, a completely different form of organisation which required a completely different identity and character.

Jesus was a model for the revolutionary because he had nothing to offer against a dominant power than an idea. The idea was of a different form of being, living and thinking. Jesus was a world-builder and a builder of the human mind. Throughout the ages, this is how resistance against the superpowers has played out. There is one man or a small group that has that precious, world breaking and making commodity, difference. Jesus was the origin of difference.

Indeed, what marks Jesus and his origin is difference. He was born out of wedlock, the standard model for conception. He went against not only the Roman state, but also the Jewish religion. He aimed to break free of power wherever he found it.

Today, when the state is ever more ascendant and has thoroughly co-opted Christianity for its iniquitous purposes, when the conservatives and blind conformism have taken over society, when a new form of cultural imperialism is at its height, the birthday of Jesus stands as a model for the revolutionary and for the transforming consciousness. Yes, I am not a Christian. Yes, I do not follow the teachings of the Bible. But I judge Christ not as a god, but as a man. The inspiring, pioneering, matchless Man of Difference. And like others, I wait, ever so patiently, to see another coming of this difference into the world.

The Lesson of Odysseus – The Essential Political Problem

11.02.2018

Today, I want to write a short note about a perennial political problem which I see as troubling every culture in history. Every culture has had to respond to this political problem which is why I see it as the essential one. This problem has catastrophic effects and has enabled every form of injustice, despotism and evil in the world of mankind. The problem is that of the individual that separates himself or herself from the political realm and fails to uphold their obligations to the rest of the human race. This individual retreats into the domestic realm, like a caterpillar in its cocoon, closed off from reality and society.

The issue is addressed in the story of the feigned madness of Odysseus, one of the episodes in the story of the Greek and Trojan war. The context of the madness is important. Helen was the most beautiful woman in the world and there was much rivalry between different suitors as to who would marry her:

The gathered Suitors of Helen represented all of the most powerful kingdoms of Ancient Greece and many were regarded as the best warriors of the day.

Each Suitor brought with them gifts, but Tyndareus quickly realised he was in an impossible position for choosing one suitor over the others would lead to bloodshed between them, and a great deal of animosity between the different Greek states. (http://www.greeklegendsandmyths.com/the-oath-of-tyndareus.h… )

The intense rivalry for Helen’s affections therefore transcended the domestic sphere of marriage and courtship and had entered the field of politics. It could lead to war between competing states.

The story goes on:

Odysseus told Tyndareus that the king should extract from each suitor an oath that they would protect and defend whichever Suitor of Helen was chosen. No hero of note would break such an oath, and even if someone did, then they would have to face the force of the other Suitors who were bound to protect Helen’s husband.

Tyndareus put forth Odysseus’ plan, and each Suitor took the Oath of Tyndareus, with the sacred promise, and the oath was bound when Tyndareus sacrificed a horse (http://www.greeklegendsandmyths.com/the-oath-of-tyndareus.h… ).

Odysseus, as one of the suitors, had promised himself politically to Menelaus. This was an obligation between political parties, not just individuals, as the suitors of Helen had to be suitably powerful. The reason that all had sworn the oath was to preserve peace and the honour and integrity of each of the suitors so that none would feel dishonoured.

The feigned madness of Odysseus is set against the background of this political promise and is presented as Odysseus’s dereliction of duty. As is outlined in Cambridge University’s Classical Tales on the internet:

The famous incident of the feigned madness of Odysseus is not mentioned in Homer’s Odyssey. Its fullest classical treatment is given by the Roman author Hyginus (1st-2nd century AD) in his mythological handbook Fabulae (ch.95):
“Odysseus had received an oracle warning him that if he went to Troy, he would return home after twenty years, alone, destitute and having lost his men. And so when he found out that an embassy was on the way to him, he pretended to be crazy by putting on a felt hat [i.e. looking like a peasant] and yoking a horse and a bull together to a plough…[their different strides would make ploughing almost impossible]. When Palamedes saw him, he sensed that he was faking it, so he took Odysseus’ son Telemachus from the cradle and put him in front of the plough, saying “Put aside your trickery and join the others…”. [Odysseus of course stopped the plough from cutting his son so revealing his sanity]. Odysseus promised he would go to Troy.” (http://classictales.educ.cam.ac.uk/…/ep…/weblinks/index.html )

One can note from this description of the madness how it symbolised a retreat into the domestic realm away from the political realm. Firstly, Odysseus puts on a felt hat to look like a peasant. A peasant seems like the radical alternative to a noble and honourable, prestigious and politically powerfully agent. The peasant is only involved in the agricultural economy, not in questions of politics. A peasant is not a warrior, but a worker. Indeed, the feigned madness of Odysseus emphasised that he was not even a fit peasant and a fit worker since he made ploughing impossible in coupling the two different animals to a plough.

While the details may differ, the story of Odysseus’s feigned madness shows the common strategy that all people have used since time immemorial to duck their obligations to society and others. They see themselves as “common people” that are unconcerned with politics even though we all have rights and responsibilities towards humanity and the planet. Odysseus’s actions are an attempt to slide out of the duty to maintain peace and to uphold the honour and integrity of each individual, as well as the sacred institution of marriage. Such people as Odysseus say that they are entitled to a “normal” existence and no obligations to others. They think and believe that the domestic sphere is not political, a realm removed, a realm that can never be infiltrated by politics. They know that fighting is hard and takes time and effort and they wish to have no part of it. They think that others can fight all the battles and wars of this existence. They don’t want to put their lives on the line for others or to contribute to the ideals of honour and justice which are the highest values of any society. These entitled individuals, like our contemporary Englishmen, who feed like voracious animals off the resources of the whole planet and the naked poor, while paying a small and contemptuous pittance for the pleasure of it, believe that they are immune from the claims and entitlements of society and others. They do not believe in self-denial and sacrifice, hardship and suffering. They believe that they are exempt from suffering and the chain of being.

In the story quoted above, Odysseus is brought to his senses by one thing and one thing only. He is confronted with the destruction of his son and his lineage who is put in front of the plough. And this is the response that every culture has given to the selfish individual who won’t upload the sacred ideals and values of his society, the selfish cocooned individual that won’t suffer to maintain honour and the peace. They are told what the future will be if they do not contribute: the extinction of their line and their way of life, the death of the future. For the political sphere insists that the domestic sphere is inseparable from it: this is why Odysseus is confronted by a political actor with the death and destruction of his baby. Odysseus’s duty as a parent is inseparable from his duty as a political actor.

In the Ancient Greek story, which is, after all, a work of the imagination, Odysseus heeds the response of his society and, indeed, his betters. However, the contemporary man or woman neither cares for the future nor for his line. This individual still believes in the separation of the domestic and the political sphere. This individual does not believe that politics is everywhere. One sees such individuals on social media. They proclaim that they are tired of politics and want to retreat into the fields of art and literature, film and music. They find politics boring without stopping to think that the world trade which supports their leech-like existence is premised on the domination of the strong over the weak, those that have over those that don’t. Such noxious individuals don’t care about global problems like climate change and pollution which are the direct result of their excessive consumption and their evil practices in relation to the earth’s resources or the effect that they will have on their children. Such individuals do not feign the madness of Odysseus: they are truly mad. How does one put the child in front of the plough for these people? This is the perennial and the essential political problem.

Abstract Love vs. Situated and Local Love

25.09.2018

The choice between abstract love and situated and local love is evident in a quote by E. M. Forster –

“I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

Let us characterise abstract love. Abstract love is love of the country in the above quote or the supporting of “causes”, which are “public”, or, rather, “publicly accepted”. A “cause” can be defined as either a “charitable undertaking” or “a principle or movement militantly defended or supported” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online). Abstract love supports “principles” rather than human beings (the opposition is between friends and the abstract entities of country and cause). The country is an imaginary entity which is also largely publicly supported in the idea of abstract love. A country is largely an idea. It only has status as a piece of fiction. There is no such thing as a country. There is just a varied collection of people in a geographical space, who all live varied kinds of lives, not some kind of unchanging, abstract entity. Abstract love says that you should love all these people that you don’t know for whatever reason because of the abstract idea of a country and for abstract principles. Think about that in detail. There are no intimate human relationships required, no close contact with the recipients. In abstract love, the love that is most supported is the love of the stranger, of the anonymous. In abstract love, there is a morality which is that you should love a fictional idea more than you love those close to you: politicians tell you to love the country. This is felt like a compulsion by Forster who has to resist it strongly. What is the object of love in abstract love, the idea of the politicians? The country is seen as something larger than a single human being, as more universal. There is an idea of the larger versus the smaller, or the general versus the particular. The country is public, the individual is private. The country is emblematic of “good” group membership, community, etc. Love of the country is therefore contrasted to the love of the individual human being who just stands for personal love.

Let us now characterise situated and local love. In this form of love, you support individuals who you love. You know them. The reason that you love them is that you know them. You don’t love strangers and help them: it is those close to you that you love. This love is entirely intimate. It is situated because you just happened to be somehow connected to the person by complete chance. It is not about principles, it is about your own situated love. Biographical details are more important in this form of love than principles and sharing publicly accepted group affiliations. This love relies on an idea of the domestic sphere rather than the private sphere: you love those close to you, not those that political figures tell you to, as in the case of the country. It is about what you yourself choose to support as an individual. In situated and local love, you are not a removed and detached “objective” thinker with ideals of “universality” (abstract love pretends it is this – it is not, as you will know if you meet any nationalists). You are subjective. You favour the particular over the general, the smaller over the larger – the individual over the nation state. That is, you choose your own private group of membership (in friends) over what is publicly accepted as the main form of membership (nationality).

I have already said which love I choose. Why did I choose the smaller over the larger, the particularistic over the general? Because who else is going to help the poor members of my family in India? I have noted that they are systematically oppressed. Yet, for all the talk about altruism and abstract love, they have no support.

You might say that the abstract thinkers are in the minority and that is the problem with the world. After all, there is no one helping the people that are starving. But there is a morality to local and situated love. This is that you should tend to your own garden first before you start addressing other issues. First of all, my mother helps her family. Then, if she can, she helps people from our socially disadvantaged community on the basis of group identity. My mother is particularistic, not abstract and general. It is the same with the rest of our family. According to lovers of abstraction, this is seen as self-serving, selfish, etc. It is seen as a bad form of group identity and belonging (i.e. tribalism). It is seen as the inferior form of loving since it is situated. But the strength of situated and local love is that it is from insiders and local: who else is going to help anyone in that community that is outside that community? How many thousands of years of oppression have my people faced? No one helped us except our own. That is reality: people are selfish.