PM Cameron to make British welfare off limits to migrants

[7by7]

Translation; I can't answer.

Go on, provide your examples.

If your claimed loopholes exist, there will be evidence to show this somewhere.

[MAJIC]

7by 7 you never want to face facts and love to link to other sites.

Unlike you, I am not one for making wild claims with no evidence, so I link to other sites to provide that evidence.

Official government sites which detail exactly what benefits immigrants can and cannot claim.

Majic, that is not being an apologist for anything; it is stating the facts and providing the full information.

Like others, you both obviously don't like these facts because they interfere with your prejudices.

You have swallowed the anti immigrant line on benefits hook, line and sinker.

I think I will stay with Cameron's line on this one, I am sure he will have been informed by his Civil Servants the true figures on migrants claiming benefits,and i'm sure most of the population know it's a major problem,and would like to see an end to it,even if you don't, and it means leaving the EU,which may happen under UKIP before Cameron's Referendum on EU Membership in 2017.

[samran]

7by 7 you never want to face facts and love to link to other sites.

Unlike you, I am not one for making wild claims with no evidence, so I link to other sites to provide that evidence.

Official government sites which detail exactly what benefits immigrants can and cannot claim.

Majic, that is not being an apologist for anything; it is stating the facts and providing the full information.

Like others, you both obviously don't like these facts because they interfere with your prejudices.

You have swallowed the anti immigrant line on benefits hook, line and sinker.

I think I will stay with Cameron's line on this one, I am sure he will have been informed by his Civil Servants the true figures on migrants claiming benefits,and i'm sure most of the population know it's a major problem,and would like to see an end to it,even if you don't, and it means leaving the EU,which may happen under UKIP before Cameron's Referendum on EU Membership in 2017.

No, because politicans never bang on about ficticious issues simply to pander to peoples base predjudices without any reference to what the civil servants are actually telling them.

[sustento]

I think that anyone who thinks that UKIP is going to ride to the rescue in 2015 is going to be disappointed. They have NEVER had an elected MP in the House of Commons and it doesn't seem very likely that that will change much if at all.

[Scott]

Sata, Cameron is not talking about schools and hospitals, but you should check up on the proposed measures to restrict NHS access. I'd post a link, but you don't like those.

Are you seriously suggesting that children should be denied an education merely because one or both of their parents is an immigrant? Even though at least one of their parents is probably working and paying tax and NICs?

If someone has been living and working in the UK, paying UK taxes and NICs or is the family member of one such; why should they not receive whatever benefits, including school for their children and NHS treatment, that their taxes and NICs currently entitle them to; whether they or their partner have paid those taxes and NICs for 5 years or 40?

Follow your logic and British people, born and raised in the UK, would not be entitled to anything until they had paid in for 40 years! Is that what you propose?

I asked a similar question many posts ago; no one has answered. Will you?

Again, not wishing to get into the topic, but isn't school attendance mandatory for children in the UK? Can't parents get into trouble for not sending their children to school?

What are the requirements as far as residency in an area to attend a local school?

Does the EU have any regulations that would impact on this?

[sustento]

All children in the UK have to attend school or get an appropriate education between the ages of 5 and 16. For a parent not to do so can be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of a £2500 or 3 months in gaol.

[7by7]

Local education authorities also have a legal obligation to provide a school place for all children of school age who live within their area; regardless of the child's immigration status.

As Sustento says, parents can opt out of the state system by enrolling their child(ren) in a private school or providing appropriate and approved schooling at home.

[Jay Sata]

Free education is a benefit in my book. Who pays the teachers and who is paying for the new schools to provide places for the results of 10 million migrants entering the UK in a decade?

The UK taxpayer who has also been picking up all the legal aid bills for immigration lawyers.

Who is paying for the extra drain on the national health service for 10 million extra people...the UK taxpayer.

To get that figure of 10 million in context it is just under half of the population of Australia.

What about housing?

10 million extra people need to live somewhere.

I suppose 7by7 will claim 2.5 million new jobs have been created to support that number of new families and they

are all paying tax.

[sustento]

Free education is a benefit in my book. Who pays the teachers and who is paying for the new schools

I'm one of those paying for the teachers and the school buildings. I'm gay and childless so I gain no direct benefit from the tax that I pay towards education apart from the fact that I'd rather live in a country where the populace is educated than one where they aren't.

I also pay for all the various forms of child benefit and all the maternity services provided by the NHS to all the population of the UK - something else from which I gain no direct benefit.

I don't complain because I know that the services that I pay for are for the benefit of all.

[sustento]

Free education is a benefit in my book. Who pays the teachers and who is paying for the new schools to provide places for the results of 10 million migrants entering the UK in a decade?

Can you tell me where this figure of 10 million comes from please?

[MAJIC]

Free education is a benefit in my book. Who pays the teachers and who is paying for the new schools to provide places for the results of 10 million migrants entering the UK in a decade?

Can you tell me where this figure of 10 million comes from please?

Well this link of 7.5 Million, immigrants in the UK,in which Labour open Borders Policy,has resulted in more of an influx in ten years than the previous 40 years, should be a rather sobering thought for the Bleeding heart Liberals,and apologists! who see no reason to control Immigration.

For a small Island as Putin has named the UK a few days ago, this is totally absurd and unsustainable.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400239/Labour-s-open-door-policy-let-in-more-immigrants-in-a-decade-than-the-previous-40-years

Edited September 10, 2013 by MAJIC

[sustento]

It doesn't actually say that 7.5 million immigrants have arrived in the past 10 years. It says that 7.5 million "foreigners" live in the UK of whom 3.4 million hold a British passport. Can you explain to me how someone who holds a British passport and is thus a British citizen can be described as a 'foreigner'?

According to the report 3.8 million immigrants have arrived in the UK in the past 10 years, 1.5 million of them being European. Not quite the 10 million (or even the 7.5 million) that have been quoted here.

Whilst I might agree that immigration laws need to be reviewed scare-mongering and simply making stuff up helps no-one.

[Jay Sata]

It's the old story of how you do your measuring.

People leaving the UK over 10 years v people arriving in the UK over 10 years.

In Israel they talk about facts on the ground.

That means if we build new settlements in the West Bank you can't turn the clock back.

It's the same in Luton,Leicester,Rochdale, Tower Hamlets etc.

Facts on the ground.

I'd like to hear 7by7 argue Brown sold the UK gold reserves at the right price.

[sustento]

It's the old story of how you do your measuring.

People leaving the UK over 10 years v people arriving in the UK over 10 years.

In Israel they talk about facts on the ground.

That means if we build new settlements in the West Bank you can't turn the clock back.

It's the same in Luton,Leicester,Rochdale, Tower Hamlets etc.

Facts on the ground.

I'd like to hear 7by7 argue Brown sold the UK gold reserves at the right price.

So can you tell me where this figure of 10 million comes from please? Presumably you have some independently recognised source you can quote? I'm not sure what the UK gold reserves have to do with this thread other than as a red herring.

Edited September 10, 2013 by sustento

[MAJIC]

It doesn't actually say that 7.5 million immigrants have arrived in the past 10 years. It says that 7.5 million "foreigners" live in the UK of whom 3.4 million hold a British passport. Can you explain to me how someone who holds a British passport and is thus a British citizen can be described as a 'foreigner'?

According to the report 3.8 million immigrants have arrived in the UK in the past 10 years, 1.5 million of them being European. Not quite the 10 million (or even the 7.5 million) that have been quoted here.

Whilst I might agree that immigration laws need to be reviewed scare-mongering and simply making stuff up helps no-one.

It's not about scaremongering it's about pointing out enough is enough,and things need to change! before the whole system collapses,which will do nobody any good,and especially the Indigenous population.

It's hard to understand why some people will spend a lot of their time on a Forum arguing a point as to why a race of people should be giving their Country away,to those that have no interest in the Country,except what they can get for free,and send back home.Some having never paid a penny into the system,or even been minor contributers to the Countries wealth.

If you think the Daily Express is making stuff up,then challenge them and ask your local MP to help you,to get a retraction and an apology.

I quoted this article,as stated,and for your consideration,if you don't wish to believe it,well that's up to you. Have you ever thought why no one ever challenges these Newspaper articles? perhaps they are too near the truth and much more truth than not? which any challengers with vested interests wouldn't want the general population to know was basically true? (it defeats their cause)

There are many more articles of that nature,the Internet is awash with reports,and from most articles,it's not good news for the British people! and to suggest or challenge them as if they are all lies,is merely counter propaganda,from those with their own agendas (not that I am suggesting you are one of those)

But some people on TV are very well up on undermining tactics ,gagging, ridiculing and discrediting the Posters (and then its much easier to destroy their argument) who don't agree with them,and those that are prepared to speak out,and are far from happy,what is happening to their Country,which speaking out is plainly their democratic right to do so,without intimidation,and being virtually told it's all in your imagination, ergo: what you see before your own eyes doesn't really exist. And then we have the tried and trusted very old "Chestnut",when they are losing the argument,then out comes the Racialist Card,which effectively brings into play the gagging order! i.e you dared to voice an opinion so therefore you must be a Racialist,why? because it suits the argument,and they were losing it!

Sad people!

Edited September 10, 2013 by MAJIC

[sustento]

I'm sorry but the Daily Express or the Daily Telegraph or The Times or the Socialist Worker are not independently recognised sources of valid statistics. Newspapers of all political persuasions make things up. They all have agendas and are not to be trusted.

I see that you're talking about a 'race of people'. What race would that be? Why do you need to mention 'race' when we're talking about immigration? Presumably Eastern Europeans who belong to the same 'race' as you and I (i.e they have white skins) are acceptable? Or not?

The internet is awash with many things. Most of them are b0llocks. I'm happier with genuine evidence and verifiable facts.

[7by7]

As Mr. Sata, Majic, and others who share their opinions are so opposed to immigrants living in the UK I can only assume that they include their wives or partners in this and will be immediately shipping them back to Thailand.

They wont be joining them, of course, as they would then be foreigners living in another country and they are wholeheartedly against such a thing.

Of course, they'll say that it's OK for their wife or partner to live in the UK, OK for them to access the NHS, OK for their step children, if any, to go to a state school because they work and pay taxes.

Just like the vast majority of all other immigrants, in fact.

This is a topic about Cameron's 'promise' to cut benefits for immigrants. An empty promise because an immigrant's access to benefits is already severely limited.

But Sata, Majic etc. prefer to believe misleading articles in the press rather than official publications stating the actual law.

Also, Majic is trying to turn it into something else, as his reference to race shows.

Perhaps Majic will tell us which races he finds acceptable?

Sata, of course, is playing his usual game. The only surprise is that we are 5 pages in and he hasn't yet mentioned how well off he is or posted about his extensive world travels!

[7by7]

10 million migrants entering the UK in a decade?

Talking of press reports, this one from the Telegraph is misleading, but it claims that 400,000 foreign nationals are claiming benefits. Misleading, because it does mention that many are now British citizens and others are claiming benefits they have paid for via NICs.

But lets take that 400,000 figure.

Say we accept Sata's claim above. That means at most, only 4% of immigrants are claiming.

Of course, he will say that the 10 million includes non working wives and children; but the number of immigrants claiming benefits includes many who have lived in the UK for far more than 10 years.

People from the West Indies and Indian sub continent, for example, who came to the UK in the fifties and sixties, worked and paid taxes and NICs all their lives and are now retired.

The number of immigrants who arrive in the UK and shortly after start to claim benefits is extremely small, almost certainly too small to be significant. Simply because the current rules don't allow it.

[Totster]

Sata, Cameron is not talking about schools and hospitals, but you should check up on the proposed measures to restrict NHS access. I'd post a link, but you don't like those.

Are you seriously suggesting that children should be denied an education merely because one or both of their parents is an immigrant? Even though at least one of their parents is probably working and paying tax and NICs?

If someone has been living and working in the UK, paying UK taxes and NICs or is the family member of one such; why should they not receive whatever benefits, including school for their children and NHS treatment, that their taxes and NICs currently entitle them to; whether they or their partner have paid those taxes and NICs for 5 years or 40?

Follow your logic and British people, born and raised in the UK, would not be entitled to anything until they had paid in for 40 years! Is that what you propose?

I asked a similar question many posts ago; no one has answered. Will you?

I cannot answer that for fear of flaming or something. Do you not realise that foreign folk creep into the UK, have a child SO EVERYTHING is then on a UK plate. I have HEARD it from those who have done it.

This is exactly my point before, there are immigrants coming that know how to work the system, it's planned out.. their intention is to have kids, get them into the system who will then become the next generation of immigrant scroungers and dossers. They play the long game, and play it well.

totster

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[7by7]

Do you (7by7) not realise that foreign folk creep into the UK, have a child SO EVERYTHING is then on a UK plate. I have HEARD it from those who have done it.

This is exactly my point before, there are immigrants coming that know how to work the system, it's planned out.. their intention is to have kids, get them into the system who will then become the next generation of immigrant scroungers and dossers. They play the long game, and play it well.

totster

How dare these horrible immigrants have children!

Sterilise them at the border, I say!

You two really should join Sata and Majic in their paranoid fantasy land... oh, hang on, you're there already.

[Jay Sata]

So 7by7 you approve of scenario's such as this?

colinneil, on 11 Sept 2013 - 01:14, said:

I had same thing happen to me 12 years ago. My ex-wife got ilr went to council, got housing benefit, social everything.

She should not be able to live off the sweat and toil of UK taxpayers.

What would the Thai government give her?

We know the answer.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Totster]

Do you (7by7) not realise that foreign folk creep into the UK, have a child SO EVERYTHING is then on a UK plate. I have HEARD it from those who have done it.

This is exactly my point before, there are immigrants coming that know how to work the system, it's planned out.. their intention is to have kids, get them into the system who will then become the next generation of immigrant scroungers and dossers. They play the long game, and play it well.

totster

How dare these horrible immigrants have children!

Sterilise them at the border, I say!

You two really should join Sata and Majic in their paranoid fantasy land... oh, hang on, you're there already.

You missed the point and turn it into apologism, as you have continued to do so throughout this thread. You mock, which is just another mechanism you use to make your 'here is a link' point.

I hope you are playing devils advocate in this thread otherwise I honestly feel sad that you can't see what is happening in the UK. The UK is full, it can only just support the population as it is now. Whichever way you look at it population increase from immigration does cost the government more and therefore the tax payer.

Let's look at what Scott said about immigrants following family members, there were around 3500 asylum seekers from Pakistan coming to the UK between April and June this year. If they are coming legitimately to follow family members, then why don't they go through the proper procedure - because this way they can start sponging straight away.

It is well known that many Pakistani families make sure their sons marry a girl from Pakistan, thus opening up the path for another family branch to eventually settle. This is a concerted effort and is done for the very purpose of allowing the maximum members of a family to settle in the UK - and when they have done their 5 years , BOOM, lets get benefits (yes, that is their actual expression). Not to mention many of these immigrants lead an insular life when in the UK, no effort to integrate, they keep business deals to their own ethnic group and export their money back to Pakistan.

totster

Edited September 11, 2013 by Totster

[7by7]

Mr. Sata, you have provided an out of context quote from a totally different topic. As a courtesy to those who do not read topics in the Visa forum you should have provided a link to the post.

But courtesy is not something you seem to know much about.

I cannot, of course, comment on an individual situation without knowing both sides of the story; except to say that those with ILR are able to claim the same benefits as British Citizens.

Cameron hasn't said anything about changing that; but he's not really said anything as he knows that an immigrant's access to non contributory benefits is already severely restricted until they have no time limit on heir stay in the UK; whether that immigrant be from the EEA or outside the EEA.

Dragging in random, one sided quotes from other topics wont change that.

[Jay Sata]

Cameron is doing a great job cleaning up the mess left by Labour who nearly bankrupted the country.

The wild spending carried out by Blair and Brown and their open door policy nearly brought the UK to it's knees.

If we adopted the same sort of policies as Australia the bludgers would find it more difficult to fiddle the system.

[transam]

Mr. Sata, you have provided an out of context quote from a totally different topic. As a courtesy to those who do not read topics in the Visa forum you should have provided a link to the post.

But courtesy is not something you seem to know much about.

I cannot, of course, comment on an individual situation without knowing both sides of the story; except to say that those with ILR are able to claim the same benefits as British Citizens.

Cameron hasn't said anything about changing that; but he's not really said anything as he knows that an immigrant's access to non contributory benefits is already severely restricted until they have no time limit on heir stay in the UK; whether that immigrant be from the EEA or outside the EEA.

Dragging in random, one sided quotes from other topics wont change that.

Mrs just told me about a lady that that we know has dumped her farang husband, in his eighties, in the UK, she is in her forties and yes the UK tax payer is keeping her, hmmmm, yes a daughter.

Edited September 11, 2013 by transam

[Totster]

Mr. Sata, you have provided an out of context quote from a totally different topic. As a courtesy to those who do not read topics in the Visa forum you should have provided a link to the post.

But courtesy is not something you seem to know much about.

I cannot, of course, comment on an individual situation without knowing both sides of the story; except to say that those with ILR are able to claim the same benefits as British Citizens.

Cameron hasn't said anything about changing that; but he's not really said anything as he knows that an immigrant's access to non contributory benefits is already severely restricted until they have no time limit on heir stay in the UK; whether that immigrant be from the EEA or outside the EEA.

Dragging in random, one sided quotes from other topics wont change that.

Mrs just told me about a lady that that we know has dumped her farang husband, in his eighties, in the UK, she is in her forties and yes the UK tax payer is keeping her, hmmmm, yes a daughter.

Come on Transam, you know 7by7 won't accept any information without a link.

totster

[7by7]

Totser, the UK is not the most popular destination for asylum seekers; it's not even the most popular in Europe!

From the UNHCR

Does the UK have more asylum seekers than most countries?

No it does not. With an estimated 70,400 asylum applications, the United States of America was the largest single recipient of new asylum claims in 2012. accounting for 8% of all individual applications. Germany was second with 64,500 asylum applications, followed by South Africa (61,500), France (55,100), and Sweden (43,900). By comparison, the UK received 23,499 new applications for asylum in the year ending June 2013.

So if the UK is such a soft touch, why are most asylum seekers going elsewhere?

The notion that immigrants are entering the UK and then breeding like rabbits just to claim benefits is so ludicrous that it does not deserve further mention.

Let me ask you, and others, this:

What sort of state would the NHS be in if it wasn't for the thousands of immigrants working for it; from cleaners all the way to top consultants?

You can throw words like 'apologist' around all you want. Apologist for what? I make no apology for attempting to educate those who have fallen for the misinformation of the right wing press and down right lies of parties like UKIP.

If you want to believe that misinformation and those lies; if you hate immigrants so much; when will you be putting your wife on the plane back to Thailand?

Edit:

I accept personal experiences without a link; don't be so stupid and petty.

But if people post something as a fact, they should be prepared to prove it.

As for the situation Transam mentions (how convenient that it's happened now!), I refer you to the reply I made to Sata above regarding a similar situation.

Edited September 11, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

More evidence that people claiming benefits before are now having to work for their money.

The official figures also showed the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance fell 32,600 to 1.40 million, its lowest level since February 2009.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24045546

As for putting my wife back on the plane to Thailand I do it every winter and we enjoy escaping the weather in northern Europe.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Jay Sata

[samran]

Mr. Sata, you have provided an out of context quote from a totally different topic. As a courtesy to those who do not read topics in the Visa forum you should have provided a link to the post.

But courtesy is not something you seem to know much about.

I cannot, of course, comment on an individual situation without knowing both sides of the story; except to say that those with ILR are able to claim the same benefits as British Citizens.

Cameron hasn't said anything about changing that; but he's not really said anything as he knows that an immigrant's access to non contributory benefits is already severely restricted until they have no time limit on heir stay in the UK; whether that immigrant be from the EEA or outside the EEA.

Dragging in random, one sided quotes from other topics wont change that.

Mrs just told me about a lady that that we know has dumped her farang husband, in his eighties, in the UK, she is in her forties and yes the UK tax payer is keeping her, hmmmm, yes a daughter.

Presumably she is a citizen now. So where you are going with this is down the path of discriminating against one set of British citizens in favour of another. This is an extremely slippery slope, and once you go down it, it opens up all sorts of dangers.

Now, I can hear the refrain now, 'we natives are already discriminated against, us 'real' British have no rights any more, innit?' but the fact of the matter is that governments are careful that you don't have this situation occur for the most part.

It also suprises me that you aren't more angry with the doddering old fool who decided to marry her. Funny how personal responsibilty gets overlooked in situations such as this.