how will benefits be affected if my asylumseeker boyfriend movesin.

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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

I don't know. Do you know how many weren't?

barbarawright

margaretclare wrote: »

I completely agree with justlooking2012 above. Completely.

So you would deny help to asylum-seekers (who form a tiny percentage of all immigrants as has been said)? Is this the general feeling in your church? I'm just glad for some of my friends' sakes (for example I have two colleagues who are refugees from the war in Eritrea), that not everyone shares your view that it's OK for people to be persecuted as long as it doesn't affect us.

justlooking2012

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"

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

** This probably includes British citizens returning to the UK

To be perfectly honest nobody cares anymore,

Here to live, here to work, here to sponge, whatever enough is enough.

Here to work-we do not have enough jobs

here to live- we do not have enough housing/money to pay for it

here to sponge- we have our own spongers to support and we are broke now.

Personally if you came in through france thats where I would drop you back off and let them deal with you.

In your figures above, do they take into account the people who came in for another reason and then decided to stay.
What winds me up as well is that legal aid for family law is being cut back on unbelievably, but if you want to appeal and re-appeal asylum applications we will write a blank cheque

Gentile

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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

None.

There was one asylum seeker who raped and killed someone but was not allowed to be deported because the European court considered it a violation of his basic human rights.

Having said that, I hear that the One Pound Fish guy was sent packing and so was Makosi of the Big brother fame. :rotfl:

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

I completely agree with justlooking2012 above. Completely.

Not prepared to answer my queries margaretclare? The truth is your husbands grandparents were not very different from modern asylum seekers, there is a strong possibility they travelled through safe countries to get here and certainly Russian/Jewish refugees frequently did. How come you have sympathy for them? Your husbands grandparents could certainly have entered many safe countries far more easily than travelling to England.

MissMoneypenny

justlooking2012 wrote: »

What winds me up as well is that legal aid for family law is being cut back on unbelievably, but if you want to appeal and re-appeal asylum applications we will write a blank cheque

I thought Cameron had stopped that too unless they are in detention? Plus for some visa appeals, the person now has to pay a fee (appeals were funded by the UK tax payer before)?

When Asylum seekers are allowed to stay, they have refugee status and are able to access welfare: but that welfare route has stopped too I believe as refugees don't get that access to welfare now. Those who had a failed asylum case and got given Discretionary Leave under the EU human rights law; and then had full access to welfare - Cameron has closed that route to welfare too and made it much longer to get UK citizenship (as per my previous posts on this thread).

New criminality laws just about to come in, mean that some will never be allowed UK citizenship and others will have to wait longer before they can have this (and it seems to include cautions and traffic offences too). No more coming out of prison and being given UK citizenship, as Labour did.

Cameron has stopped several visa routes to the UK and heavily amended all the other visa routes to citizenship; including the closure of the '14 years in the UK illegally and don't get caught - then you can stay here and have citizenship' route that Labour invented during their last time in power and he has stopped students bringing their families to the UK and stopped students work rights if they aren't studying at a proper universities. Too many changes in the UKs favour, to list here.

Cameron also just got a massive new law written into EU law that affects EEA nationals that have also asked for UK citizenship, but that same law strangely doesn't affect Brits who choose to live in other EEA countries.

It doesn't seem to be making the papers, but you can read it all on the UKBA site or it is easier to read the changes on sites like immigrationboards.com where there is a lot of upset over the changes: but a lot of support for the changes from immigrants who came to the UK on the jobs shortages list.

EDIT - From searching on google, it appears Justlooking was correct and we still do have to fund asylum seekers appeals. It seems legal aid has stopped to those who appeal on human rights.

margaretclare

mumps wrote: »

Not prepared to answer my queries margaretclare? The truth is your husbands grandparents were not very different from modern asylum seekers, there is a strong possibility they travelled through safe countries to get here and certainly Russian/Jewish refugees frequently did. How come you have sympathy for them? Your husbands grandparents could certainly have entered many safe countries far more easily than travelling to England.

No, I am simply bored with answering your nit-picking queries about every little thing that I write, and I do have other things to do.

I believe that the regulations were different in the 1890s or 1905, when there were waves of pogroms throughout the Russian Empire in which many people were killed. I am not sure that the regulation about seeking asylum in the first safe country applied then. Further, I don't know where the paternal grandparents came from, nor does DH. On the 1901 census birthplace is simply stated as 'Russia', therefore I can have no possible knowledge of the route they took. I've been told they landed at Tower Pier in what they stood up in. Certainly they and all their descendants worked hard and were model citizens.

If they had stayed in any other country they might have ended up like the French Jews who were herded into Drancy en route to worse places further east. If the invasion had happened in 1940, it's known that there were detailed plans drawn up by the invaders for dealing with all the UK Jews along similar lines.

I think things are very different now and comparisons can hardly be made with what happened a century ago.

Any more nits to pick?

AlisonHarrison

I cannot see any “nitpicking” Margaret. In one post you say that your husband’srelatives “hadn’t passed through any countries on their way to the UK” then nowyou are saying that you can have no possible knowledge of the route theytook. Hardly nitpicking!

You also say that they were hardworking. Yet you moan in one post that asylum seekersare in poorly paid jobs like car washes, pizza leaflet deliveries. Jobs that cannot generally be filled by indigenouspeople because they are too badly paid.

Firstly, asylum seekers are not allowed to work, andsecondly, are those people who are working in poorly paid jobs not “hardworking”.

Like so many bigots and racists you are running aroundfrantically trying to find somebody to hate, and for somebody to blame forwhatever has happened.

margaretclare wrote: »

comparisons can hardly be made with what happened a century ago.

Of course comparisons can be made. But you cannot see them. Do you not think that at the time that your husband's family came to this country there were bigots who were as equally unwelcoming as you who thought that jobs should go to UK workers first?

margaretclare

AlisonHarrison wrote: »

I cannot see any “nitpicking” Margaret. In one post you say that your husband’srelatives “hadn’t passed through any countries on their way to the UK” then nowyou are saying that you can have no possible knowledge of the route theytook. Hardly nitpicking!

You also say that they were hardworking. Yet you moan in one post that asylum seekersare in poorly paid jobs like car washes, pizza leaflet deliveries. Jobs that cannot generally be filled by indigenouspeople because they are too badly paid.

Firstly, asylum seekers are not allowed to work, andsecondly, are those people who are working in poorly paid jobs not “hardworking”.

Like so many bigots and racists you are running aroundfrantically trying to find somebody to hate, and for somebody to blame forwhatever has happened.




Of course comparisons can be made. But you cannot see them. Do you not think that at the time that your husband's family came to this country there were bigots who were as equally unwelcoming as you who thought that jobs should go to UK workers first?

Another nit-picker!

I am not looking for anyone to 'hate'. I don't have the energy. And yes, the term 'racist' is one of the easiest to throw around without justification and impossible to counter. I do know that DH's forebears would have been 'racist' towards me had they known me. DH has been rejected by many of his relatives because he 'married out' as they put it and no, that wasn't me, that was his first wife.

Not very long ago there were comparisons made between the population make-up in the 2001 census and the most recent one, in 2011. I don't have to invent any of that. I heard comments about it on the news. Further, there have been projections following numbers of foreign-born women giving birth here with the obvious trends as to who will be a majority and who will be a minority in a generation or two. Suffice to say, those whose ancestry goes back furthest in these isles are projected to be the minority. We have always welcomed persecuted groups, the Huguenots spring to mind. The problem now is with the numbers. We could absorb small numbers provided they were willing to assimilate, and that was what always happened. It isn't happening now.

The Jews are a minority and they themselves are worried about their declining population. The reverse is true of other groups. Someone with whom I agreed mentioned London. The original east-enders are there no longer. Who is there instead? It would be 'racist' of me even to mention it. You fill in the gaps for yourself, since you seem to have little to do. I shall zap Martin's site and not come here again. It's completely pointless. I do have many other, more interesting, places to go to.

MissMoneypenny

Someone else asking today about his wife's DL application that they made over a year ago and being told that "The problem is, there will be no new grants of DL after 9th July 2012 even if the application was made before this date as grants of DL were always outside the rules and this policy has now been withdrawn."
http://immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=122281&sid=b58752cbe69fc015a701c7ae3eac518f

If you use their search button you will find more threads like that, including the discussion on exisiting DL applications, when the new rules first came in on 9 July 2012.