youreavinalaff

That doesn't make your comment with regards to UK correct.

No. No. No.

I have. Doesn't make your comment any more correct.

Who said anything about hereditary? Second in line is just that. It's either "nearly there" or it isn't.

I have answered.

As I said, I'm not being pedantic. Andrew never has been "nearly king".

So, every Speaker of the Senate has nearly been President. No. They haven't.

That doesn't make hom "nearly king"

Employment based or what she has contributed for, yes.

Not pedantic. Realistic. Relying on the death of your mother and older brother to achieve something is far far from nearly achieving it.

To break a contract one must go against that contract. By law, Thai contracts have a notice period, for both parties. If that notice period is adhered to, the contract had been followed, not broken. Judging by your last paragraph, you don't seem to care either.

So, 40% of Muslims claiming state support is hardly a drain on the economy. Especially as much of it is employment based.

Immigrants working lower paid jobs do not get paid less. They are subject to national living wage. Also they have to earn enough to satisfy visa requirements.

Giving notice is not breaking a contract. As for how many serious matters, the OP did not say.

Employment based benefits. Proton is suggesting they are not contributing to the economy. Receiving employment based state support suggests they have been and likely still are. What percentage of all UK citizens would 40% of Mudlims be? My guess would be around 10%.

5555. That's funny. You've added figures together for effect. Those figures also include state pension. That is employment based. Meaning they have been working and paying dues, if on full pension, for 37 years.

Net migration is well under 1 million. Why use figures you can support? Anyhow, if there were not any immigrants working in UK, a very large percentage of care homes would be grossly understaffed or closed down due to lack of staff. Many people in need of domiciliary care would not get it.

The claim was "most immigrants" are on benefits. Also, the Government statistics show "state support" in their figures showing ethnic claimants. That includes government pension, which is not really a benefit as its been paid for. I would imagine the figures would be quite different if pensions were not included. Give it 10 or so years it will change a lot too as second generation UK citizens become pensionable age.

He completed "most" and ended "some". Not sure where you get "several" from. He also adhered to the contract by giving correct notice for serious matters. He seems to be taking contracts seriously.

The conversation is immigrants. Not race. Immigrants benefits claims are not based on race. Neither are UK citizens. Your comments suggest there are not any white immigrant in UK.

White people? Don't you mean UK citizens?

A million every month? I think you'll find net immigration is not even that a year. Immigrants on visas can only claim employment based benefits. Only then, those on a working visa must leave if they are not working for longer than 60 days. Those on family visas cannot claim if not working. If they are not working, spouse must adhere to the financial requirements, soon to drastically increase, alone. Muslims? I wasn't aware benefits were religion specific

Really? What would that achieve, as a married couple?

The immigrants that are here working, paying tax, NI and contributing to the economy? The same immigrants that are employed in and actually keeping the healthcare industry going?

Hardly "nearly king".