how will benefits be affected if my asylumseeker boyfriend movesin.

margaretclare

wayne0 wrote: »

i assure you, i can walk into no less than 200 shops in birmingham where there is at least 2 illegal workers...

just because you cant work, it doesn't mean that you wont work...

Thank you.

We are a small country which is already over-populated. We just cannot keep on absorbing from every corner of the globe. The situation being compared, Jewish refugees in the 1930s, is completely different. These people were, genuinely, in flight for their lives. As were my DH's grandparents in the 1890s/early 20th century. There were no benefits at all at that time for anybody, but they still found it worthwhile to come. Some only landed here in transit to the USA but for one reason or another, didn't make it any further than Whitechapel. They landed by ship at Tower Pier and hadn't passed through any other countries on their way from Russia.

clemmatis

zoominatorone wrote: »

They don't need permission anymore.

Actually, they do. The change comes at the end of this year.


Anyway. Mumps and I were talking abour Romanians and Bulgarians here now.

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

well, we didnt refuse to pay for a visa.
we paid £475 for an unmarried couples visa in 2009/2010. and was refused as the application went through a day late she was considered an overstayer and also as grounds as i had claimed jsa for a couple of months (as a single persons rate) - as we were living together she was named as a partner (note: we (I) made it clear that she had no recourse etc, and only a single rate was in payment)... they said she had claimed public funds (as her name was on the claim also).

Overstaying by one day, wouldn't be cause for a refusal. Was she allowed to apply for a spouse visa from the UK as most spouse visa's have to be applied for from their own country? What visa was she on in the UK when she applied for a spouse visa? If it was a visitor visa, then she had to go home as there is no swtiching on that visa and she would have told UKBA she was just visiting to be allowed entry (deception to get into the UK) and that's a big no no. She should have returned to her own country and applied for a spouse visa.

Claiming benefits when they aren't allowed to or using the NHS when they aren't allowed it, is cause for a refusal too. I note in one of your previous posts about the CSA wanting you to pay for your oldest child who lives with your ex, that you said your present wife is claiming Child Tax Credits. They are public funds and she is not allowed to claim these in her name. They should be a joint claim in your name (as you are allowed to claim benefits and she isn't). Perhaps this is another reason she was refused as she was taking public funds?

Child Benefit is public funds too and many are refused visas or extentions to their visas, if they are caught taking public funds as again, the rules have just been tightened up. Some pefer to pay back all the public funds they took so that they can get a visa (once they receive a letter from the relevant benefits office that it has been repaid in full).

wayne0 wrote: »

then when we got married in 2011 the sposal visa was declined also. with a statement stating there was nothing stopping me from living in Indonesia with my wife.

That would be the human rights part of the refusal. Many (as you would have seen on this board recently) think that human rights lets them choose the country they can live in, but it doesn't.

wayne0 wrote: »

- It is not as simple as you would believe to get a visa... but the problem is... isnt this just racism off the government...

It's nothing to do with racism and everything to do with you and your wife (mainly you) not following the immigration rules. The real resons for her refusal from what you said (and without seeing the exact wording of the refusal) seems to be that she didn't apply for a spouse visa from her own country and that she was taking public funds which she wasn't allowed.

If she then tried to stay in the UK on a visitor visa and apply for a spouse visa, then it was a correct refusal. You can't apply for entry clearance on a spouse visa, if you are already in the UK (as a visitor).

wayne0 wrote: »

also, NOT ALL NHS treatment is not considered as PUBLIC FUNDS...

NHS isn't considered public funds at all. If it was, then those non-EUs who enter on a work/student/dependant visa and who have "no recourse to public funds" stamped in their visas, would not be able to use the NHS; and they are allowed to use the NHS. People who are legally resident in the UK, can use the NHS for free. Illegals, overstayers, those on a visitor visa and Brits and EUs who reside abroad, are not legally resident and are not allowed to use the NHS for free.

wayne0 wrote: »

and certainly not giving birth... Esp when the child is considered british...

Giving birth on the NHS is nothing to do with the baby as it is the mother that receives the treatment. Giving birth is not classed as an emergency (the woman has been pregnant for 9 months) as therefore the birth, pre and post treatment is not free to illegals, overstayers or visitors.

wayne0 wrote: »

WE already went through that part of the system in late 2009 when our daughter was born

So your wife has been an overstayer for some time? And used the NHS for free at least twice for both of her births? You can get billed for both births if your wife was not allowed free NHS treatment, especially as they will be looking closely at what she has been up to in the UK, now that she has applied to stay in the UK outside of the immigration rules.

As I said before, this government have recently changed the rules so that those who use the NHS illegally, have to pay all their total NHS bill if it is more than 1K, if they want to enter or stay in the UK. Many a Brit has been on the forums complaining too as they received a nice bill from the NHS, in the country they are now residing in

As you wife is applying outside the rules, I don't know what they will do about billing her for her NHS births and other treatment. Nor what they will do about the repayment of any public funds she is claiming in her name; such as Childs Tax Credits and Child Benefit which are both clearly listed as public funds on the UKBA site. You are moaning about having to pay £15 a week to your ex for your first child in your other posts, but you might end up with bills much higher than that from the NHS and HMRC!

The door to 'easy route to UK citizenship by overstaying', has been slammed shut. If you had got her into the UK on a spouse visa in the first place by her applying from her own country (the rules for sponsoring were so lax pre 9 July 2012) instead of her just staying in the UK without a visa, then she wouldn't be in this mess. On a spouse visa, both of those births would have been free on the NHS and she could have worked.

Now, she has a 10 year haul to get citizenship once she finally receives a limited leave to remain outside the rules. Then you have 3 more visas to pay for her to make those 10 years, plus pay for her English tests and Life in the UK test so that you can then apply for and pay her ILR visa and then pay for her citizenship visa - and the cost of those visas go up twice a year. And all because she didn't apply for her spouse visa correctly (all rules clearly written on the UKBS website) and then didn't correct her error after the refusal and apply correctly.

debrag

AlisonHarrison wrote: »

Modern asylum seeksers cannot be found in these places. Asylum seekers cannot work.
I find it quite shocking that you can claim to be an active member of a church when you can spout hatred of a group of individuals who have been through goodness knows what to arrive in this country. What sort of church do you go to?
I am pleased that the post about "not wanting to give the time of day to asylum seekers" has been removed. At least you have some shame.
The group to which you refer, working as leaflet deliverers are probably members of EEC countries who have left their home to find work. What is wrong with wanting to work?
Would you also not "give the time of day" to these people?
Who is it that you want to spout hatred on the most?
Given your ignorance about who is entitled/not entitled to work, then I would imagine that anyone who has a different skin colour, religion or lifestyle would be the butt of your hatred.
You are not a member of the BNP or any other loony nationalist party by any chance are you? If not you could always join this lot. They don't know who to hate either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hji9rotbHdU

Probably linked to one if those southern American church's that hate everyone and each other.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

Thank you.

We are a small country which is already over-populated. We just cannot keep on absorbing from every corner of the globe. The situation being compared, Jewish refugees in the 1930s, is completely different. These people were, genuinely, in flight for their lives. As were my DH's grandparents in the 1890s/early 20th century. There were no benefits at all at that time for anybody, but they still found it worthwhile to come. Some only landed here in transit to the USA but for one reason or another, didn't make it any further than Whitechapel. They landed by ship at Tower Pier and hadn't passed through any other countries on their way from Russia.

Many asylum seeks are genuinely in flight for their lives.

mumps

wayne0 wrote: »

i assure you, i can walk into no less than 200 shops in birmingham where there is at least 2 illegal workers...

just because you cant work, it doesnt mean that you wont work...

How do you check the immigration status of staff when you go into a shop?

Voyager2002

justlooking2012 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

If you believe that you will believe anything. Britain is the soft touch of the world and as soon as it is stopped the better.
You also in another post berate a user for using the daily mail as a source but you link to the refugee council who are basically set up to make it even easier for refugees when they come here/to come here.
Do not get me wrong I do not believe the daily mail always on issues of immigration but I believe the refugee council even LESS

Don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices, will you.

Voyager2002

wayne0 wrote: »

i assure you, i can walk into no less than 200 shops in birmingham where there is at least 2 illegal workers...

just because you cant work, it doesnt mean that you wont work...

How do you know they are illegal?

If you knew, the UKBA would know and so they would have been removed by now.

As a matter of fact, a brown skin does not mean that a person is not allowed to work here. In exactly the same way, your skin colour does not mean that you can write English correctly, as the lamentable errors in your post make clear.

Voyager2002

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

You will find answers to some of your questions in post #92 above. Did you bother to read it before responding?

Note that the research results are from a highly reputable university (headed by a former Home Office official) and are simply published on the RC website. The research was not carried out by the Refugee Council.

leveller2911

Voyager2002 wrote: »

You will find answers to some of your questions in post #92 above. Did you bother to read it before responding?

Note that the research results are from a highly reputable university (headed by a former Home Office official) and are simply published on the RC website. The research was not carried out by the Refugee Council.

Yes I did read it thank you.Many of the questions asked resulted in answers that may well have been suggested to the Asylum seekers by their smugglers. For instance telling them to destroy their passports so the UKBA can not send them home.When you see a documentary on TV such as Panorama when interviewed many Asylum Seekers say they want to come to UK because its easy to get work and, great country to live in.


What is your solution?, where do we draw the line? if indeed you think there is a line?.Why do so many destroy their passports if the reason isn't because it would be revealed that their country of origin was deemed safe by the UN?.
Do you accept that a proportion of Asylum seekers are here or want to come here purely for economic reasons?
Morlock seems to reject any suggestion that some are ,which to be honest any level headed person would find odd .