Why choose the path of least resistance

I fear I may have fallen out with a good friend of mine - he's not spoken to me for days on Facebook after we have fundamentally disagreed on an issue. Let me tell you what it is and maybe my response is just too Singaporean for this free-spirited liberal British friend of mine. Let's call him Carl (not his real name)

Carl has recently got engaged to his Peruvian girlfriend and they intend to get married soon. Part of that plan involves them moving to Peru for at least a year, so that Carl can meet his fiancee's parents and totally immerse himself in her culture. He has been learning Spanish and is relishing the idea of a Peruvian adventure with the woman he loves. This is when things get tricky. Carl cannot automatically bring his (future) wife back to the UK unless he can prove that he can support her - this is a rule set by the British government to ensure that foreign spouses do not become a burden on the state should they be unable to find gainful employment to support themselves.

Why is it easier to take the path of least resistance? 

What Carl has to do is to prove that he can earn £18,600 a year - which is deemed to be sufficient to support his wife should she (in a worst case scenario) be unable to find a job and becomes wholly dependent on Carl financially. Things would be different if his wife was already working here (say if she had a work permit) then she can circumvent it by proving to the Home Office that she is already in gainful employment in the UK (and thus more than able to support herself). Alternatively, if Carl can prove that he has £62,500 in assets (which he doesn't - he just isn't that rich), then he would be deemed rich enough to support his wife.

Carl is furious at the thought of not being able to return from Peru with his wife at the end of his stint in Peru - he is so angry. He is posting things on Facebook like, "this is a violation of my human rights! Why is the government trying to tear families apart when they're not guilty of any crime?" It seems the only solution for Carl is to return to England before his wife, get a job here that meets that £18,600 a year requirement for at least 6 months and then apply for the visa to get his wife into the UK. It does mean a 6 months (possibly more) separation for them.

I am in two minds about Carl's situation.

I can understand his frustration as he has made all these plans with his fiancee to go to Peru - only to find out that they may be separated for at least 6 months as a result of this requirement. Now Carl didn't like my reaction: I said that he had to change his plans - maybe he couldn't go to Peru with his future wife or he would just have to put up with this 6 (or more) months apart whilst he worked full time to prove that he can earn the equivalent £18,600 a year - but either way, all my suggestions stemmed from suggestions of what he could do within the existing rules. He didn't like that.

He asked me, "do you agree with the government's rules?" I said I didn't. He then asked me what I thought the rules ought to be instead. I said that I thought of a good compromise: it is unfair to expect the British spouse to support the foreign spouse when both partners could work and prove that they cab be financially independent as a couple. So issue the foreign spouse with a 1 year special visa and from the time the foreign spouse arrives in the UK, they have 1 year to prove that they can - as a couple - earn £18,600. This lessens the burden of the British spouse to reach that £18,600 on his/her own, so if s/he earns just £14,000 - the spouse only needs to work part time to make up that shortfall. As long as they can prove that they can reach £18,600 as a couple within that first year, then the non-British spouse should have his/her spousal visa extended for another year and as long as they keep fulfilling that minimum, with a view to the foreign spouse eventually naturalizing as a British citizen after 4 years."

I do not actually agree with the UK government on this issue.

Carl said, "But why must the state be so controlling, telling people how much they must earn as a couple? There are British couples out there who get by on a lot less than £18,600 a year but the government doesn't tell them, hey, you have to earn more or you have to leave the country. That's double standards, that's not fair." I just shrugged my shoulders. I guess that was not an issue that bothered me as it was a rule that didn't really affect me adversely. I didn't have a strong opinion on the issue but clearly, Carl did.

Carl talked about joining campaigners who are taking on the government to change this law, organizing protests, he talked about going to the European Court of Human Rights - some of his suggestions were just downright ridiculous. I was trying not to just be cynical and say, "oh come on, stop dreaming, get real." I knew how much this meant to him, but I tried to explain to him that sometimes in life, we don't get what we want. It's just easier to follow the rules than to try to fight the system - pick your battles and know when to walk away.

Carl wants to fight the system and change the rules.

Why is Carl so upset about all this? Given that the starting pay for a teacher in inner London is £27,270 a year, £18,600 is not an unreasonable figure. This means that this rule doesn't affect most people if they are in full time employment. You'll have to be working either part time or on minimum wage to fall short of £18,600. Carl is one of those people - he doesn't claim a penny in benefits from the state but leads of Bohemian lifestyle as an actor/artiste: he performs when he can but otherwise he is not interested in the thought of working full time in an office in order to earn more than £18,600 a year. He doesn't earn much and he doesn't care about money - that's his life and his choice not to pursue the rat race but the life of an artistic hippie. He's my friend, he's a very nice person and really, I don't care how much he earns but suddenly, we seem to be crossing swords on the issue.

My take on the issue is this: he needs to put his fiancee first. It is what she wants. If she wants to come and live in England as his wife, then as her husband, he needs to do whatever he needs to within the rules to give her what she wants - that's marriage for you. You have to think about the needs of your spouse, not just about yourself - I told him it is not about what kind of work he wants to do or what kind of lifestyle he wants, but he has to get used to the idea of thinking as a couple, rather than as an individual. Such is marriage!

I accused Carl of not thinking enough about his future wife in this situation.

That didn't go down well - he thinks I am accusing him of not caring enough about his fiancee (and I suspect there's an element of that in his behaviour). I was pretty blunt: she's a woman, she wants to get married and have kids - her body clock is ticking. Do you expect her to put her plans on hold whilst you take on the government to change these laws? Is she willing to join you in this fight or does she just want to get on with her life?

Anyway, that's when I thought, am I being very Singaporean in being so law-abiding, in my reluctance to challenge the rules? Am I too meek in trying to find a solution for Carl from within the system - or am I just being pragmatic in my advice to him? Laws do change and evolve with time and if people do not stand up and challenge their governments, then how will society ever improve? If people like Rosa Parks never stood her ground and challenged unreasonable laws, what kind of society would we have today? Am I being practical or am I being a coward? Is Carl being idealistic or simply unrealistic? Leave a comment please, let me know what you think. Thanks for reading.