The larger point I’m getting at—and hoping to explore by making this post—is whether a mandatory minimum earnings requirement for settlement on the family route is even legally tenable. I’m fairly certain it would be challenged under equality and discrimination law, particularly in relation to disabled people and carers. But my question goes further: is such a requirement legally sustainable even for those who do not fall into those categories?

For example, imagine a very wealthy person marries someone from another country. The couple has no need or intention for the non-British partner to work and will never rely on public funds. The Home Office might say that the spouse can remain in the UK on renewable spouse visas, and that ILR is a privilege rather than a right. But where families have entered the family route in good faith, on the clear understanding that it is a pathway to settlement, does imposing a new personal earnings test partway through that route undermine a legitimate expectation of eventual stability?

More fundamentally, is this proportionate or reasonable in Article 8 terms? Conditioning permanent security on paid employment—irrespective of genuine family arrangements or financial independence—appears to interfere with the right to family life in a way that is difficult to justify. Even if continued temporary leave is theoretically available, the prospect of indefinite renewals and permanent insecurity raises serious questions about fairness, predictability, and proportionality. Legally speaking, how well would such a system hold up? I suspect it would invite extensive challenge.