Fury grows over Tory visa rules where ‘only the rich’ dare fall in love

[Nick Carter icp]

18 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No.

 

I added " not when on a visa" to your first reply. I did not specify work visas.

 

Those in UK on working visas or spouse/ family visas, even if working, cannot claim.

 

   Yes that can 

 

 

What benefits can be claimed on a UK spouse/partner visa?

 

https://www.burnesspaull.com/insights-and-events/news/uk-spousepartner-visas-access-to-benefits#section-bP5jTaDmcc

 

[youreavinalaff]

22 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Yes that can 

 

 

What benefits can be claimed on a UK spouse/partner visa?

 

https://www.burnesspaull.com/insights-and-events/news/uk-spousepartner-visas-access-to-benefits#section-bP5jTaDmcc

 

This is the comment of mine to which you replied " As an aside, foreigners can claim unemployment benefit when working in Thailand. Foreigners cannot claim such benefits when in UK.".

 

Your link proves my point.

[RayC]

On 12/14/2023 at 7:40 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Just corrected him with multiple examples of foreigners not being treated equally in Thailand.

 

 

So they are not treated equally then. Just as I said. 

 

Straw clutching. We are talking about worker's rights.

 

The fact that an overseas tourist pays more to feed Jumbo bananas in Thailand than a local is discrimination, but is relatively unimportant.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 7:40 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Yet you focus on the UK and try unsuccessfully to give Thailand and Australia (and most other countries) a free pass. Why do you hate your own country so much? Projection?

 

I pointed out that Australia treats (legal) migrant workers and native-born workers equally when it comes to their rights. 

 

How you can conclude that I therefore hate the UK is yet another example of your failed logic.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 7:40 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Something else. I believe that UK citizens who have paid into the system their whole lives should be given preferential treatment to immigrants who just arrived, often illegally.

 

So it's all about the absolute amount that a worker has (financially) contributed to the system? Should the individuals' entitlement to services, such as the NHS therefore be proportionate to the amount of NI/tax contributions which they have made? Where does that leave the school leaver, new graduate? Presumably, you'd withhold access to NHS services for them until they had built up a big enough pot?

 

On 12/14/2023 at 7:40 AM, JonnyF said:

When I see ex-servicemen sleeping on the streets, or hear of OAP's freezing to death because they can't afford to heat their homes and then I see illegal immigrants gloating on social media about their free hotel room, I feel a great sense of injustice.

 

Ex-servicemen sleeping on the streets or OAPs freezing to death on their homes has nothing to do with illegal immigrants posting on social media, and everything to do with the failure of the authorities to safeguard those individuals.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 7:40 AM, JonnyF said:

As for your race baiting, it demeans you, you can do better than that Ray. 

 

It's not race baiting, Jonny.

 

I'll repeat what I posted previously: The government estimates that this piece of legislation will cut immigration by 300,000, of which 70,000 are 'family visas' which suggests there will be 230,000 fewer 'worker' visas. This, in turn, suggests that there will be 230,000 unfilled job vacancies (unless the need for these jobs has disappeared overnight): I can't see the economic rationale for this, so a cut in immigration must be 'good' in its' own right. My question is simply: 'Why?'. Racism/ Xenophobia is a possible explanation. In fact, I struggle to see what other explanation there can be.

 

You have stated that you would go further than the bill proposes, "Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals". I asked you if this meant that you would withhold access to the NHS and schooling for their kids until this threshold had been reached? (You avoid answering these questions directly). In this case, there probably would be cost savings but imo it is a morally bankrupt proposal and, again, imo smacks of racism/ xenophobia. 

 

I'd be interested to know what the other explanations might be.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by RayC
Missing words added

[JonnyF]

25 minutes ago, RayC said:

I'd be interested to know what the other explanations might be.

 

Honestly Ray, I can't be bothered.

 

You're clearly obsessed with race and racism so it's a bit of a waste of time debating with you at this point. Your attempts to put me on the back foot with nasty slurs and try to force me to defend myself against baseless accusations is frankly, morally reprehensible. I very rarely decline a debate (here or anywhere else) but when people just put their fingers in their ears and scream RACIST over and over again it becomes tedious and frankly, pointless.

 

You have a great day though .

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Honestly Ray, I can't be bothered.

 

You're clearly obsessed with race and racism so it's a bit of a waste of time debating with you at this point. Your attempts to put me on the back foot with nasty slurs and try to force me to defend myself against baseless accusations is frankly, morally reprehensible. I very rarely decline a debate (here or anywhere else) but when people just put their fingers in their ears and scream RACIST over and over again it becomes tedious and frankly, pointless.

 

You have a great day though .

 

It was an opportunity to explain your position and explain to me what I had overlooked.

 

You have a good day too.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Honestly Ray, I can't be bothered.

 

You're clearly obsessed with race and racism so it's a bit of a waste of time debating with you at this point. Your attempts to put me on the back foot with nasty slurs and try to force me to defend myself against baseless accusations is frankly, morally reprehensible. I very rarely decline a debate (here or anywhere else) but when people just put their fingers in their ears and scream RACIST over and over again it becomes tedious and frankly, pointless.

 

You have a great day though .

In other words, you've got nothing.

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

In other words, you've got nothing.

He has an opinion. As we all do.

 

If he has nothing, we all have nothing. Including you.

[placeholder]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

He has an opinion. As we all do.

 

If he has nothing, we all have nothing. Including you.

So, all opinions are of equal value, no matter how poorly or well reasoned they are? No matter what evidence is brought to bear upon a question?

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

So, all opinions are of equal value, no matter how poorly or well reasoned they are? No matter what evidence is brought to bear upon a question.

 

Yes. All opinions are equal.

 

No evidence is required. It is what one thinks.

 

You said " you've got nothing". That's your opinion. I disagree. I don't say you are wrong. Did you post evidence backing up your opinion? No, you didn't.

 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

He has an opinion. As we all do.

 

If he has nothing, we all have nothing. Including you.

 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Yes. All opinions are equal.

 

No evidence is required. It is what one thinks.

 

You said " you've got nothing". That's your opinion. I disagree. I don't say you are wrong. Did you post evidence backing up your opinion? No, you didn't.

 

 

I agree but opinion doesn't lend itself to meaningful debate.

 

What is required is "informed opinion".

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Yes. All opinions are equal.

 

No evidence is required. It is what one thinks.

 

You said " you've got nothing". That's your opinion. I disagree. I don't say you are wrong. Did you post evidence backing up your opinion? No, you didn't.

 

I didn't have to. JonnyF showed he had nothing by refusing to engage with the points that RayC raised. Given his inclination to make persona comments, it was especially amusing to see him claim that his reason for retiring from the field was that he took offense.

[JonnyF]

57 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I didn't have to. JonnyF showed he had nothing by refusing to engage with the points that RayC raised. Given his inclination to make persona comments, it was especially amusing to see him claim that his reason for retiring from the field was that he took offense.

 

I made many salient points but Ray decided to scream racist in reply. Tedious.

 

The hateful 8 are gradually turning this into a left wing echo chamber. Many interesting posters with alternate points of view have already left. I am also posting much more on other forums now.

 

If I state the reasons for this, my post will be removed. Which says it all really. It used to be quite a diverse and interesting forum. Now it's essentially a handful of prolific posters screaming racist at everyone they disagree with and liking each others posts. 

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I made many salient points but Ray decided to scream racist in reply. Tedious.

 

The hateful 8 are gradually turning this into a left wing echo chamber. Many interesting posters with alternate points of view have already left. I am also posting much more on other forums now.

 

If I state the reasons for this, my post will be removed. Which says it all really. It used to be quite a diverse and interesting forum. Now it's essentially a handful of prolific posters screaming racist at everyone they disagree with and liking each others posts. 

Thanks for proving my point. Such characterizations as "The Hateful 8" or accusing poster of "screaming racist at everyone they disagree with" (screaming? really?)only show how little of substance you have to offer.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I made many salient points but Ray decided to scream racist in reply. Tedious.

 

The hateful 8 are gradually turning this into a left wing echo chamber. Many interesting posters with alternate points of view have already left. I am also posting much more on other forums now.

 

If I state the reasons for this, my post will be removed. Which says it all really. It used to be quite a diverse and interesting forum. Now it's essentially a handful of prolific posters screaming racist at everyone they disagree with and liking each others posts. 

 

Absolute tosh.

 

In this particular instance, you suggested that migrant workers in the UK should not be treated the same as native-born workers until they became permanent residents i.e. until at least 5 years had elapsed. I asked you directly if you would then withhold access to the NHS/ education for those migrant workers and their families who did not meet your threshold, and explained why I thought this could be racist/ xenophobic. 

 

You (still) have the opportunity to refute that view by addressing the questions which I posed directly, and/or pointing out flaws in my argument. You have chosen not to do so but, now instead attempt to play the 'victim' card.

[youreavinalaff]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

I didn't have to. JonnyF showed he had nothing by refusing to engage with the points that RayC raised. Given his inclination to make persona comments, it was especially amusing to see him claim that his reason for retiring from the field was that he took offense.

Your opinion against his. If he has nothing, so do you.

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for proving my point. Such characterizations as "The Hateful 8" or accusing poster of "screaming racist at everyone they disagree with" (screaming? really?)only show how little of substance you have to offer.

 

  The emphasis and the focus was on "racist" , rather than "screaming" 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  The emphasis and the focus was on "racist" , rather than "screaming" 

What you mean is that you'd rather focus on that than the "screaming" part. And what about the phrase the  "The Hateful Eight"? I guess we should leave that out of focus, too? 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Your opinion against his. If he has nothing, so do you.

 

 

Unlike you, I offered an analysis of why he has nothing. All you do is repeat your assertion. Ya think if you write it often enough, that will make it true?

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Unlike you, I offered an analysis of why he has nothing. All you do is repeat your assertion. Ya think if you write it often enough, that will make it true?

Your first response was " In other words, you've got nothing.". Not an analysis.

 

You subsequent response to me was an opinion. 

 

 

[FruitPudding]

Shocking, meanwhile the borders are open and illegals are in 4 star hotels and getting social security.

[Nick Carter icp]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you mean is that you'd rather focus on that than the "screaming" part. And what about the phrase the  "The Hateful Eight"? I guess we should leave that out of focus, too? 

 

 No  that wasn't what I meant 

 I do think that he was referring to the constant accusations of racism and he didn't literally mean screaming . 

   You avoided the racism accusation and concentrated on the screaming bit 

[JackGats]

What happened in many EU countries is that men with some means stopped marrying a foreign bride because she got indoctrinated in her rights soon after landing and quickly sued for divorce. Hence, the only men who could afford to import a wife were men without money, from which there was no money for the woman to steal. A flourishing market for pro forma marriages even ensued, with poor men receiving money from well-off men to marry the latter's girl. The state of affairs was not "only the rich dare fall in love" but rather "only the poor dare fall in love".

 

The gynocracies in the West want a woman to not only be able to repudiate their husbands but also make him her slave for life. Under muslim law the husband is the one who repudiates, but he is not entitled to turn the repudiated wife into his life slave. Under Western law repudiation is called "no-fault divorce" and it entitles the repudiator to turn her ex into her slave (make him work for her).

[youreavinalaff]

23 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

Shocking, meanwhile the borders are open and illegals are in 4 star hotels and getting social security.

It's really not quite that simple, is it?

 

It's views like that which have forced the government's hand. 

 

Although I disagree with the size of the hike in requirements, I understand that it's propaganda like above that creates tensions.

[Will B Good]

How easy would it be chnage the law so if you've been married for (say) 5, 6, 7 years not a problem.........you don't need to hit the £38k.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

How easy would it be chnage the law so if you've been married for (say) 5, 6, 7 years not a problem.........you don't need to hit the £38k.

The government have already said the final details are yet to be announced.

 

Maybe your idea, or a variation, will be included.

 

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67705178

[FruitPudding]

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's really not quite that simple, is it?

 

It's views like that which have forced the government's hand. 

 

Although I disagree with the size of the hike in requirements, I understand that it's propaganda like above that creates tensions.

 

How is it not that simple?

[youreavinalaff]

9 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

How is it not that simple?

For a start, not all are in hotels. A small number may be in 4 star hotels, or at least what were 4 star hotels until the owners allowed the government to take over. Also, it's asylum seekers not illegals.

 

Not all receive payments. Those that do certainly are not on social security.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 12/10/2023 at 7:44 PM, JonnyF said:

Classic anti Tory hyperbole from the guardian.

 

If you want to bring a spouse to the country you must be able to support them and yourself. The rules could be more refined but the sentiment is correct. 

 

 

Hear, hear!

[Liverpool Lou]

On 12/10/2023 at 10:12 PM, youreavinalaff said:

On 12/10/2023 at 7:05 PM, Doctor Tom said:

The limit is £38,700.  Frankly, if your income, pre tax, is below this, you have no business sponsoring anyone into the country.  

Would that be the same for a UK citizen marrying a UK citizen? 

Why would you think that, that UK citizens now have to be sponsored by a UK citizen in order to marry a UK citizen?

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Why would you think that, that UK citizens now have to be sponsored by a UK citizen in order to marry a UK citizen?

It was tongue in cheek. 

 

Take a day off being so serious.