American mother refused UK visa over income rules

[jacko45k]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Why do you feel it is absurd? This number likely ensures any non-national partner/couple are not likely to need or claim benefits.

I do not think any benefits should be available to foreigners, married or not to a British person, and not be a burden on the state.

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[chiang mai]

Wow! Since when do Americans need a visa for the UK? That's unbelievable!

Always, if they want to live there, unbelievable that you don't understand that.

[laislica]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Why do you feel it is absurd? This number likely ensures any non-national partner/couple are not likely to need or claim benefits.

I do not think any benefits should be available to foreigners, married or not to a British person, and not be a burden on the state.

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree with you in part but.

Should I choose to marry a UK native woman who never worked a day in her life, never made any contributions to NI etc.

I/she would get all possible benefits. (not that I want them but it would be my right to claim them)

Such a wife and even an unwed partner could also claim her pension based on my NI contributions, and her NHS cover too.

I could even pay a lump sum to the Gov to "Top UP" my g/f's contributions so that she can have a full pension in her own right.

I know, I did that once in the past for a Brit woman partner who could teach the Issan lasses a thing or two LOL

(She dumped me the day after she started drawing pensions I had set up for her - best thing she ever did for me BTW)

So by your argument, perhaps all women in the UK should be treated the same?

Unless they have made their own contributions or lump sums, no state support should be available?

The spouse must take care of everything!

What we have here is a penny pinching piece of BS designed to hit the weakest group but allow the Gov to say that they are doing something.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

As it happens, I left the Uk on retirement in 2000 and never want to live there again.

I would have liked to visit and introduce my Thai wife to my Uk family and friends

but a visa application for a two week visit was refused.

They can't even let that happen easily.

[soalbundy]

Wow! Since when do Americans need a visa for the UK? That's unbelievable!

why, we need a visa to stay in the USA

[Maestro]

Removed another off-topic post.

[Richard W]

As it happens, I left the Uk on retirement in 2000 and never want to live there again. I would have liked to visit and introduce my Thai wife to my Uk family and friends

but a visa application for a two week visit was refused.

At least the McCarthys have sorted that one out, so your wife no longer needs a visa to meet the survivors.

[Jonmarleesco]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

'Rules is rules....yes...except if she was an immigrant from one of several muslim countries, or Africa, she would not be treated like this.' This is the comment you claim as ill informed? Don't be so b____y ridiculous. It's fact, and I doubt you're so naïve as to think otherwise.

[Jonmarleesco]

I have to have about 16,000 quid in the bank to stay here on "retirement".

Perhaps the UK should raise the amount required as it's so much more expensive to live over there.

The U.K amount is per annum.

[laislica]

As it happens, I left the Uk on retirement in 2000 and never want to live there again. I would have liked to visit and introduce my Thai wife to my Uk family and friends

but a visa application for a two week visit was refused.

At least the McCarthys have sorted that one out, so your wife no longer needs a visa to meet the survivors.

No.

After the expense of a 1,200Km round trip/overnight stay €114 Bio data fee etc I decides to spend on buying passports for my family and they now visit us regularly when we are in Spain.

They don't deserve my money.

BTW I can more than meet the money in the bank and/or the annual income in excess of the 18 grand.

I have lived outside the UK for 16 years and never needed support from the UK.

Yet I still pay my bloody taxes in the UK!

There's another thing, they don't seem to want us to vote either!

It seems that if you expose yourself by trying to do things the legal and right way, you may well be penalised against those who cheat the system!

It is not fair nor just!

Just sayin!

[JetsetBkk]

I have to have about 16,000 quid in the bank to stay here on "retirement".

Perhaps the UK should raise the amount required as it's so much more expensive to live over there.

The U.K amount is per annum.

So is the Thai requirement.

[7by7]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Why do you feel it is absurd? This number likely ensures any non-national partner/couple are not likely to need or claim benefits.

As you seem to have missed my post No. 32, I’ll repeat what I said there.

One of the absurdities of this requirement is that it is based upon pre tax income and takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

Mr A earns £18600 p.a. before tax, has a mortgage of £3,600p.a. and has credit card and other debt repayments of £2000p.a. leaving him with a pre tax income of £13,000p.a. He meets the requirement.

Mr. B has a pre tax income of £18,599 p.a., his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts. He doesn’t meet the requirement!

Pre July 2012 the, unofficial but based upon case law, minimum income was a net figure, after deducting tax and all regular outgoings such as rent or mortgage and debt repayments.

After these deductions the sponsor needed a post tax income equivalent to the amount of Income Support a British family of the same size would receive; currently £114.85 p.w (£5972.20 p.a.) for a couple.

Now, the government expect a British couple to live on only £5972.20 pa. after housing costs, but demand a couple where one is an immigrant have a much higher income.

In my honest opinion, and that of many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, the pre July 2012 system was not only fairer, it made far more sense to base the requirement on a couples net income rather than their gross income.

I do not think any benefits should be available to foreigners, married or not to a British person, and not be a burden on the state.

I agree; and so does this and previous governments.

That is why there is a ban on the immigrant partner receiving any public funds, except contribution based ones for which they have paid sufficient NICs, until they have ILR; which takes at least 5 years.

In addition, whilst the British partner can, of course, claim any and all public funds to which they may be entitled as a single person; with the exception of WTC, they cannot claim any extra public funds due to their foreign partner living with them; including funds which they would have been entitled to had they married a British citizen.

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree that Americans should not be given special treatment, but fail to see what it has to do with Brussels. An EU member states immigration laws as they relate to non EEA nationals are a matter for that member state alone; nothing to do with Brussels or the EU.

[7by7]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

'Rules is rules....yes...except if she was an immigrant from one of several muslim countries, or Africa, she would not be treated like this.' This is the comment you claim as ill informed? Don't be so b____y ridiculous. It's fact, and I doubt you're so naïve as to think otherwise.

As previoulsy said; the requirements of the immigration rules apply to all non EEA nationals equally; except nationals of certain countries, including the USA, but no African or Muslim ones, do not need to obtain a visit visa in advance in order to visit the UK as a tourist or to visit family.

If you check the actual entry clearance statistics, you will find that refusal rates in South Asian and African countries are much higher than they are in, for example, the USA, Australia, even Thailand.

In addition, if you kept yourself abreast of events in this area you would know that people from Muslim and African countries are facing removal from the UK for the exact same reason as Mrs. James.

I am not being naïve; you are being ignorant. Try educating yourself.

[bentfarang]

Rules is rules....yes...except if she was an immigrant from one of several muslim countries, or Africa, she would not be treated like this.

Not South Africans of European decent.

[bentfarang]

We British do NOT have the right to bring our spouses to live in UK

If you want to do that, go through the proper application process like everyone else

I assume the baby was born in USA?

Father is British subject?

Then the child can get a UK passport and has right of abode

My grandson (British father, Thai mother) was born in USA and has 3 passports! Cheeky bugger!

The woman should apply at British embassy or consulate and would have a reasonable chance of getting the visa

Bringing refugees into this discussion is not helpful. We have an obligation to provide safe haven to refugees but not economic migrants.

Finally, the woman would have to demonstrate that she would not be a burden on the state. 18,000 per annum is pretty tight I would have thought....

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-35979897

quote

"Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said the purpose of the 2012 legislation was to limit immigration and stop non-Europeans coming to the UK to marry and claim benefits.

"Government guidance says splitting up a family does not, in their view, breach the Human Rights Convention. Unless [the family] can show she would be suffering some particular hardship, by going back to her country of citizenship, she is in a very difficult position," he added."

And what about the human rights of the child being deprived of its mother whist growing up?

That is one of the worst pieces of legislation that the Tory government ever came up with.

There are many thousands of UK/UK couples with children whose total income is much less than the £18,600 pa that the immigration rules require.

Many of them get assistance from the state but they CAN'T be deported simply because they are BOTH UK citizens.

There are many more couples who freely admit that they are far better off NOT working and living on benefits.

Maybe a stupid question, but let's say the family decide to all go to the States, but the father is refused a US visa... then this family faces no possibility of living together? Seems a dangerous situation when families are broken-up like this.

[jacko45k]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Why do you feel it is absurd? This number likely ensures any non-national partner/couple are not likely to need or claim benefits.

I do not think any benefits should be available to foreigners, married or not to a British person, and not be a burden on the state.

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree with you in part but.

Should I choose to marry a UK native woman who never worked a day in her life, never made any contributions to NI etc.

I/she would get all possible benefits. (not that I want them but it would be my right to claim them)

Such a wife and even an unwed partner could also claim her pension based on my NI contributions, and her NHS cover too.

I could even pay a lump sum to the Gov to "Top UP" my g/f's contributions so that she can have a full pension in her own right.

I know, I did that once in the past for a Brit woman partner who could teach the Issan lasses a thing or two LOL

(She dumped me the day after she started drawing pensions I had set up for her - best thing she ever did for me BTW)

So by your argument, perhaps all women in the UK should be treated the same?

Unless they have made their own contributions or lump sums, no state support should be available?

The spouse must take care of everything!

What we have here is a penny pinching piece of BS designed to hit the weakest group but allow the Gov to say that they are doing something.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

As it happens, I left the Uk on retirement in 2000 and never want to live there again.

I would have liked to visit and introduce my Thai wife to my Uk family and friends

but a visa application for a two week visit was refused.

They can't even let that happen easily.

Good points, but my underlying belief that non UK born people should not be afforded the complete rights and benefits of non-citizens by the UK makes your marriage to a UK citizen a very different situation. I do not think she should benefit from his NHI contributions though, if they were not married at the time they were paid. If that was to be the case it should be some form of joint pension, not those of a single person.

I do not believe NHS cover is based on NHI payments but on residence.

I am in a similar position to yourself, and very much aggrieved that the UK will not permit me to easily have my 'wife' travel with me there, putting rather onerous visa processes between us. She does not wish to remain there, nor do I, but I would like us to travel there together or her to come to join me freely. I did manage to get a visa for her once.

The UK makes popular regulations that achieve little as they impact very few, but look good to the masses.

For the real issues, they have let their hands be tied by Brussels.

Edited April 11, 2016 by jacko45k

[jacko45k]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Why do you feel it is absurd? This number likely ensures any non-national partner/couple are not likely to need or claim benefits.

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree that Americans should not be given special treatment, but fail to see what it has to do with Brussels. An EU member states immigration laws as they relate to non EEA nationals are a matter for that member state alone; nothing to do with Brussels or the EU.

The UK cannot control its immigration from EU member states, that is what I mean. I thought that would have been clear.

Plenty to do with the EU and Brussels. So a discriminatory policy ensues.

[Ghostnigel]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Maybe she should come back through the Calais refugee route. She will get given enough benefits to cover the 18,600 easily.....sorted.

[laislica]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Why do you feel it is absurd? This number likely ensures any non-national partner/couple are not likely to need or claim benefits.

I do not think any benefits should be available to foreigners, married or not to a British person, and not be a burden on the state.

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree with you in part but.

Should I choose to marry a UK native woman who never worked a day in her life, never made any contributions to NI etc.

I/she would get all possible benefits. (not that I want them but it would be my right to claim them)

Such a wife and even an unwed partner could also claim her pension based on my NI contributions, and her NHS cover too.

I could even pay a lump sum to the Gov to "Top UP" my g/f's contributions so that she can have a full pension in her own right.

I know, I did that once in the past for a Brit woman partner who could teach the Issan lasses a thing or two LOL

(She dumped me the day after she started drawing pensions I had set up for her - best thing she ever did for me BTW)

So by your argument, perhaps all women in the UK should be treated the same?

Unless they have made their own contributions or lump sums, no state support should be available?

The spouse must take care of everything!

What we have here is a penny pinching piece of BS designed to hit the weakest group but allow the Gov to say that they are doing something.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

As it happens, I left the Uk on retirement in 2000 and never want to live there again.

I would have liked to visit and introduce my Thai wife to my Uk family and friends

but a visa application for a two week visit was refused.

They can't even let that happen easily.

Good points, but my underlying belief that non UK born people should not be afforded the complete rights and benefits of non-citizens by the UK makes your marriage to a UK citizen a very different situation. I do not think she should benefit from his NHI contributions though, if they were not married at the time they were paid. If that was to be the case it should be some form of joint pension, not those of a single person.

I do not believe NHS cover is based on NHI payments but on residence.

I am in a similar position to yourself, and very much aggrieved that the UK will not permit me to easily have my 'wife' travel with me there, putting rather onerous visa processes between us. She does not wish to remain there, nor do I, but I would like us to travel there together or her to come to join me freely. I did manage to get a visa for her once.

The UK makes popular regulations that achieve little as they impact very few, but look good to the masses.

For the real issues, they have let their hands be tied by Brussels.

I am sure that the UK Gov could much but they have no pressure from our small group to do anything.

It's all a bloody silly game, remember "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" on the TV?

The country are really run by the faceless, un-elected permanent civil servants.

The population don't care, don't bother to vote and then whinge when they lose more and more rights.

Maggie got more people to "own" their own houses by selling them their council houses.

A fantastic trap, what they had for a cheap rent and was maintained by the council is now all their responsibility - concrete cancer et al!

(Ask the folk in new towns like Basildon)

To believe otherwise would be naive IMO.

Edited April 12, 2016 by laislica

[7by7]

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree that Americans should not be given special treatment, but fail to see what it has to do with Brussels. An EU member states immigration laws as they relate to non EEA nationals are a matter for that member state alone; nothing to do with Brussels or the EU.

The UK cannot control its immigration from EU member states, that is what I mean. I thought that would have been clear.

Plenty to do with the EU and Brussels. So a discriminatory policy ensues.

Oh, I'm sorry; as this is a topic about the UK family immigration rules in general and the financial requirement for same in particular. So I naturally assumed that is what you were talking about!

As said before, I don't want to wander off topic into a discussion of the EEA freedom of movement treaty (not EU, they are different. Leaving the EU would not effect this treaty unless the UK also withdrew from it). But the UK has signed that treaty.

This means nationals of other EEA states have certain freedom of movement rights in the UK, and British nationals have exactly the same rights in all other EEA states.

But there are conditions, it's not uncontrolled. (Look it up rather than relying on the hysterical 'reporting' of certain newspapers.)

Similar agreements exist between countries throughout the world.

For example, a similar arrangement exists between signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Do you consider that to be discriminatory?

Another example, based on visits this time. A few years ago we crossed from Thailand into Myanmar for the day. All my wife and daughter had to do was show their Thai ID cards; I needed my passport and had to pay a $10 fee to Myanmar immigration.

Do you consider that to be discriminatory?

If Mrs James were to enter the UK as a visitor, because she is American she would not have to obtain a visit visa in advance and so not have to pay the fee. Your wife, assuming she is Thai, does.

Do you consider that discriminatory?

(Edit: If you and your wife really do want to visit the UK again; do so. The UK visit visa process is a lot less onerous than you seem to think, and on average 95% of visit visa applications made in Thailand are successful.)

Edited April 12, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Maybe she should come back through the Calais refugee route. She will get given enough benefits to cover the 18,600 easily.....sorted.

Yet another ignorant comment from the ill informed!

[jacko45k]

A pity Brussels prevents the idea being applied more generally, nevertheless why give Americans any special treatment?

I agree that Americans should not be given special treatment, but fail to see what it has to do with Brussels. An EU member states immigration laws as they relate to non EEA nationals are a matter for that member state alone; nothing to do with Brussels or the EU.

The UK cannot control its immigration from EU member states, that is what I mean. I thought that would have been clear.

Plenty to do with the EU and Brussels. So a discriminatory policy ensues.

Oh, I'm sorry; as this is a topic about the UK family immigration rules in general and the financial requirement for same in particular. So I naturally assumed that is what you were talking about!

As said before, I don't want to wander off topic into a discussion of the EEA freedom of movement treaty (not EU, they are different. Leaving the EU would not effect this treaty unless the UK also withdrew from it). But the UK has signed that treaty.

This means nationals of other EEA states have certain freedom of movement rights in the UK, and British nationals have exactly the same rights in all other EEA states.

But there are conditions, it's not uncontrolled. (Look it up rather than relying on the hysterical 'reporting' of certain newspapers.)

Similar agreements exist between countries throughout the world.

For example, a similar arrangement exists between signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Do you consider that to be discriminatory?

Another example, based on visits this time. A few years ago we crossed from Thailand into Myanmar for the day. All my wife and daughter had to do was show their Thai ID cards; I needed my passport and had to pay a $10 fee to Myanmar immigration.

Do you consider that to be discriminatory?

If Mrs James were to enter the UK as a visitor, because she is American she would not have to obtain a visit visa in advance and so not have to pay the fee. Your wife, assuming she is Thai, does.

Do you consider that discriminatory?

(Edit: If you and your wife really do want to visit the UK again; do so. The UK visit visa process is a lot less onerous than you seem to think, and on average 95% of visit visa applications made in Thailand are successful.)

Yes, they are discriminatory practices, simplistically viewed.

A necessity though.

My previous efforts to obtain a UK visa I felt were onerous, so I would expect them to be so again. Having to travel to Bangkok for example. I feel somewhat vulnerable that she would very much need my assistance and were I already in the UK it would be very difficult to have her join me for a spell without prior arrangement.

[laislica]

Jacko, I made the mistake of thinking it was my right to take my wife on a holiday visit to the UK.

In hind sight I could have given financial info but choose not to - the application was refused.

7 x 7 was very helpful inb explaining how the IO's regard our applications and I learned from that.

However, we just applied for a holiday visa for my step son to stay with us for a couple of weeks in Spain.

The application we made left the IO in absolutely no doubt that

a) he would not overstay

would not need any financial help from the state

c) has health/accident insurance.

Result - a 30 day visa granted.

Should I ever decide to visit the UK, we shall do exactly the same for the UK IO.

Thanks again 7 x 7 for your excellent advice.

Best of luck Jacko

[jaidam]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Maybe she should come back through the Calais refugee route. She will get given enough benefits to cover the 18,600 easily.....sorted.

Yet another ignorant comment from the ill informed!

Not sure how Ghostnigel is ignorant or ill informed when he is 100% correct. Muslims illegally entering the UK are not subject to UK law or immigration laws. Once they manage to set foot on UK soil they are in for life and will be given full benefits for ever. I wish this was not the case, and that the law was applied to all regardless of status or religious beliefs, but let us deal with on the ground reality. By the way, a close friend is a channel tunnel employee and he tells me that almost all of them have 10k plus sterling in their pockets. Interesting how desperate "refugees" get such a thick wad.

[Ghostnigel]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Maybe she should come back through the Calais refugee route. She will get given enough benefits to cover the 18,600 easily.....sorted.

Yet another ignorant comment from the ill informed!

You are quite welcome to inform me as i am so ill informed ....do you honestly think i was serious?

please help me improve my nolij (knowledge)...555

[7by7]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Maybe she should come back through the Calais refugee route. She will get given enough benefits to cover the 18,600 easily.....sorted.

Yet another ignorant comment from the ill informed!

Not sure how Ghostnigel is ignorant or ill informed when he is 100% correct. Muslims illegally entering the UK are not subject to UK law or immigration laws. Once they manage to set foot on UK soil they are in for life and will be given full benefits for ever. I wish this was not the case, and that the law was applied to all regardless of status or religious beliefs, but let us deal with on the ground reality. By the way, a close friend is a channel tunnel employee and he tells me that almost all of them have 10k plus sterling in their pockets. Interesting how desperate "refugees" get such a thick wad.

He, and you, are both ignorant about and ill informed on this subject because what you are saying is 100% incorrect!

Everybody in the UK, regardless of their religion, is subject to the law of the land.

Anybody claiming any sort of public fund has to provide evidence that they are a British citizen or, if not, that they are in the UK legally and the conditions of their stay allows them to claim.

Therefore it should be obvious to all that illegal immigrants, whatever their religion, do not get any help from the state; because they are in the UK illegally and if they tried to obtain state aid then not only could they not provide such evidence, the mere attempt to claim would bring the attention of the state upon them and their illegal presence.

Of course, some people do enter illegally and then claim asylum, as do people who have entered legally, and so do get some state aid. The UK is a civilised country and wont let them starve.

But asylum seekers are not given a nice house and bucket loads of cash.

Some may be accommodated in a flat or house, many more are put into hostels or bed and breakfasts and a substantial proportion into an immigration detention centre or, if their asylum claim has been refused, even prison..

As well as being accommodated, they will also be given £35.39 a week with which to buy food and other necessities; plus a bit more, up to a maximum of £5 per week, if they are pregnant or have young children up to the age of 3. They may also get support from various charities, but that, of course, is not funded by the state.

So tell me; how does that add up to £18,600 p.a. as claimed by Ghostnigel? How does that equate to full benefits as claimed by you?

The latest government figures I can find show that between 2011 and 2013 45% of asylum claims were successful, 55% unsuccessful. So much for your claim that they are here for life. Initial figures for 2014 show a similar proportion.

For some facts rather than ignorant and ill informed opinion see

• Claim asylum in the UK
• Asylum support
• Asylum applicants' rights and responsibilities
• Immigration detention in the UK
• Home Office guidance; chapters 46 to 62: detention and removals.

Interesting that a channel tunnel worker is apparently able to stop and search illegal immigrants. Are the police and UKVI aware of his activities? Does he report these illegal immigrants to the police or UKVI so that they can be detained? Or does he simply let them through?

BTW, any support asylum seekers get from the government is means tested; so anyone with that amount of cash wont get anything.

[SgtRock]

Of course.

Mohammed does not become mohamed or any other name to cause confusion.

A perfect word does not exist

[laislica]

Of course.

Mohammed does not become mohamed or any other name to cause confusion.

A perfect word does not exist

Years ago in East London (Hackney), I bought a town house from a Turkish family.

For months after they left letters from the DHSS continued to arrive for them.

Addressed to Mr. first name, last name and

Mr. Last name, first name.

I bet they were claiming twice LOL

The UK doesn't use fingerprints so how would they know?

[laislica]

Got 10,000 quid in my pocket mate, just thought I would tell you.................

an o' course, no one would mug them eh? 555

More friend of a friend BS?

[SgtRock]

Of course.

Mohammed does not become mohamed or any other name to cause confusion.

A perfect word does not exist

Years ago in East London (Hackney), I bought a town house from a Turkish family.

For months after they left letters from the DHSS continued to arrive for them.

Addressed to Mr. first name, last name and

Mr. Last name, first name.

I bet they were claiming twice LOL

The UK doesn't use fingerprints so how would they know?

There will be those that apparently know better will be along shortly to tell us otherwise.

Edited April 13, 2016 by SgtRock