More British Muddle (Please see this blog of 13 August 2016)

The Supreme Court today ruled the financial requirement (£18,600 income) for people wanting to live in the UK through marriage is not unlawful. But they watered it down by saying that children's welfare should be taken into account. The requirement has its roots in the European Court of Human Rights' finding in favour of three women whose husbands weren't allowed to live in the UK. The Government's response was to make it harder for foreign wives to live here. ("The Times", 29 May 1985, page 1.) Yes, that's right! Foreign wives now separated from their husbands owe their predicament to those people who successfully campaigned against Mrs. Thatcher's election manifesto promise to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. Another result of Mrs. T.'s Government not keeping its promise is that at least 300,000 men are now living in these islands. I believe the Courts could have been employed to ensure the democratic promise was kept. After all, British women can live in their husband's country. But the Law Society refused me legal aid (I qualified on financial grounds). Immigration laws keep changing, and judges meddle endlessly. However, there is a serious imbalance: they only weigh-in on one side in immigration cases, never on the side of Britons who want to prevent further immigration.