how will benefits be affected if my asylumseeker boyfriend movesin.

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.

I thought the normal routes out of Russia were from Latvian ports or more commonly by crossing into Hungary Austria then into Germany, Holland or Belgium. They would then travel by boat to England and possibly on to the new world. Most Russian refugees would have crossed more than one country to arrive in England.

Where did they sail from? Russian ports like Murmansk or Archangel would have been an unpleasant long voyage (and dangerous I would assume) compared to going the european route but might depend on where they lived in Russia, but presumably it was in the pale of settlement. I suppose St Petersburg would be possible, but weren't Jews restricted from entering the city?

justlooking2012

Voyager2002 wrote: »

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

I think you will find I am one of the least prejudiced people you will meet. My girlfriend is mixed race and all of my friends have at least one west indian parent. I live in south east London and it is getting ridiculous now. In fact if you want to hear a point of view speak to the people who came here in the sixties and actually had to work and who have never claimed a benefit in their lives. These people were also treated terribly by a percentage of the British people because they happened to be black.
I was sitting waiting for my friend to have his hair cut a few months ago when an elderly Jamaican man came in to have his hair cut and the subject we were discussing were refugees, he pretty much summed it up when he said "England lets anybody in and gives them money, even if these people have no intention of mixing with English people. Hell, you can even say you want them all dead and your still allowed to stay".
SO before you accuse people of being prejudiced then maybe you should delve a little deeper into the reasons behind it.
BUT I am allowed an opinion and my opinion is STOP immigration now as it clearly is enough. That is my opinion and you can call me racist, prejudiced or whatever you like but my opinion will not change until we are better off as a country so can afford it and until we have enough jobs for the BRITISH people before we consider letting others in.

wayne0

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

so you know the who system of immigration law etc?...

i really find this hard to believe, as any lawyer who specialises in immigration law will even admit that it is a minefield that is always changing... and that nobody can know it all...

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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?

my claim for tax credits is a joint claim, and TC are well aware of my wifes situation in the country.

again, you are an expert on imigration law?

it appears not, since: a claim for tax credits which includes a partner who is subject to immigration control and has no recourse does not count as recourse if the main applicant is entitled to claim such funds.

the same case with child benefit.

also. my wife has been granted free nhs treatment. if she were in a detention centre she would be entitled to such treatment. and the IS96 form states that she must live at my home address ... this means she has been granted temp leave to remain...
which means she has been requested to go home, but still has leave to remain within the UK.

*if or when UKBA attempt to remove her Article 8 of the human rights applies, since she entered the uk before the new rules apply and has valid entry clearance at present.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/modernised/cross-cut/public-funds/funds.pdf?view=Binary

see page 8- it clearly states some nhs treatment is not considered public funds ...

also page 10 - free or paid nhs treatment is not considered public funds, even though it could leave to an application being refused on other grounds...


page 17 for CTC / WTC...


worth reading, but since you appear to know it all, guess you already have?...

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

that it has been repaid in full).



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.



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.

and not all visa's need applying for out of the country...

you can apply in country too for certain visa. - unless you know more than our solicitor at the time?

again, i claimed, she was noted as a partner, so both deemed to be in reciept... even though only a single rate was paid...

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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).



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.



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.




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!

clearly read my other posts then i see?

my payment to my ex is 46 per week...

and i am certain that both HMRC and NHS wont be billing either of us

SnooksNJ

wayne0 wrote: »

so you know the who system of immigration law etc?...

i really find this hard to believe, as any lawyer who specialises in immigration law will even admit that it is a minefield that is always changing... and that nobody can know it all...



my claim for tax credits is a joint claim, and TC are well aware of my wifes situation in the country.

again, you are an expert on imigration law?

it appears not, since: a claim for tax credits which includes a partner who is subject to immigration control and has no recourse does not count as recourse if the main applicant is entitled to claim such funds.

the same case with child benefit.

also. my wife has been granted free nhs treatment. if she were in a detention centre she would be entitled to such treatment. and the IS96 form states that she must live at my home address ... this means she has been granted temp leave to remain...
which means she has been requested to go home, but still has leave to remain within the UK.

*if or when UKBA attempt to remove her Article 8 of the human rights applies, since she entered the uk before the new rules apply and has valid entry clearance at present.

see page 8- it clearly states some nhs treatment is not considered public funds ...

also page 10 - free or paid nhs treatment is not considered public funds, even though it could leave to an application being refused on other grounds...


page 17 for CTC / WTC...


worth reading, but since you appear to know it all, guess you already have?...



and not all visa's need applying for out of the country...

you can apply in country too for certain visa. - unless you know more than our solicitor at the time?

again, i claimed, she was noted as a partner, so both deemed to be in reciept... even though only a single rate was paid...




clearly read my other posts then i see?

my payment to my ex is 46 per week...

and i am certain that both HMRC and NHS wont be billing either of us

I'm curious how you are going to resolve this because you have a mess. Your issue lies with the UKBA, as they are immigration experts, not GP offices or HMRC. Yes you probably won't get a bill but you won't get a visa either if they think you received more money because of your wife. Even if your wife came over on a fiance visa, student visa ect they would not deny you being 1 day late so something else is going on.
Here is a list of what is public funds:

• income-based jobseeker's allowance;
• income support;
• child tax credit;
• working tax credit;
• a social fund payment;
• child benefit;
• housing benefit;
• council tax benefit;
• state pension credit;
• attendance allowance;
• severe disablement allowance;
• carer's allowance;
• disability living allowance;
• an allocation of local authority housing;
• local authority homelessness assistance;
• health in pregnancy grant; and
• income-related employment and support allowance.

I followed the rules and it's not hard. But if it were me in your wife's position I would leave the UK, insist on paying for any NHS treatments, and get the best immigration attorney to assist with a spousal visa before I get a knock on the door at 5am from 6 border agents.

margaretclare

I completely agree with justlooking2012 above. Completely.

szam_

I'd feel mightily aggrieved that i have to work so hard to attain a wage level and savings to sponsor my girlfriend of 2 years that i get to see 4 weeks a year (4 years together when we want to live together) to come and stay and live with me in the UK, only for someone to be granted access to the UK based on getting pregnant and supported by the benefit system, which i imagine it will do sooner or later as the OP is pregnant.

Where's the fairness in that?

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

my claim for tax credits is a joint claim, and TC are well aware of my wifes situation in the country.

HMRC are not immigration experts. It is up to the immigrant to ensue they don't take anything they are not allowed as this will impact on a visa or visa renewal. What is considered "Public Funds" is clearly listed on the website and I see that SnookNJ has kindly supplied that list.

In the posts where you were unhappy about the CSA telling you what to pay for your first child, you said that you didn't think your wife's CTC should be counted in the CSA calculation. This would imply that your wife is claiming that public fund in her name. It should a joint claim in your name as you have a right to claim this and from what you have said, she doesn't have access to public funds in the UK. It won't make any difference to the amount you receive. Why make your wife's situation worse?

wayne0 wrote: »

since: a claim for tax credits which includes a partner who is subject to immigration control and has no recourse does not count as recourse if the main applicant is entitled to claim such funds.

Yes, that's what I told you. The key words there are "Main applicant" and that should be you if she isn't allowed to claim public funds. CTC and child benefit are public funds: look at the list SnookNJ provided.

wayne0 wrote: »

also. my wife has been granted free nhs treatment. if she were in a detention centre she would be entitled to such treatment.

Granted free NHS by the UKBA? People held in detention, are allowed NHS. As SnooksNJ has already told you, the NHS are not immigration experts and neither are the various benefit agencies. Just as immigration solicitors are not benefit experts.

wayne0 wrote: »

*if or when UKBA attempt to remove her Article 8 of the human rights applies, since she entered the uk before the new rules apply and has valid entry clearance at present.

If it was Discretionaryt Leave under Human Rights you were hoping for, then as it seems she wasn't granted this before 9 July and she therefore comes under the new rules; the 10 year route to ILR. The UKBA website state this and people are reporting that they are being given the new 30 month visas (30 months x 4 = 10 years) instead of the 3 year DL visa; even though they applied for DL under human rights, long before 9 July 2012.

wayne0 wrote: »

see page 8- it clearly states some nhs treatment is not considered public funds ...

I have already told you that the NHS is not public funds. Look on the list the SnooksNJ gave. But that doesn't meant that anyone who comes in the UK can use the NHS for free. Emergency treatment in the A&E (so that excludes x-rays, stay on a ward and follow up treatment) some contagious diseases and family planning, is free to all.

wayne0 wrote: »

also page 10 - free or paid nhs treatment is not considered public funds, even though it could leave to an application being refused on other grounds...

That means that although the NHS is not 'public funds', not everyone is allowed to use it for free. The new immigration laws mean that someone who used the NHS and wasn't allowed to use it for free, will have to pay their NHS bill over 1k or be refused permission to enter or stay in the UK.

wayne0 wrote: »

and not all visa's need applying for out of the country...

you can apply in country too for certain visa. - unless you know more than our solicitor at the time?

That's what I said.Which is why I asked what visa your wife entered the UK on and asked if it was a visitor visa. I expalined that visitors cannot apply for a spouse visa from inside the UK as they will be refused. Again, the UKBA site lists those visas that can be switched inside the UK and a visitor visa is not on that list.

wayne0 wrote: »

clearly read my other posts then i see?
my payment to my ex is 46 per week...

That's what the CSA told you to pay and why you were complaining about your wifes CTC being used in the calculation, as you said you were only paying £15 a week sporadically. That's when it seemed that your CTC claim was in your wife's name (as the main applicant).

I thought you wanted information that would help your wife?

Many have reported on forums that the the midwife gave them forms to claim child related benefits from HMRC. They thought that they would only get given benefits if they were allowed them (as they showed their immigration status to HMRC) but later realised that it is up to the visa holder to find out what they can and can't have as the benefits agencies are not immigration experts. Claiming benefits you are not allowed, can be a refusal (hence why people rush to pay the money back before they extend or apply for another visa).

MissMoneypenny

SnooksNJ wrote: »

Yes you probably won't get a bill but you won't get a visa either if they think you received more money because of your wife.

I'm not sure what will happen to unpaid bills as she is asking to stay outside of immigration rules.

As he is a British citizen or has ILR, he can claim some public funds in his name for his children or stepchildren even if they have no recourse to public funds; just so long as he is the main applicant. So they can claim child benefit, but it must be in his name if his wife has no recourse to public funds. With Tax Credits, he must make a joint claim, but he must be the main applicant if she is not allowed to have public funds.

Thanks for posting the list of public funds.

SnooksNJ wrote: »

Even if your wife came over on a fiance visa, student visa ect they would not deny you being 1 day late so something else is going on.

Agreed. In fact the goverment have just made it clear that you can apply up to 28 days after the visa has expired and for certain visas and it won't affect your application to remain.

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I followed the rules and it's not hard.

That's why the government changed the DL rules; because they were unfair to those who did follow the UK immigration laws. Some spouses are now abandoning their leave to remain outside the rules claim, in favour of going back to their own country and applying for the correct visa from there. They will get ILR and access to welfare in their own name, in half the time now if they qualify for a fiance or spouse visa.

clemmatis

justlooking2012 wrote: »

I was sitting waiting for my friend to have his hair cut a few months ago when an elderly Jamaican man came in to have his hair cut and the subject we were discussing were refugees, he pretty much summed it up when he said "England lets anybody in and gives them money, even if these people have no intention of mixing with English people. Hell, you can even say you want them all dead and your still allowed to stay".

It could be you or the Jamaican guy were mixing up asylum seekers/refugees and other migrants, or for some other reason thought there were far more asylum seekers than there are.

"How much of total immigration do asylum seekers account for in the UK?
Total long-term immigration to the UK in 2010: 572,000**
Asylum applications in the UK in 2010: 17,790

How many asylum seekers are allowed to stay in the UK?
Total asylum applications to the UK in 2010: 17,790
Total granted refugee status in 2010: 3,480"

http://www.redcross.org.uk/What-we-do/Refugee-services/Refugee-facts-and-figures

** This probably includes British citizens returning to the UK

MissMoneypenny

clemmatis wrote: »

It could be you or the Jamaican guy were mixing up asylum seekers/refugees and other migrants, or for some other reason thought there were far more asylum seekers than there are.

"How much of total immigration do asylum seekers account for in the UK?
Total long-term immigration to the UK in 2010: 572,000**
Asylum applications in the UK in 2010: 17,790

How many asylum seekers are allowed to stay in the UK?
Total asylum applications to the UK in 2010: 17,790
Total granted refugee status in 2010: 3,480"

How many of those failed asylum applicants, were deported or left the UK?