Latvian Mother of 10 received £34k benefits

FTBFun

ILW wrote: »

Is there not a difference between racism and giving preference to ones own countries citizens?

Yes - the first one isn't illegal per se whereas the latter is if UK citizens are given preference to other EU citizens.

kabayiri

- She has no really valuable skills to bring to the UK economy.
- She takes out of the system more than she puts in.
- She is a net drain on the economy.

There, let's keep it to economy issues shall we. No mention of race or religion.

Mass immigration without a system to acquire the skills this country needs is a waste of time in my view. Canada and Australia show us the way.

FTBFun

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Maybe you live in a place like where I do, in a small village with only one black face, and totally oblivious to what is happening in the real world. I can drive to two or three large towns/cities within 20 minutes to witness and listen to accounts of how bad things have become.

What do you mean by "bad"?"

Gracchus_Babeuf

Sampong wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206255/Latvian-mother-demands-bigger-council-house-despite-raking-34k-benefits.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

There will often be a debate on here about whether or not immigration (which usually seems to get confused with mass uncontrolled immigration) benefits the economy.

So how does the above story benefit the economy then?

This is not an immigration issue. Latvia is in the EU so she is as entitled as any UK national to claim these benefits. Likewise, UK nationals are entitled to claim benefits from other EU nations that they may reside in.

You can quote as much as you like from the tabloids, but this is fact.

There is an immigration issue in the country, but it is a completely different one - I won't state the obvious.

PaulF81

FTBFun wrote: »

What do you mean by "bad"?"

a benefits bill bigger than the tax raised through income tax?

The_White_Horse

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I cannot read the mail, it literally makes me feel sick.

I have a similar problem with the Gruniad. Especially Polly Toynbee.

The issue is, this Latvian woman is here solely to claim free money. If there were NO benefits here, she would not be here.

Benefits should not be available to any immigrant (EU or not) until they have paid in for at least 10 years. That includes NHS and education.

It won't really cause a problem, because no one will come anymore.

Also, if she was English, she would still make me sick to my stomach. This is why the child benefit change is a disgrace. It should have been available to all but restricted to two kids max. This way it discourages breeding for cash.

Also, NO ONE should EVER get more than a two bedroom flat on benefits. If you have no cash and want 3 or 30 children, good for you - you pay for them and you house them.

Lefties are the scourge of the universe.

Loughton_Monkey

All we have here, is the confluence of two seperate facets of our benefits system.

1. The payment of Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit. We are an overpopulated country in an overpopulated world. I am absolutely outraged that it costs taxpayers £4,300 a year for child 1 and £3,390 for every subsequent child. A young unemployed adult doesn't even get that amount to feed and clothe himself!

2. It is an equal outrage, I believe, to pay the same benefits to voluntary migrants who have never been part of the UK system. Freedom to live and work in another EEC country is fine. But it should come with NIL entitlement to benefits until such time you have built up qualifying years in the new country.

The Daily Mail example is simply one where both 'outrages' apply.

If any of you out there are (a) extremely rich, (b) are bored, (c) in need of some noteriety, and (d) wish to force our government into doing something, here's what you do:

1. Prepare an easy to understand "Benefits Chart" of people's entitlements under the UK benefits system. A sort of 'How Much can I claim' calculator.

2. Translate it into all the EEC languages, like Bulgarian, Latvian etc...

3. Go to these countries. Pay for full page advertisements in all their national press, along the lines of "Come to England. Here's what you can get..." And then the "Killer" of "I will pay your fare to go. No strings attached".

Yes, this would cost a lot of money. But nothing like it would cost us. Just imagine the implication of this machine rolling. Probably 2,000 to 3,000 full coachloads arriving at Dover every day?

I don't think such an act would be illegal. But I think it wouldn't take long for our government to 'rethink' the rules, especially since half the population would be up in arms.

Gracchus_Babeuf

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Benefits should not be available to any immigrant (EU or not) until they have paid in for at least 10 years. That includes NHS and education.

It won't really cause a problem, because no one will come anymore.

You completely miss the point. She can claim because of a common agreement between EU nations that the right to claim benefits is essential to labour mobility. Just as a Scottish person can claim benefits in England and viceversa. Indeed, a UK national can claim benefits in France or Germany of they wish to settle there. If you remove the right to claim benefits you would also harm UK citizens who wish to work in the EU.

It's 'horses for courses'. But the scummy tabloid press turns the issue into an immigration one, which it certainly isn't - it's a EU legislation issue.

ILW

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You completely miss the point. She can claim because of a common agreement between EU nations that the right to claim benefits is essential to labour mobility. Just as a Scottish person can claim benefits in England and viceversa. Indeed, a UK national can claim benefits in France or Germany of they wish to settle there. If you remove the right to claim benefits you would also harm UK citizens who wish to work in the EU.

It's 'horses for courses'. But the scummy tabloid press turns the issue into an immigration one, which it certainly isn't - it's a EU legislation issue.

True, but I would suggest that very few UK citizens agreed to it.

Gracchus_Babeuf

ILW wrote: »

True, but I would suggest that very few UK citizens agreed to it.

Irrelevant - the UK government agreed to it. That's all that counts.