Family migration: Sons and lovers THE final skirmish in the Conservative-led coalition's assault on immigration has begun at last. Fulfilling a pre-election pledge to reduce the annual net inflow from over 200,000 to the "tens of thousands" has been a challenge, given that almost a third of incomers are entitled to move freely within Europe. But new measures have already made it harder for non-EU citizens to work or study in Britain. Now "family reunification" - the third main route into Britain, accounting for 18% of the non-EU total in 2010 - is under fire. On June 11th Theresa May, the home secretary, set out changes that will take effect, in the main, on July 9th. Most controversially, a settled resident will have to show annual income of £18,600 ($28,900) to bring a spouse into the country, more if there are children. Until now a couple has needed just £5,500 plus housing costs. The aim, says Mrs May, is to ensure that newcomers can participate fully in British life, and that they are not a charge on the taxpayer. Another aim must be to win votes: Britons worry more than most about immigration. The changes will take Britain from ranking near the middle of European and Northern American countries in 2007 on friendliness to family unification to perhaps 27th of 31 countries, says Thomas Huddleston of Migration Policy Group, a think-tank in Brussels. The income requirement alone is off the scale. The independent Migration Advisory Committee came up with the earnings threshold when asked by the government to calculate the minimum needed to avoid recourse to public funds. But £18,600 is half again as much as someone would make working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at the minimum wage. According to the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, 47% of British citizens in employment would not qualify to bring in a family member, nor would 58% of people 20-30 years old, or 61% of women of any age. For Keith Vaz, MP for ethnically mixed Leicester East, the changes are an attack on British Asians, accustomed to marrying in their country of origin. Chris Mead, who set up a blog on family-migration woes after jumping through hoops to get his New Zealand-born wife into Britain, says they threaten "British citizens" right to have a family, or at least qualify it severely." It is precisely that right to a family life, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that Mrs May wants to pin down. People often claim the right to enter or remain in Britain, even when immigration rules say otherwise, on the ground that they have family ties there - prisoners protesting deportation, for example, or undocumented migrants. She thinks British courts are too apt to let them. The right to family life is not absolute (unlike the right not to be tortured) but may yield in the public interest, including safety and economic well-being. The rewritten family-immigration rules will include a definition of the conditions in which Article 8 will be deemed to apply, in an attempt to guide judicial thinking. Will these changes stick? Many think not. "Until primary legislation says otherwise, it is for the courts to decide on the interpretation of Article 8," says Adam Wagner, a barrister at One Crown Office Row chambers. It is likely that Mrs May's measures will be tested in court, with unpredictable outcomes. In October 2011 the Supreme Court struck down a new rule that sponsors and spouses must be 21 years old for the foreigner to be allowed in. But in December 2011 the High Court upheld the requirement that a foreign spouse learn basic English before joining his better half. And in April 2012 the European Court of Human Rights said Britain could deport a prisoner with four drugs convictions, despite his claim to have been in the country from the age of three. You never know.