If you are a British citizen, and you want to get a spouse visa for your spouse to move to the UK with you, expect to pay over 3000 GBP (over 4000 USD).
Australia is even worse – the standard fee is AUD 7850 (over 5600 USD).
Sure, you can marry anybody you want, but you may not be able to afford the necessary visa so that they can live with you.
The worst thing about the UK – pre-Brexit, any EEA (EU+Norway+Iceland+Liechtenstein) or Swiss national could work in the UK, and get working rights for their spouse too, by applying for a free EEA Family Permit. So citizens of 30 countries could bring their spouses to the UK for free, but UK citizens had to pay over 3000 pounds. There was a workaround, the so-called Surinder Singh route, named after the court decision which established it – a UK citizen could move to an EEA state and accept a job there, and after working there for three months, move back to the UK, and then they were eligible for an EEA Family Permit for their spouse. But it seems heartless to make your own citizens to jump through such loopholes just to have a common life with their spouse, when you'd let citizens of 30 other countries do it for free.
To be fair, the Australian/UK case is mostly just driven by greed. The Singaporean rules were created to prevent maids "breaking up families" by getting into romantic relationships with male citizens.
In the UK case, is it just greed, or is there more to it than that?
In 2011, David Cameron gave a "hard line speech on immigration" [0]; to quote an article from the time describing it:
> The Government is planning to increase significantly the minimum amount that UK nationals must earn before being allowed to bring a dependent foreign spouse to live in Britain.
> In a hard line speech on immigration today David Cameron will also announce plans to lengthen the time that couples have to be together before they can settle in this country.
> The Prime Minister hopes the measures will reduce the 50,000 visas granted to family members of British citizens every year.
Sounds like there is more to their motivations than simply extracting money from prospective immigrants.
Well clearly they're trying to stop immigrant citizens parachuting in less-educated adults from poorer countries through spousal visas, and then have them live on government welfare.
Being able to financially support dependent foreign spouses seems like a very reasonable requirement.
EDIT: The spousal visa requires the sponsor to have an income of £18,600 (about 25,000 US dollars). That's not at all a high income.
That's not how the system really works though. They claim they are trying to stop "less-educated adults" who are going to "live on government welfare" – then they make it hard for an Oxbridge-educated doctor who works for the NHS to get a spouse visa for his university-educated wife – https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/home-office-windrush-sc...
> For instance, when my wife was rejected an extension for her spouse visa in 2017 despite us meeting all the requirements, the rejection letter stated that we should leave the UK and continue our marriage in India.
> This decision was passed despite the fact that I was born and brought up in this country and have had a British citizenship throughout. I had worked over 10 years in the NHS. However, in the eyes of a Home Office driven by a Tory-generated hostile environment, none of this was of consequence due to the ethnicity of my wife and I.
> The Home Office was happy to banish another doctor from the short-staffed NHS, and indeed the refusal letter stated that I should leave this country with my wife. My wife, meanwhile, is highly educated, with four degrees and a history of working as a language consultant at SOAS University.
Hah, curious, my first thought was, how is a law going to stop 2 people attracted to each other. But on second thoughts, if the maid knows there's no way she can get married/a passport by boinking the husband, she will find him less attractive.
And before the woke brigade shows up, yes in my -- hopefully not antiquated -- mind, status has a lot of influence in attraction, guys (well women too) want attractive mates to feel good about themselves and women find richer men attractive.
Scottish university fees are a similar system. If you are scottish, fees are government paid. The EU forbids treating direct citizens favourably vs other EU citizens, therefore they were required to offer the same to citizens of other EU countries.
Since the EU member was the UK, not Scotland, how they treated _other_ UK citizens was considered an internal matter. So if you were English, Welsh, Northern Irish or non-EU you had to pay, if you were Scottish or other EU nationalities you were paid for.
Don't forget the "financial requirement". You need to prove you earn more than £18,600 (more for each child). That's significantly harder to prove if, for some strange reason, you are not a fulltime employee of BigCorp.
It’s also illegal to be homosexual in Singapore, let alone “spreading gay propaganda”. Government has very tight grip of journalism, so the journalists that Singapore are usually the ones who are bound to be oppressed by the government if they do otherwise.
I think this is slightly incorrect: The Israel state does not regulate marriages, it leaves them to religious courts, which in turn make them impossible.
The end result is similar, but the state _will_ recognize a marriage performed abroad (i.e. go to Cyprus, get married, come back), same as same-sex unions.
(I am somewhat confused as to why a christian catholic court won't celebrate an interfaith marriage in Israel, since they are allowed by the church, and there are even specific protocols for jewish/catholic and muslim/catholic marriages, AFAIK)
> I think this is slightly incorrect: The Israel state does not regulate marriages, it leaves them to religious courts, which in turn make them impossible.
Israel still regulates marriages, because it picks and chooses which religious authorities to recognise for the purpose of marriage, and it does so based on non-objective and non-neutral criteria. It refuses to recognise marriages performed in Israel by non-Orthodox Rabbis, and it doesn't have any neutral/objective reason for doing so, which makes it a form of religious discrimination.
There are other countries who have government recognition of religious marriages on a non-discriminatory basis. For example, in my own country of Australia, the federal government has a list of recognised religious denominations, whose clergy are automatically recognised as legal marriage celebrants – https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01607 – there are published objective criteria to be added to the list – https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Informatio... – and they are all about making sure the religion is real and serious (that it has identifiable leadership and clergy and a significant number of members, that it isn't just some guy in his garage claiming to start his own religion, that it wasn't started yesterday, etc) – it is not about letting the government play favourites with religions or denominations. And I'm not aware of any evidence the government is non-objective or non-neutral in maintaining the list – controversial groups such as Scientology have managed to get themselves added to it. By contrast, if a community of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel want their Rabbi to be able to perform legally recognised marriages, the Israeli government is just going to point blank refuse the request.
>And I'm not aware of any evidence the government is non-objective or non-neutral in maintaining the list –
Well, apart from all the religions that have lay priests, such as the Methodists (who predate Australia as a country), Budishm (same), various indigious religions and so on.
You can get around that by not treating one religion special and just let everybody register with the state as they want to. Then it is up to the couple what, if any, religious rites they want (or they can have only the religious rights, and not register with the state).
> Well, apart from all the religions that have lay priests, such as the Methodists (who predate Australia as a country), Budishm (same), various indigious religions and so on.
The list of recognised denominations I shared – https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01607 – includes four Methodist denominations (Chinese Methodist Church, Methodist Church of Samoa, Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Connexion, Wesleyan Methodist Church; and also the Uniting Church, which is the successor to Australia's historically largest Methodist church), two Buddhist associations (Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, and International Buddhist Association of Australia), and a group based on indigenous spiritualities (Spirit of the Earth Medicine Society). Given that, I don't think your point is correct.
> You can get around that by not treating one religion special and just let everybody register with the state as they want to. Then it is up to the couple what, if any, religious rites they want (or they can have only the religious rights, and not register with the state).
Australia has civil marriage too – if couples do not want a religious ceremony, they can be married either by a government official or a professional civil celebrant. But, if they do want a religious ceremony, if they have a government-recognised religious ceremony, there is no separate civil marriage ceremony – the government recognises the religious ceremony as its own.
The GP is either misinformed or ... (lets hope it's the former).
> (I am somewhat confused as to why a christian catholic court won't celebrate an interfaith marriage in Israel, since they are allowed by the church, and there are even specific protocols for jewish/catholic and muslim/catholic marriages, AFAIK)
The problem is that usually the audience for the mixed marriages are non-halachic Jews, not Christians or Muslims, nor they see themselves as half-Christians.
Another reason is that the Christian churches don't want to intervene into affair of the Jews, even non-halachic ones.
The situation in Israel is nothing comparing to what happens in Lebanon [1].
People there converting for various reasons: from divorce, inheritance to emigration to the Gulf countries!
In a phone interview with Archbishop George Saliba from the Syriac Orthdox Church, he said that they stopped converting other Christian sects into their own sect about 3 years ago, stating that “each person should solve his own problems in his own church”.
The laws of many former British colonies are, unsurprisingly, copypasta of British law from the ~19-20th centuries. The homosexuality law is a case in point. The UK itself has moved on in some areas.
>Singapore law inherited from the British Empire prohibited sodomy regardless of sex. As such, heterosexual and homosexual anal or oral sex was illegal. In 2007, such sexual activity was legalised for heterosexuals and lesbians, but not for gay men.
Indeed the law was reviewed in 2019 and the government didn't see anything wrong with gay sex between men being illegal.
Astonishing. Not only the modern conservatism in this regard, but also that lesbianism was legal in the UK even in early C20, so the SG position was even more strict. A morbid but interesting area of study perhaps is the long tail of repressive laws left by the Empire around the world still in force today, particularly in African countries.
One wonders why a country (SG) which professes extreme economic liberalism (well, until it doesn’t…) cares so much about social illiberaism like this. It’s not like the PAP needs to appeal to tubthumping angry populism for votes, is it? (Genuinely asking. I assume that people vote for them on the basis of administrative competence. Wrong?)
Perhaps it’s more a case of “rocking the boat on this topic can only harm us, and gain us nothing”.
Couples in Israel can marry abroad (often in Cyprus) and Israel recognises their marriage for the purpose of immigration, inheritance etc (nearly every purpose).
That'd basically what Stalin did in 1946, prohibiting Soviet citizens marrying foreigners.
Bow we can see this matrimonial novation alive and feeling well in Singapore. I wonder what happens if you go to Thailand and marry there.
I'm also not sure how it is going to work since citizen/PRs seem to be able to bring spouses in. Is it "unless they are already in Singapore and of low caste"?
Gosh that is bs. A friend of mine, a resident, married an ep holder 2 weeks ago. Singapore has not been very foreigner friendly lately, but this marriage thing is just not true.
Nearly every jurisdiction on earth has rules about who can marry whom. Especially when it comes to immigration. My best friend's fiance had to return to her home country from their shared second for 8 months while she applied for another visa to allow them to legally change her status when she married.
I feel like it's really strange that HN commenters hate on Singapore for having standards for immigrants. To the point of lying and saying that Work Permit holders aren't allowed to marry citizens in order to drum up outrage, and only backtracking when called out on it.
>Not marry a Singapore citizen or permanent resident in or outside Singapore without MOM's approval. This applies even after their Work Permits have expired, been cancelled or revoked.
>Not get pregnant or deliver a child in Singapore during the validity of their Work Permit unless they are already married to a Singapore citizen or permanent resident with MOM's approval. This applies even after their Work Permits have expired, been cancelled or revoked.
>As an employer, you must send your female Work Permit holders for medical screening every 6 months. This medical examination screens for pregnancy and infectious diseases such as syphilis, HIV and tuberculosis.
Note how they prohibit marriage outside Singapore even after the permit expires. It's clear what it means. If you've ever had a work permit, you're marked as unfit until proven otherwise.
VS where? I'll praise Singapore. It's clean, safe, has great food, fun clubs, cheap and plentiful taxis, wonderful public transportation, late night food options.
Compare to SF. SF I think there are 5 restaurants in the entire city open past 2am (5 might be wrong but the number is small. SF clubs have a curfew. SF has homeless everywhere. Just got the pleasure of having one squat and defecate in front of me in front of the local market. SF has car breakins and garage breakins all over.
I'm not saying Singapore doesn't have problems but if any other city is worthy of praise so is Singapore. All cities have problems, they're just different problems.
Comparing to SF you have an island 20x30km which you cannot leave (or rather it’s quite difficult to return back) vs the enormous country with plenty of places to travel. Before the pandemics you could at least travel around Asia etc, now you just stuck there. In addition to that, Singapore has quite chaotic “covvid prevention” rules that make life even more depressing.
For the last two years Singapore has had a hard closure of all eating establishments at 1030 - they will literally come and take your drink off of the table. For the last several months any and all background music has been banned in restaurants in case 'music causes people to speak more loudly and encourage the spread of covid "droplets"'.
What you said may have been true in the past, but it hasn't been true for a long time, and at this rate may never be true again.
no there some cities which are absolutely horrible to live in even if you are rich. Its not because you can afford to live in a nice quarter that it makes up for the city at large.
> has great food, fun clubs... late night food options
SG nightclubs have been closed since the beginning of covid (over 1.5 years now) so I'll be surprised if many are left when it finally reopens (a reopening which is nowhere in sight now in spite of Singapore having 85% vaccinated).
When they eased restrictions numbers of new cases climbed. They tightened restrictions again. 3480 new cases today.
We are not even 2 years into the pandemic. Not that many countries are sufficiently vaccinated. There are going to be lots of different strategies and there’s not much to do but wait and see what pans out.
>Compare to SF. SF I think there are 5 restaurants in the entire city open past 2am (5 might be wrong but the number is small. SF clubs have a curfew. SF has homeless everywhere. Just got the pleasure of having one squat and defecate in front of me in front of the local market. SF has car breakins and garage breakins all over.
I can't vouch for the nightclubs and bars bit but there are plenty of cities like Detroit, Gary, Newark and Baltimore (the list goes on) that don't have nearly the frequency of petty property crime and poo in places other than the sewers. Don't get me wrong, these cities have their problems but the baseline level of petty lawlessness and flagrant anti-social behavior is far lower than it is in the west coast cities. You don't have to oppress the heck out of the poors Singapore style to prevent people from crapping on the sidewalks.
I thought we had left this back in the Middle Ages. It always surprises me how come some journalists still praise Singapore.