is having a generous welfare policy and high immigration compatible?

ninky_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Can't remember, sorry. I'd have to look it up. ISTR that child benefit isn't one of the public funds, though, for the purposes of a spouse visa.
.

wouldn't the resulting children of any spouse visa be half british anyway given that the other parent is british in order to get the spouse visa? as such the benefit is as much for the british spouse as the immigrant.

movilogo

The Best policy for All immigration is that if you are not born here you are not allowed any form of benefit or free health care unless you have lived here and paid taxes for 5 years

Well that is actually the rule for legal non-EU migrants (except NHS bit which is accetable as they pay taxes).

The issue of benefits is predominantly with EU migrants, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.

ninky_2

marklv wrote: »

Humans are a species, not a race.

biologically correct marklv. in fact whilst we are being scientifically correct you will concede that no races exist when it comes to humans. it is a cultural concept that does not stand up to examination of dna. therefore your suggestion of forced repatriation is completely lacking in logic.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

This idea that Homo sapiens consists of different subspecies called races, has been debunked as biology entered the era of molecular genetics and with the sequencing of the human genome. In general culture, the notion of distinct races characterized by a combination of geographic ancestry and particular physical features including hair texture, skin color, and facial features, remains widespread. It is often assumed by non-scientists that these races are still recognized as biologically distinct, as they were for a time in the past.

neverdespairgirl

ninky wrote: »

wouldn't the resulting children of any spouse visa be half british anyway given that the other parent is british in order to get the spouse visa? as such the benefit is as much for the british spouse as the immigrant.

Usually, they would be British. depends on the precise circumstances (whether the parent is British by descent, or British otherwise than by descent).

But I'm pointing out that not all benefits are public funds, that's all, not the reasons for it.

neverdespairgirl

marklv wrote: »

What needs to be stopped is the stamping of British nationality on any foreigner that a British citizen marries - marrying a foreigner should instead lead to the loss of British citizenship for the British national. This is the key loophole that needs to be closed.

You don't get British nationality just by marrying a British citizen.

vivatifosi

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Usually, they would be British. depends on the precise circumstances (whether the parent is British by descent, or British otherwise than by descent).

A relative of mine isn't British, even though they were born to a British mother and have lived here since they was six months old. They have an Aussie passport as they was born there and have an Aussie dad, has indefinite right to remain, but can't get citizenship. It isn't as straightforward as people think.

lemonjelly

Child benefit is classed as public funds I believe neverdespairgirl.

Council housing is also classed as public funds (despite the commonly held urban myth that asylum seekers get all the council houses).

neverdespairgirl

vivatifosi wrote: »

A relative of mine isn't British, even though they were born to a British mother and have lived here since they was six months old. They have an Aussie passport as they was born there and have an Aussie dad, has indefinite right to remain, but can't get citizenship. It isn't as straightforward as people think.

If mate has ILR, he / she could easily get nationality, unless (s)he's loaded up with criminal convictions, or suspected of terrorism, or has some other blot on the record.

neverdespairgirl

lemonjelly wrote: »

Child benefit is classed as public funds I believe neverdespairgirl.

Council housing is also classed as public funds (despite the commonly held urban myth that asylum seekers get all the council houses).

Housing is. Asylum seekers aren't included in the no-public funds visas, though. They don't get a visa at all unless granted refugee status / human rights protection / discretionary leave, and then they are entitled (in most cases) to all public funds, including housing.

I'm clearly going to go and look up the no-public-funds thing, excuse me while I delve into boring SIs.

<later>

Here we are. The Immigration Rules:

6A. For the purpose of these Rules, a person (P) is not to be regarded as having (or potentially having) recourse to public funds merely because P is (or will be) reliant in whole or in part on public funds provided to P's sponsor unless, as a result of P's presence in the United Kingdom, the sponsor is (or would be) entitled to increased or additional public funds (save where such entitlement to increased or additional public funds is by virtue of P and the sponsor's joint entitlement to benefits under the regulations referred to in paragraph 6B).

6B. Subject to paragraph 6C, a person (P) shall not be regarded as having recourse to public funds if P is entitled to benefits specified under section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by virtue of regulations made under sub-sections (3) and (4) of that section or section 42 of the Tax Credits Act 2002.


6C. A person (P) making an application from outside the United Kingdom will be regarded as having recourse to public funds where P relies upon the future entitlement to any public funds that would be payable to P or to P's sponsor as a result of P?s presence in the United Kingdom, (including those benefits to which P or the sponsor would be entitled as a result of P's presence in the United Kingdom under the regulations referred to in to paragraph 6B)".


In addition:


The following benefits count as public funds:

• Attendance allowance
• Carers allowance
• Child benefit
• Child tax credit
• Council tax benefit
• Disability living allowance
• Income related employment & support allowance - ESA (IR)
• Health in pregnancy grant
• Housing and homelessness assistance
• Housing benefit
• Income-based jobseeker’s allowance
• Income support
• Severe disablement allowance
• Social fund payment
• State pension credit
• Working tax credit.

There are occasions when people who are subject to immigration control can claim these benefits without it being classed as claiming public funds in breach of their conditions. In these cases the fact that they have claimed public funds will not affect any application for leave. Public funds can be claimed when an exception applies.
Benefits that are not considered as public funds under the Immigration Rules include:

• Contribution based jobseeker's allowance
• Guardian’s allowance
• Incapacity benefit
• Contributory related employment and support allowance - ESA(C)
• Maternity allowance
• Retirement pension
• Statutory maternity pay
• Widow’s benefit and bereavement benefit.

Some NHS treatment and local education authority (LEA) schooling are not considered to be public funds.


Housing associations are different from housing authorities. They are independent, not-forprofit organisations that provide low-cost housing.

People who are subject to immigration control can apply to a housing association and enter into a contract with them.

If they apply without being referred from a local authority or housing authority you must not consider this as claiming public funds.

If a person applies to a housing association following a referral by the local authority or housing authority you must consider this as recourse to public funds.


If it is unclear whether it is a housing association or local authority providing the housing, you must contact the housing provider to establish the basis on which the applicant qualified.


A person subject to immigration control is not considered as accessing public funds if it is their partner who is receiving the funds that they are entitled to.

Child and working tax credits are claimed jointly by couples. If only one member of a couple is subject to immigration control then for tax credits purposes neither are treated as being subject to immigration control.

If a person is subject to immigration control and lives with a family member who is a British citizen or a national of a country in the European economic area (EEA) they can claim certain public funds if they have a right to reside in the UK.

vivatifosi

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

If mate has ILR, he / she could easily get nationality, unless (s)he's loaded up with criminal convictions, or suspected of terrorism, or has some other blot on the record.

No convictions or anything like that, it is all down to the fact that the father is untraceable, and the law from those times (has changed since apparently though AIUI not backdated) says that the father must be involved. Relative did not realise they were not British until they were an adult with a family and tried to get a passport. The immigration service's advice is just to find the other parent, but how can you find someone who doesn't want to be found and may no longer even be alive?

Thanks for the info though NDG, I've suggested to my rel that they get this sorted out in case some ruling comes in saying that people who are not citizens can't get pensions etc.