is having a generous welfare policy and high immigration compatible?

neverdespairgirl

There's a difference between getting nationality as a right, and because the person has ILR. The former can be more complicated than the latter.

misskool

vivatifosi wrote: »

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.

That's a thought. Do non-nationals who have paid into the system can't get state pensions if they only have ILR?

vivatifosi

misskool wrote: »

That's a thought. Do non-nationals who have paid into the system can't get state pensions if they only have ILR?

Currently I think they would be entitled because they get DLA. However there's no guarantee that current entitlement = future entitlement and I think that is their concern when government is looking to save every penny.

Its interesting that its harder to get citizenship by right as opposed to ILR as well. You would have thought that it would be an easier case to make.

neverdespairgirl

vivatifosi wrote: »

Its interesting that its harder to get citizenship by right as opposed to ILR as well. You would have thought that it would be an easier case to make.

It's because to get it by right, you aren't applying for it, you are demonstrating that you are a British citizen, and asking for that to be recognised.

Getting a passport isn't what makes you British. A passport is recognition that you already are a British citizen.

So, for example, when my son was born, we didn't apply for him to be granted citizenship, he already had it, from birth, as the son of British citizens. The passport we then applied for didn't make him a citizen, it recognised that he was one.

If you apply for nationality from having ILR, you become a citizen at that time.

So you mate with the AWOL Dad, because he's on the missing list, isn't applying for nationality, he's asking that his nationality be recognised. He has to prove he is entitled to it. Does that make sense?

Mate could do with some proper advice, anyway.

mostlycheerful

iinvestor : “Is such a policy sustainable in the long run?
Surely a better system would be, to scrap all benefits…”

Pardon? What, go back to how it was till only 100 years ago in UK and how it currently is in India, Pakistan, Africa, south America etc with a vast underclass of impoverished starving people dying young of curable diseases and living in appalling slum and shanty town conditions ruled by brutal tribal Mafiosi and crime gangs? What, back to begging and child labour and prostitution and endemic petty crime en masse? Er, no thanks.

No the solution is to only allow in quality civilised workers as finally at last this government has now done, or at least said they were doing.

What also needs doing and which this government has so far failed to do is kick out all the criminals and bums and make sure that they can’t just waltz back in again. But we have no rule of law in UK, government, police and justice system has almost completely failed so sadly the crims and bums are here to stay. The Home Office recently admitted that it knows of “1.6 million hardened full time criminals” in UK and that there is no intention to ever arrest imprison or deport any of them other than the occasional token few. So in the absence of government citizens will continue to be displaced and attacked at will by the home grown subhuman savages along with all the hordes of foreign ones currently running amok in every city and town.

But it would be a whole lot worse if you took away their benefits. There’s a clear connection between benefits and crime, the more benefits you give the less petty acquisitive crime and the converse is true, in countries with no benefits the murder, robbery, mugging, burglary, fraud and corruption crime figures are massively higher than in west Europe.

So, no, we can’t stop giving out benefits.

Ninky “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.”

No, you’re wrong. What an absurdly untrue thing to say. On the contrary, all races have distinctive dna as you can see if you read up on the subject. There is an abundance of literature available should you wish to acquaint yourself with its contents. There is considerable differentiation among humans and a number of identified races, the broad categories, as you well know, being Caucasian, negro and oriental along with numerous subdivisions. Just trying to pretend that the word race doesn’t mean race is crass. And normally reveals a personal and or political agenda.

“This idea that Homo sapiens consists of different subspecies called races, has been debunked.”

No it hasn’t, race is race. Always has been, always will be. And differentiation and evolution are still occurring and at different rates in different races as is readily observed and is much studied and has been for a couple of hundred years. As everyone other than a tiny minority knows.

ninky_2

mostlycheerful wrote: »

Ninky “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.”

No, you’re wrong. What an absurdly untrue thing to say. On the contrary, all races have distinctive dna as you can see if you read up on the subject. There is an abundance of literature available should you wish to acquaint yourself with its contents. There is considerable differentiation among humans and a number of identified races, the broad categories, as you well know, being Caucasian, negro and oriental along with numerous subdivisions. Just trying to pretend that the word race doesn’t mean race is crass. And normally reveals a personal and or political agenda.

“This idea that Homo sapiens consists of different subspecies called races, has been debunked.”

No it hasn’t, race is race. Always has been, always will be. And differentiation and evolution are still occurring and at different rates in different races as is readily observed and is much studied and has been for a couple of hundred years. As everyone other than a tiny minority knows.

i suggest you google "does race exist biologically" and educate yourself. science does not support the existence of different races of humans.

mostlycheerful

No, no, no. Differentiation is a known, abundantly observable and much studied fact. You’re implying that everyone is identical but, as you well know, no they’re not. There is considerable variation. As you can see every time you walk down the street.

ninky_2

mostlycheerful wrote: »

No, no, no. Differentiation is a known, abundantly observable and much studied fact. You’re implying that everyone is identical but, as you well know, no they’re not. There is considerable variation. As you can see every time you walk down the street.

of course there is variation we are not clones. but this does not constitute different races of humans. the fact you can't actually post any convincing link to back up your claim that science has identified different races of humans sort of proves my point.

Conrad

ninky wrote: »

of course there is variation we are not clones. but this does not constitute different races of humans. the fact you can't actually post any convincing link to back up your claim that science has identified different races of humans sort of proves my point.

Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs,Vol. 122 02-01-1996.

DISCUSSION OF "RACE" shows little sign of diminishing, despite efforts to debunk the concept. Downgrading the idea of race, however, not only conflicts with people's tendency to classify and build histories according to putative descent but also ignores the work of biologists studying other species (Mayr, 1970). In his 1758 work, Linnaeus classified four subspecies of Homo sapiens: europaeus, afer, asiaticus, and americanus. Most subsequent classifications recognize at least the three major subdivisions considered in this article: Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid. This classification does not rule out making finer distinctions within these major races.

Abstract

The international literature on racial differences is reviewed, novel data are reported, and a distinct pattern is found. People of east Asian ancestry and people of African ancestry average at opposite ends of a continuum, with people of European ancestry averaging intermediately, albeit with much variability within each major race. The racial matrix emerges from measures taken of reproductive behavior, sex hormones, twinning rate, speed of physical maturation, personality, family stability, brain size, intelligence, law abidingness, and social organization. An evolutionary theory of human reproduction is proposed, familiar to biologists as the r-K scale of reproductive strategies. At one end of this scale are r-strategies, which emphasize high reproductive rates; at the other end are K-strategies, which emphasize high levels of parental investment. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of widely disparate species, but here it is used to describe the immensely smaller variations among human races. It is hypothesized that, again on average, Mongoloid people are more K-selected than Caucasoids, who are more K-selected than Negroids. The r-K scale of reproductive strategies is also mapped on to human evolution. Genetic distances indicate that Africans emerged from the ancestral hominid line about 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split about 41,000 years ago. Such an ordering fits with and explains how and why the variables cluster.

mostlycheerful

Well done Conrad, an erudite, comprehensive, concise and indisputable explanation categorically refuting this patently untrue notion.

Ninky : “of course there is variation we are not clones. but this does not constitute different races of humans.”

Yes it does. That’s what the word means.

“the fact you can't actually post any convincing link to back up your claim that science has identified different races of humans sort of proves my point.”

No it doesn’t.

I could post lots of links if I wanted to or if this warranted it.

If you do even the simplest reading up about DNA you will find that all the races have distinctive differing DNA much of which has been classified, particularly with regard to the various genetic diseases and diseases with a genetic predisposition that various races uniquely suffer from.

Race and intelligence are also much studied and the results are published in numerous places which you can easily look up. And crime statistics listed according to race are available for most countries and make interesting reading for those wishing to inform themselves about the subject. Further analysis is provided by, for instance, Transparency International which classifies countries as to how corrupt they are. And the UN, UNESCO and the CIA regularly publish an abundance of data about all countries which therefore documents a lot about race.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]If you asserted that someone had recently announced that the words love and hate had been scientifically proven to no longer mean what they mean I would have no need to provide links to show how untrue such a statement would be.

The fact that race is race is universally known. It is odd to find someone asserting that a normal common universal English word no longer has meaning when it so clearly manifestly does and is used in its normal meaning all the time everywhere continuously in all media by hundreds of millions of English speakers all over the world.

You’re out there in a tiny minority with that absurd notion. It’s quite bizarre that you wish to assert such an obviously untrue notion on a public forum.