My first conference speech
Sep. 19th, 2018 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguist>Conference, I am an immigrant and I am here to propose amendment three.
I'm very lucky to be here at all. I immigrated to the UK in 2006. My husband is disabled, but when we got married he was earning just enough for me to get a visa. His health has since declined. In only a quarter or a third of the dozen years we've been married would we have been able to meet the requirements for me to live in his country. By chance we got married in one of those charmed years; it's the only reason I'm a Lib Dem, standing with you today.
You see, while this motion claims that it would remove the spousal income limit, that's not the case in practice. Under the rules it restores, a British spouse had to prove they are earning enough to support their immigrant spouse without public funds. When we got married, my husband was told that unless he was earning £15,000 my visa would probably be turned down, because otherwise I'd need public funds.
Any income limit -- even a soft one like this -- denies love and family todisabled people. It discriminates against people who would never be able to earn enough money to support a spouse.
The writers of this policy assure me that their ban on recourse to public funds would only apply to the immigrant spouse, and not both as has so far been the case. Firstly, conference, that's simply not how benefits work -- they're assessed on the household's income, not an individual's. And secondly, that means that if the British spouse loses their job and the immigrant spouse isn't earning, that two people have to survive on one person's benefits, when these are tailored to be barely enough for a single person to survive on. Of course the situation is even more dire if such couples have children.
Anyone who has had to deal with the DWP or the Home Office, as I have, knows that the people in most need are often the ones least able to fight their corner, the ones with the fewest tools to navigate bureaucracy. Means-testing exceptional cases is not enough. The DWP are the only people to ever tell me I have no difficulty seeing. Others would be harmed by any such means test. We should not put those barriers in any family's path.
Conference, Amendment Three does not propose to give immigrants special benefits, but only to prevent splitting up families. As Liberal Democrats we're committed to a world where no one is enslaved by poverty, and poverty should never separate spouses from each other, or parents from their children.
Amendment Three does not propose a new or radical idea. Twenty years ago, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary of a Tory government, there were no restrictions on the public funds an immigrant spouse could access. Conference, I trust that the Liberal Democrats can be at least as liberal as Michael Howard.
The policy paper this motion endorses acknowledges that the system it's proposing to reintroduce, one developed by Home Secretaries the likes of Jack Straw and David Blunkett, was "already damaging to family life for some people" -- that's a direct quote from the paper. Conference, I'm concerned that without this amendment we will endorse a system that we know is damaging family life.
Amendment Three does not propose anything controversial. Every British friend, family or acquaintance I've spoken to about this has been surprised or dismayed to find out this I didn't immediately get the same rights to public funds as my British spouse. Conference, our policy should be at least as liberal than the one people already believe to be in place.
If I met my husband today, our marriage would be a hollow gesture because being disabled means we wouldn't be able to live together.
I was on the exec of LGBT+ Lib Dems when we campaigned for, and won, same-sex marriage -- a victory we Lib Dems are rightly proud of. But marriage is still unequal, especially for disabled people and Brits who fall in love with non-British people.
Please vote for more equal marriage. Vote for amendment three.
I'm very lucky to be here at all. I immigrated to the UK in 2006. My husband is disabled, but when we got married he was earning just enough for me to get a visa. His health has since declined. In only a quarter or a third of the dozen years we've been married would we have been able to meet the requirements for me to live in his country. By chance we got married in one of those charmed years; it's the only reason I'm a Lib Dem, standing with you today.
You see, while this motion claims that it would remove the spousal income limit, that's not the case in practice. Under the rules it restores, a British spouse had to prove they are earning enough to support their immigrant spouse without public funds. When we got married, my husband was told that unless he was earning £15,000 my visa would probably be turned down, because otherwise I'd need public funds.
Any income limit -- even a soft one like this -- denies love and family todisabled people. It discriminates against people who would never be able to earn enough money to support a spouse.
The writers of this policy assure me that their ban on recourse to public funds would only apply to the immigrant spouse, and not both as has so far been the case. Firstly, conference, that's simply not how benefits work -- they're assessed on the household's income, not an individual's. And secondly, that means that if the British spouse loses their job and the immigrant spouse isn't earning, that two people have to survive on one person's benefits, when these are tailored to be barely enough for a single person to survive on. Of course the situation is even more dire if such couples have children.
Anyone who has had to deal with the DWP or the Home Office, as I have, knows that the people in most need are often the ones least able to fight their corner, the ones with the fewest tools to navigate bureaucracy. Means-testing exceptional cases is not enough. The DWP are the only people to ever tell me I have no difficulty seeing. Others would be harmed by any such means test. We should not put those barriers in any family's path.
Conference, Amendment Three does not propose to give immigrants special benefits, but only to prevent splitting up families. As Liberal Democrats we're committed to a world where no one is enslaved by poverty, and poverty should never separate spouses from each other, or parents from their children.
Amendment Three does not propose a new or radical idea. Twenty years ago, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary of a Tory government, there were no restrictions on the public funds an immigrant spouse could access. Conference, I trust that the Liberal Democrats can be at least as liberal as Michael Howard.
The policy paper this motion endorses acknowledges that the system it's proposing to reintroduce, one developed by Home Secretaries the likes of Jack Straw and David Blunkett, was "already damaging to family life for some people" -- that's a direct quote from the paper. Conference, I'm concerned that without this amendment we will endorse a system that we know is damaging family life.
Amendment Three does not propose anything controversial. Every British friend, family or acquaintance I've spoken to about this has been surprised or dismayed to find out this I didn't immediately get the same rights to public funds as my British spouse. Conference, our policy should be at least as liberal than the one people already believe to be in place.
If I met my husband today, our marriage would be a hollow gesture because being disabled means we wouldn't be able to live together.
I was on the exec of LGBT+ Lib Dems when we campaigned for, and won, same-sex marriage -- a victory we Lib Dems are rightly proud of. But marriage is still unequal, especially for disabled people and Brits who fall in love with non-British people.
Please vote for more equal marriage. Vote for amendment three.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-25 09:55 pm (UTC)Let me know if you want me to show/tell you how to feed this transcript into YouTube and have it auto time it as captions on this video for you!
Well done. I liked your line about Michael Howard, good dig, shows where the Overton Window has become since Labour in the early 00s in many ways!
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-25 10:12 pm (UTC)That woud be awesome, yes. This is the first time I've ever put anything on YouTube and I have no idea what I'm doing really. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-26 12:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-26 04:25 pm (UTC)