Should the British Government be responsible for housing and feeding ex-pats returning from Thailand?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

 

Hardly derogatory.

Your comments are clearly anti-immigrant.

That's glaringly obvious

Yet another assumption.....My medical Professor Consultant and good friend in the UK is Italian, he was an immigrant.......Folk like you are dangerous, we call them the hang 'em high brigade...

[Thai Ron]

36 minutes ago, transam said:

Yet another assumption.....My medical Professor Consultant and good friend in the UK is Italian, he was an immigrant.......Folk like you are dangerous, we call them the hang 'em high brigade...

 

An assumption?

So you don't slag off immigrants, then?

[transam]

1 minute ago, Thai Ron said:

 

An assumption?

So you don't slag off immigrants, then?

I think you are "baiting" and not very good at it...

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Please cite actual documented cases of these exempt persons , I dont think they exist to be frank and I am a life long , Conservative voting , British tax payer.

Whenever I try to find evidence of such claims I end up discovering the source material is from an extreme right wing , anti immigrant organisation.

I wouldn't personally care to form an opinion based on those sources , especially when the propaganda they promote is at odds with EVERY government information site.

 

Look up the relative UK Gov documentations. Even 7x7, who knows more about the UK immigration laws then anyone on this forum, and who is certainly NOT connected with any extreme right wing View, yesterday confirmed that what I said is correct.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by nontabury

[Dave67]

Yes the average British man pays more tax and NI in 1 year than an average Thai man pays in a lifetime

[maxpower]

20 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

So come on then, Alf Garnett; when were you last in the UK to see all the scrounging immigrants you've been running you gob about throughout this thread and countless others??

 

 

Just looked up this Alf Garnett character and found some real funny TV shows on the tube. I guess your reference came from photo in the shirtless farang thread?

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1005168-shirtless-farangs/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-12326304

 

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

 

Obviously, I know a great deal more than you who labours under the illusion that there are "zillions" of immigrants fleecing the benefits system when he hasn't been back to the UK to see for himself in donkey's years.

 

Assertions made all the more asinine by the fact that you, yourself, are a de facto immigrant in Thailand

 

NONE of us are de facto immigrants in Thailand, other than those who manage to get Thai citizenship.

 

Should any Thai government suddenly decide one day that the minimum financial requirement for ANY farang to live in Thailand will now be for example 50 million baht that has to be deposited in a Thai government bank at no interest rate. The farangs who can afford it will have to report at one police station or immigration office only and may be in BKK, Phuket Mae Hong Son or Nakhon Nowhere on a weekly basis. If you cannot meet these requirements then your visa will be cancelled and you will have one week only to leave the country, what would you do?

 

You will have to sell everything you own and will not be allowed to take more than GBP 500 out of the country. Your wife and children will have to go as well.

 

If you don't think that could happen, think back to Uganda in the early 1960s, or Rhodesia/Zimbabwe a bit later, perhaps remember Yugoslavia when it broke up.

 

Would you tell the government that you are a de facto immigrant to Thailand and that they cannot do this to you. See how far that gets you.

[garbolino]

why should UK government help some one like this guy.....money would be spent on booze and cigs.

Perhaps he should give up the booze and cigs and start a new life over again

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, LazySlipper said:

 

I'm not from the UK but rather from another welfare state similar to the UK, and we are facing the same problems.

Asylum seekers who may be terrorists are much part of the point. A lot of them are part of a network set up to get them organised as soon as possible in our countries.

 

This guy we are talking about? How different is he than any of us? 

Enjoyed life a bit too much but now he will have to live under a bridge?

Sorry. I don't subscribe to that point of view.

I went through <deleted> in the 80's and I was not entitled to anything, while immigrants from Haiti were being ushered in front of me towards good paying jobs because they were part of a visible minority. They even had their rent paid in Gvt housing while I was living in a crappy over priced apartment.

In my country, immigrants have always been entitled to something I have not!!!

 

What's with this he 'enjoyed life a bit too much'? Complete and utter nonsense. The guy has taken to drink to cover up his failures in life and dumped on everybody who has tried to assist him. Not the first time someone uses drink (or drugs) to make up a life story to deflect blame and responsibility. Take away the story prop and they would have to face reality and start again. Few can or are prepared to do so and hold on to the drink or drugs dragging down anybody around them. And that is why relatives and/or friends eventually have to cut the ties.

[Thai Ron]

53 minutes ago, maxpower said:

 

Just looked up this Alf Garnett character and found some real funny TV shows on the tube. I guess your reference came from photo in the shirtless farang thread?

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1005168-shirtless-farangs/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-12326304

 

 

 

No, I've never seen that but how funny.

Bar the soup strainer, a veritable spitting image.

[Thai Ron]

1 hour ago, transam said:

I think you are "baiting" and not very good at it...

 

Baiting?

I'm going on stuff you have said, mate.

Protest all you want but you can't hide your feelings when they're so vividly displayed in the drivel you write about immigrants and immigration all over this forum.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

 

Baiting?

I'm going on stuff you have said, mate.

Protest all you want but you can't hide your feelings when they're so vividly displayed in the drivel you write about immigrants and immigration all over this forum.

You're still trying then....Mate....

[lvr181]

[darren1971]

confirmation bias

noun

 

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

[al007]

2 hours ago, garbolino said:

why should UK government help some one like this guy.....money would be spent on booze and cigs.

Perhaps he should give up the booze and cigs and start a new life over again

 

 

To be a little kind and loving to our fellow creatures costs little

 

Yes the man in question has not done well

 

But lets not forget alcoholism and drug addiction are both illnesses,as is manic depression, and bi polar disorder, to name but a few, and just maybe think but for the Grace of God that could have been me

 

What goes around comes around and just lets hope some of the overcritical ones never wind up them selves in a similar position

 

[7by7]

14 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

 

Sorry sunshine you are very wrong, my wife got all the befits after 2 years, now its 5 years to get British nationalization, just check your facts b4 posting

 

It is you who should check the facts before posting. Had you done so you would have discovered that your information is now out of date, and has been since July 2012.

 

When my wife arrived in the UK with her settlement visa in February 2001 the residential qualifying period for ILR was 1 year.

 

I can't remember the exact year, it was either 2003 or 2004 I think, when Labour changed this to two years.

 

Then in July 2012 the Coalition changed it to 5 years.

 

The residential qualifying period for naturalisation has been 5 years for at least the 17 years I have taken an interest; except for the spouses and civil partners of British citizens when it has been, and still is, three years.

 

However, spouses and civil partners also need to hold ILR and all others need to have held ILR for at least 1 year. So, obviously, this means at least 5 years residence for spouses and civil partners and 6 years for everyone else.

 

Assuming they are, as most family migrants and some other categories are, on the 5 year route to settlement (ILR). Following the Supreme Court ruling on the financial requirement earlier this year some family migrants will be, as certain other categories already were, on the 10 year route.

 

If you want to comment on the current rules and requirements first get your facts right, start your research at the UKVI homepage.

 

 

 

 

 

[joecoolfrog]

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Look up the relative UK Gov documentations. Even 7x7, who knows more about the UK immigration laws then anyone on this forum, and who is certainly NOT connected with any extreme right wing View, yesterday confirmed that what I said is correct.

 

Neither 7 x 7 nor any government site makes the claim that certain people are exempt from the regulations. Only you have stated that and , for obvious reasons, cannot back up your statement.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Look up the relative UK Gov documentations. Even 7x7, who knows more about the UK immigration laws then anyone on this forum, and who is certainly NOT connected with any extreme right wing View, yesterday confirmed that what I said is correct.

 

 Firstly, thanks for the compliment; although there are members who know as much as I do, and some who know far more.

 

Secondly, my post was about those applying to enter the UK for more than 6 months who are exempt from obtaining a TB certificate because they are applying in a country which is not considered by the UK government to be high risk and those who are exempt from the English language tests because they are from an Anglophone country.

 

I did not mention any exemption from the prohibition on public funds because this prohibition applies to all except for those entering the UK under the EEA regulations; who are prohibited for only the first three months of residence.

 

I did not mention any other form of exemption from the regulations, whether one is entering via the immigration rules or using the EEA regulations because these exemptions do not exist.

 

This includes asylum seekers; there are rules and regulations covering them and none are exempt.

Edited October 4, 2017 by 7by7

[al007]

32 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The other exception is asylum seekers. The UK being a civilised country does not expect these people to live on the streets and starve. So asylum seekers are, as I said, given a small allowance, £36.95 per week, to buy food and clothing. They are also given somewhere to live; this may be in bed and breakfasts, hostels or similar, but is often in an immigration detention centre.

 

This is good  and obviously should mean Yingluck should be ok in the UK, better than a prison in Thailand

[wakeupplease]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

It is you who should check the facts before posting. Had you done so you would have discovered that your information is now out of date, and has been since July 2012.

 

When my wife arrived in the UK with her settlement visa in February 2001 the residential qualifying period for ILR was 1 year.

 

I can't remember the exact year, it was either 2003 or 2004 I think, when Labour changed this to two years.

 

Then in July 2012 the Coalition changed it to 5 years.

 

The residential qualifying period for naturalisation has been 5 years for at least the 17 years I have taken an interest; except for the spouses and civil partners of British citizens when it has been, and still is, three years.

 

However, spouses and civil partners also need to hold ILR and all others need to have held ILR for at least 1 year. So, obviously, this means at least 5 years residence for spouses and civil partners and 6 years for everyone else.

 

Assuming they are, as most family migrants and some other categories are, on the 5 year route to settlement (ILR). Following the Supreme Court ruling on the financial requirement earlier this year some family migrants will be, as certain other categories already were, on the 10 year route.

 

If you want to comment on the current rules and requirements first get your facts right, start your research at the UKVI homepage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who stated the process before 2012/2013 comes under the old law not the new one.

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

 

Anyone who stated the process before 2012/2013 comes under the old law not the new one.

 

To be precise it is anyone on the family route who submitted their initial visa application before 12th July 2012 who comes under the old rules. Anyone who submitted their initial application on or after 12th July 2012 comes under the new rules.

 

Those who come under the old rules would have obtained their ILR by now; unless for some reason, such as not passing the LitUK test, they have not yet qualified. In which case they must make, and pay for, an FLR application every two years and meet the requirements for that. FLR does not give an entitlement to claim benefits; they would not be able to claim public funds until they have ILR

 

You said your wife was able to claim benefits after two years, which as she would be prohibited from public funds until she had ILR means she, like most who were on the 2 year route, must have been granted her ILR after 2 years residence.

 

We are talking about the current rules, not those prior to 12th July 2012.

 

I should add for the purpose of completeness that those whose marriage or relationship with their British sponsor has ended because of bereavement or they are the victim domestic violence can apply for ILR without meeting many of the requirements; including the residential one.

[bkk6060]

Why do I hear so many Brits crying for help??

[yogi100]

What a bloody nerve he's got! Expecting the tax payer to foot the bill when there are asylum seekers and refugees much more deserving of any charity that may be going that he and others like him have come to expect. Let him rot in the gutter where he belongs.

[The manic]

On 03/10/2017 at 7:48 AM, JAG said:

Given that this character is 41, and has spent the last 15 years in Thailand, he can't have paid little in the way of National Insurance contributions.

 

 

More than most immigrants legal or illegal. 30 years contributions is a full pension BTW

[The manic]

Just now, yogi100 said:

What a bloody nerve he's got! Expecting the tax payer to foot the bill when there are asylum seekers and refugees much more deserving of any charity that may be going that he and others like him have come to expect. Let him rot in the gutter where he belongs.

555. I get the Irony. but others wont.

[The manic]

24 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Why do I hear so many Brits crying for help??

You don't. As a nation we give more help than any country on earth. Unfortunately.

[The manic]

1 hour ago, al007 said:

 

This is good  and obviously should mean Yingluck should be ok in the UK, better than a prison in Thailand

She is a hero who should not be put in prison anywhere. She got voted into power. Nobody ever voted for you.

[darren1971]

4 minutes ago, The manic said:

More than most immigrants legal or illegal. 30 years contributions is a full pension BTW

 

Migrants contribute £25bn to UK economy, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

[yogi100]

1 minute ago, The manic said:

555. I get the Irony. but others wont.

 

Well he's just another Englishman down on his luck in his own country, he ought to know the score by now. He'll have to get some cardboard boxes and find a nice cosy doorway somewhere like others have had to including hundreds of ex servicemen.

[The manic]

3 hours ago, al007 said:

 

 

To be a little kind and loving to our fellow creatures costs little

 

Yes the man in question has not done well

 

But lets not forget alcoholism and drug addiction are both illnesses,as is manic depression, and bi polar disorder, to name but a few, and just maybe think but for the Grace of God that could have been me

 

What goes around comes around and just lets hope some of the overcritical ones never wind up them selves in a similar position

 

He is British citizen. He paid taxes when he was in the UK. Whilst living outside the UK he has used no UK resources. His family have paid taxes. His parents and grandparents cough in two world wars. The current anti expat laws are a disgrace.