UK Visa No recourse to public funds

[Kevin1908]

You may or may not recall that I posted a couple of months back about a BBC report into a British woman married to a Syrian man who could not get a visa due to the minimum earnings requirement. The post was eventually closed as it turned into a slagfest so lets see how long this lasts.

I have a response from the BBC which has hightlighed a few things that I was unaware of. It seems no recourse to public funds is not correct. Not counted as public funds, according to the BBC, are contribution based JSA, guardians allowance, incapcity benefit, contributaory related employment and support allowance (what the hell is that), maternity allowance, retirement pension, maternity pay, widows benefit.

The letter goes on to say, that if the sponsor dies, then the applicant is eligible for child tax credit, council tax benefit, housing benefit, income based JSA, income support, income related employment and support allowance, social fund payment, working tax credit.

There was me thinking that if I had a heart attack the wife would automatically be kicked out of the country.

The above is also available to anybody temporarily without funds due to disruption of funds from abroad.

So no recourse to public funds doesn't mean that at all it would seem.

[phitsanulokjohn]

That's the way it would appear.Basically all it is,is the British government talking a load of bolony to appease the electorate.If you as i am,are an englishman, then you will understand that unlike here, no one on the streets of blighty should starve or be homeless, except by their own choice, such as the poor street dwellers in London living in cardboard city.

I once read an article many years ago in the Bangkok Post,by a Thai government official whose words went something like this,'' Here in Thailand,the Thai government genuinely does not have the money to pay Social security,but even if we did have the money,we still wouldn't pay it,as it encourages laziness''

The guy had a point.I believe it should be in place for genuine claimants who are in need of it,not for the pisstakers many of whom are living here in Paradise on sickness benefit and are all too quick to slag the country off and stating that all the foreigners who wish to work are stealing all their jobs.

I live here off of the back of my hard work in the Uk,and that's my choice.One things for sure though,there's not a country in the world as soft as the Uk.Lets take the political asylum rule for example.If a person's got aggro in say Iran,the Iranian should go to his next safest haven which would be Turkey,so what's he doing at the camp in Calais trying to enter the Uk.This is a nightly occurence of foreigners wishing to get into benefitland.com.

[Kevin1908]

Does anybbody know if this is correct? The bit about getting public funds if the sponsor dies doesn't make sense since I assume if the sponsor dies it would be an automatic deportation.

[7by7]

As has been frequently discussed in many other topics, not all public funds are barred until one has ILR: the obvious exceptions being those based upon National Insurance contributions the person has paid. See Public Funds

The UK government is not completely heartless, bereaved spouses and partners are not automatically deported. If your husband, wife, civil partner or other partner has died.

But, you did not contact the BBC to ask about public funds, you contacted them to complain about bias because they did not fully explain the entire immigration rules as they apply to families and the entire financial requirement in a 5 minute piece.

What was their reply to that?

[kunash]

I hope I am right in thinking that a British national, married to a Thai lady, on a 2 year temporary visa, can claim child benefit for his step children ( on a temp 2 year visa as well) - in the name of the British national,

and also claim child tax credit - this has to be claimed jointly of course , but the British national is the only one who is working. The Thai national would put zero hours worked zero pounds earned.

hope this is right

[7by7]

Kunash; see the replies you have received in the topic you started to ask the same question.

[Maestro]

I have removed an off-topic post. As the topic title and the OP indicate, this topic is about foreigners in the UK with a visa and their recourse to public funds, not about people of unknown nationality and visa status visiting pubs and driving cars.

[Kevin1908]

As has been frequently discussed in many other topics, not all public funds are barred until one has ILR: the obvious exceptions being those based upon National Insurance contributions the person has paid. See Public Funds

The UK government is not completely heartless, bereaved spouses and partners are not automatically deported. If your husband, wife, civil partner or other partner has died.

But, you did not contact the BBC to ask about public funds, you contacted them to complain about bias because they did not fully explain the entire immigration rules as they apply to families and the entire financial requirement in a 5 minute piece.

What was their reply to that?

I have received 2 letters from the BBC. In the first they failed to reference the allegation of bias. The BBC repeated the Home Office line about the sponsor being able to support the spouse. I rejected the explanation and the BBC came back at length saying that some public funds are available. But even that is misleading since they wouldn't be immediately available. To claim contribution based you clearly have to have made a minimum amount of contributions in the previous year. So it would be at least a year, or there abouts before an immigrant would be in position to claim contribution based benefits.

Again they didn't address the accusation of bias except to say that they reject my serious accusation of bias as the explanation of claiming benefit was valid. I clearly dispute this as claiming contribution based is not immediately available.

Now I was not expecting the BBC to own up to displaying bias but they have failed to properly explain why quoting the Government line in valid.

There is further level of complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit that I can complain to.

On the subject of the Government not being completely heartless, I guess we will only know when it is put to the test. But would you trust them?

[7by7]

The "Home Office line" is the law as expressed in the immigration rules. Whilst a person subject to immigration time restrictions is allowed to claim certain public funds, in their own right or jointly with their British spouse or partner, their ability to do so cannot be used to meet the financial requirement for their initial visa.

The bereaved spouse/partner rules have been in place for many years, longer than the 12 years plus I have taken an interest in immigration matters. I am sure that in that time people have suffered the death of their British spouse/partner and been granted ILR under this rule. The Home Office would need solid grounds to refuse an applicant in these circumstances as any spurious refusal would be overturned on appeal.

Carry on with your complaint of bias if you wish; but I agree with the BBC; the report was not biased. It reported on the family's plight and gave a relevant and as fair an explanation of the rules as time allowed.

But if you want to carry on chasing wild geese, up to you.

[Kevin1908]

The "Home Office line" is the law as expressed in the immigration rules. Whilst a person subject to immigration time restrictions is allowed to claim certain public funds, in their own right or jointly with their British spouse or partner, their ability to do so cannot be used to meet the financial requirement for their initial visa.

The bereaved spouse/partner rules have been in place for many years, longer than the 12 years plus I have taken an interest in immigration matters. I am sure that in that time people have suffered the death of their British spouse/partner and been granted ILR under this rule. The Home Office would need solid grounds to refuse an applicant in these circumstances as any spurious refusal would be overturned on appeal.

Carry on with your complaint of bias if you wish; but I agree with the BBC; the report was not biased. It reported on the family's plight and gave a relevant and as fair an explanation of the rules as time allowed.

But if you want to carry on chasing wild geese, up to you.

I am not suggesting that the report was biased only the emphasis on the Government statement that the new Immigration rules are intended to stop IMMEDIATE recourse to public funds.

As I read it, except for the sponsor dropping dead the day after the spouse arrived in the UK, an immigrant cannot immediately claim public funds since they would have no entitlement to contribution based benefits having not built up suficient contributions for some time.

I would rather not have the UK's public broadcaster being a mouth piece for the Government, and an inaccurate one at that.

[Kevin1908]

Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and national insurance contributions

Whether you are entitled to contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), depends on the National Insurance contributions you have paid over the last two complete tax years before the benefit year you make your claim in.

Quote from the CAB web site. I thought it was the previous tax year, it is infact the last 2 complete previous tax years. That rather debunks the Government's and BBC's assertion about immigrants having immediate recourse to public funds.