By Dr Alexandria Innes
Even before the most recent Mediterranean migrant boat tragedies, the immigration debate has been on voters' minds, ranking third (after the NHS and the UK economy) in a list of the most important election issues according to a recent BBC poll.
But most of us only think of immigration in a one-sided way: the 'us', an uncomplicated homogenous 'British' population; and the 'them', the immigrants and potential immigrants that are coming to 'steal our benefits' / 'use our NHS' / 'take our jobs' / 'contribute diversity and multiculturalism' (delete as appropriate).
In reality, Britain is the biggest exporter of people in the European Union, according to The Guardian. Even the cost of immigrants to the NHS is vastly lower than the costs UK citizens levy on European national healthcare systems – so who are the 'health tourists' now?
Ah, but what about those eastern Europeans, coming here to take our jobs and scrounge off our generous benefits? That assumption ignore the fact that Britain isn't even in the top ten of destination countries for Romanian migrants, according to the Telegraph.
But let's come back to that question of access to benefits for migrants – or, to be precise, migrants who want to come to Britain because they had the audacity to fall in love with someone who holds a British passport.
In short, if you want to immigrate a spouse to the UK you have to earn at least £18,600. This increases if you have children. The law is meant to ensure that foreign spouses will not come to rely on benefits.
The stated rationale was that this will stop transnational arranged marriages. It does this by simply preventing poor people from moving to the UK to live as a family, regardless of how long they've been married and, irrationally, making it even more difficult if they have children.
The spousal visa minimum income requirement puts a price tag on the value of living as a family. It separates families, including children from their parents. It establishes that the feelings of people who earn less are not worth respecting – if you don't earn enough money you don't deserve to be with the person you love or even your children. You might harm national interests!
Furthermore, setting the level at £18,600 potentially affects almost half of the British population. According to the All Parliamentary Group on migration, in 2013 47% of the population would not qualify to immigrate a foreign spouse.
But perhaps more important than surface-level objections, the law has implications of gender-based discrimination. Women are overrepresented in low-paying jobs and earn on average 19.1% less than their male counterparts in the same job, meaning they are unfairly disadvantaged if they have a foreign spouse.
Ethnic minorities are twice as likely to live in a low-income household than white families. A low-income family is measured at earning less than 60% of the median income. This is currently about £10,600 – a little more than half the spousal visa income requirement.
Finally, the spousal visa income requirement forces the choice for a family: the partner who is the British citizen must be the breadwinner, at least for a period of time. It precludes the UK citizen parent making the choice to stay at home and take care of children should he or she want to do that.
It is worth asking whether the spousal visa income requirement has successfully fulfilled its objective of limiting transnational arranged marriages. It has certainly limited access to spousal visas. However, there is no evidence that says that access has targeted the intended population (while there are critical analyses that illustrate why targeting the intended population is problematic). There is no evidence to show that the income requirement works more effectively than the requirement of a minimum age.
Even without the spousal visa requirement, the cost of gaining permanent residence in the UK is currently £1,168.20, with a second £1,168.20 due after 30 months in the country. If one then wants to become a British citizen the fee is an additional £1,579.18 – making a total of £3,915.28. This isn't cheap. It's already enacting a discriminatory wealth-based measure. Moreover, no one gets a visa without paying for it, although people form the wealthiest counties in the world who are most likely to afford the cost do get a visa-waiver.
In the Britain of 2015, all you need is love. Well, that and deep pockets.
Dr Alexandria Innes is a lecturer in International Relations at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.