how will benefits be affected if my asylumseeker boyfriend movesin.

leveller2911

Morlock wrote: »

"Asylum seekers do not come to the UK to claim benefits. In fact, most know nothing about welfare benefits before they arrive and had no expectation that they would receive financial support.
(Refugee Council, Chance or Choice? Understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK, 2010)"

But don't let the facts cloud your bigoted judgements.

Just out of interest Morlock in your opinion why do Asylum seekers cross so many national borders to come here?.I do not accept many come here because they have a "cultural" link to the UK, a 23yr old Iraqi/Algerian has no cultural ties to the UK.

Why don't they claim asylum in the first free country they enter?.

Why do so many destroy their passports?

I'm proud that this country has given refuge down the centuries to those genuinely fleeing persecution from the Huguenots to the Jews in WW2 but there is a flip side and that is there will be people who want to come here purely for economic reasons but how can you tell they are not genuine? and destroying their passports on arrival makes it even more complicated.A cynic would conclude the only reason is their country of origin is safe and they would be sent straight back.

A couple of years ago a Slovakian lorry pulled into my yard to turn around and on doing so 14 Chinese immigrants jumped out of the back of the lorry.The thing that struck me was they were all young men, no women,no children in fact no one over about 30.Now if I was in fear of my life and my families lives I would not have left them behind in China, so were they economic migrants?. I did find out they were all rounded up but had all destroyed their passports.

The problem I have with the Refugee Council and such like is that they won't accept that some Asylum seekers are here purely for economic reasons and they are as bad as those who say all people who come here are here just for the benefits.

Two sides of the same coin I'm afraid.What we need is impartial research and I'm afraid I don't see TRC research as impartial.I would just add that when the Huguenots came here in the 16th-17th Century we were the wealthiest country on earth and still had a great Empire before WW2, move on to 2013 and we are a small country with huge debts and have trouble financing the NHS and benefits for our own people where exactly do you draw the line? because for many who are not bigotted the line has been reached.

If someone posted survey results from Migration Watch UK you would say they are not impartial and have an agenda so The Refugee Council survey should be treated with a pinch of salt.

justlooking2012

@Morlock,

Linking to anything to do with the refugee council when it regards immigration is about as unbiased as linking to the BNP website for the same subject. Both are pushing an agenda, both are unreliable.
The fact remains that we are an island.
The text below is copied and pasted from that exact report that you have posted

This belief is not supported by the existing research evidence, much of which suggests that destinations are determined not by personal choices regarding particular qualities of life or ideals but by the practicalities and demands of the situations that individuals face having fled their homes as refugees.

The bit in bold is the argument you are advancing and the very next part I have underlined shoots your argument down in flames. IF they only wished to flee their country and were not remotely interested in benefits they would not spend money, take risks, stow away and sometimes risk death just to get to Britain.
As for the routes involved etc, complete rubbish. Why would an agent who is in it for the money try so hard to get them into an island when he could pop them out anywhere in Europe.
Your view is respectfully blinkered

leveller2911

AlisonHarrison wrote: »

Modern asylum seeksers cannot be found in these places. Asylum seekers cannot work.


But you are incorrect, they are not allowed to work however due to unscrupulous bosses many find low paid work in resturants, market stalls,takeaways etc.

Gentile

Morlock wrote: »

"Asylum seekers do not come to the UK to claim benefits. In fact, most know nothing about welfare benefits before they arrive and had no expectation that they would receive financial support.


But don't let the facts cloud your bigoted judgements.

You really do not know much about how asylum seekers work do you ? If there is a genuine asylum seeker he/she would fly in to Britain and claim asylum and go through normal procedures. If someone has got wind of the benefits system here in UK via their chums already here, they would live in tents in Calais and try to sneak in via lorries despite them being in a country where there is no thread to their life.

Fact is, France discourages asylum seekers to prevent a horde of them arriving in numbers where as Britain welcomes them with both hands. A little bit of discouragement would be nice.

mumps

zoominatorone wrote: »

Until now, migrants from the two former communist nations (officially barred from working or claiming benefits in Britain until the freedom of movement rule comes in on January 1, 2014) have neatly exploited a gaping loophole in the EU rules.
It allows Bulgarians and Romanians claiming to be self-employed to get a British national insurance number and a raft of hand-outs, including housing and child benefit.
Many of the new arrivals have worked hard, cornering the market in car-wash companies, for instance.
But others are less industrious, and include Roma gipsies who, remarkably, now sell a third of all copies of the Big Issue.
Even selling one copy a week of the magazine (created to help the British homeless) miraculously gives them self-employed status and allows them to beg with impunity outside shops and on street corners.
Bulgarian and Romanian incomers have been blamed by police in their own countries and in Britain for a massive rise in organised crime, including the trafficking of children to Britain to beg, pickpocket, milk state benefits and even enter the sex trade.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252675/Were-way-Britain-In-year-29-million-Romanians-Bulgarians-right-settle-Britain-claim-benefits-And-gipsy-community-hardly-wait-here.html#ixzz2GpMDsAQQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I don't know the current position but at one time they could get leave to work if they fitted certain criteria, skilled workers etc.

Not all Romanians and Bulgarians are criminals, the ones I know are fine. They don't beg they have legitimate jobs, the work hard and send money home to families.

mumps

Gentile wrote: »

You really do not know much about how asylum seekers work do you ? If there is a genuine asylum seeker he/she would fly in to Britain and claim asylum and go through normal procedures. If someone has got wind of the benefits system here in UK via their chums already here, they would live in tents in Calais and try to sneak in via lorries despite them being in a country where there is no thread to their life.

Fact is, France discourages asylum seekers to prevent a horde of them arriving in numbers where as Britain welcomes them with both hands. A little bit of discouragement would be nice.

I thought there were more asylum seekers in France and Germany than in the UK?

mumps

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics from this link in 2011 Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and Belgium and received more asylum applications than UK, Germany and France more than double the UK figure. I don't know if this is an accurate source, perhaps someone else could comment?

Gentile

mumps wrote: »

from this link in 2011 Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and Belgium and received more asylum applications than UK, Germany and France more than double the UK figure. I don't know if this is an accurate source, perhaps someone else could comment?

Likely to be true because its easier to get in to those countries. Britain is harder to get in unless you fly in, which many try by sneaking into the landing bay of the aircraft. I still am not sure how they end up in EU countries in the first place but I guess they must hitch hike across Asia in trucks.

mumps

I think they arrive in Italy by boat, well the North Africans anyway.

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

it simply means that the border agency cannot remove you or attempt to, otherwise you have a valid claim for article 8 of the human rights ...

my wife is currently still has no leave to remain, and cannot work... we have been together for years, and have two children together...

Oh dear. I wouldn't like to be in your shoes when you explain to your wife what your refusal to pay for a spouse visa, now means for her under the new rules.

You should have sponsored her on a spouse visa, instead of trying to find a way around the UK immigration laws. Trying to avoid paying a few hundred pounds for a spouse visa for your wife, is now going to have a big effect on your wife's life under the new immigration rules and is now going to cost you a lot more money than a spouse visa would have cost! This government have decided to stop rewarding those who break our laws as it isn't fair to those immigratants who don't break our laws.

Prior to 9 July 2012, even someone living on welfare could sponsor a spouse to the UK and after 2 years, your wife could have got ILR (Inderfininate Leave to Remain) and then immediately asked for British citizenship. If you had "been together for years" outside the UK, then she could have applied for ILE (Indefinate Leave to Enter) and applied for British Citizinship as soon as she passed the Life in the UK test. ILR and ILE give full access to UK welfare in their own name; ILE/R allows people to apply for British citizenship.

If your wife got into the UK by using deception to enter the UK; by stating to immigration that she was just a visitor then she refused to leave or by overstaying a student/work visa and is asking for Discretionary Leave under her Human Rights, then this Discretionary Leave under Human Rights, was stopped on 9 July 2012. It doesn't matter when she put her application for DL in; if she wasn't granted DL before 9 July 2012, then she comes under the new immigration laws and DL under human rights, has gone. As you said your wife is not allowed to work, then it sounds like she hasn't been granted DL and therefore she is under the new immigration laws.

Those fiances/spouses who applied for a UK visa before the 9 July, are protected and are under the old immigration laws. The reason those who applied for DL before 9 July are not protected under the old rules, is because they applied outside the UK immigration laws.

Under the now defunct DL, once granted; this meant the applicant had immediate access to full welfare in their own rights (something someone on a spouse visa didn't have). They were granted 3 years limited leave to remain, then applied for another 3 year visa under DL and then got ILR. This meant that those who lied to enter the UK, got access to welfare and then citizenship after 6 years (2 x 3year visas); while those who entered the UK legally on a spouse or fiance visa, had no access to welfare for 2 years. Hence why the government has just changed the laws to make it fair to those who do comply with UK immigration laws.

Under the new rules; there is no DL under Human Rights. There is no access to welfare if they are granted limited leave to remain. And it is 10 years (instead of 6 years) before they can apply for ILR (Indefinate Leave to Remain) and therefore 4 visas (4x 2.5year) to pay for and 3 more lots of hassle, before they can apply for ILR.

For your wife, this now means that even when she is granted limited leave to remain, it will be another10 years before she can apply for a British passport and that during that time, she has no right to any welfare in her name. Plus she also has deception on her UK records. If you had bought her a spouse visa, she would have had her British passport by now and be able to use the NHS for free.

On the subject of NHS, you do know the laws have just changed there too for those who used the NHS illegally, don't you? . Those on a visitor visa or those here illegally (including those who overstay) cannot use the NHS for free: that includes giving birth. New laws: no visa until you pay your NHS bills over 1k. NHS bills will cost more than a spouse visa would have cost!