The MM Case and the Public Interest: How did the Government make its Case?
Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law
© Bloomsbury Professional Limited 2017
The financial requirements imposed in 2012 on the British sponsors of non-EEA spouses and partners have been amongst the most publicly contested of many contested immigration policies. This is in large part due to their impact not only on migrants but on British citizens and residents of modest means who cannot meet the requirements and often see no way of doing so in the foreseeable future. This article draws on research carried out by the author with colleagues at Middlesex University for claimants in the recent legal challenge, determined earlier this year by the Supreme Court, and with the same colleagues and Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and commissioned by the Children’s Commissioner for England (OCC). The article discusses the effects of the financial requirements and aspects of the Supreme Court judgment, and contests the government’s claim that the requirements are necessary to protect the public purse.
This is the author's accepted manuscript
Vol. 31, pp. 227–243