how will benefits be affected if my asylumseeker boyfriend movesin.

MissMoneypenny

AlisonHarrison wrote: »

I cannot see any “nitpicking” Margaret.

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

Well here is some "nitpicking". Margaret didn't pick on a "race" therefore she didn't make a racist comment. Knowing about different races is basic primary school education.

England has had exceptionally high numbers of immigrants (mainly low skilled) arrive in the last decade. We have always allowed immigration, but have never had such high numbers as have arrived in the last decade. It is not "racist" or even being a "bigot" to talk about that because of the problems that high numbers of low skilled immigrants arriving in a short time, cause a country i.e. strain on education, welfare, housing, NHS, jobs, roads, services etc

clemmatis

[QUOTE=AlisonHarrison;58356837[/quote]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?[/QUOTE]

And of course there were:

'It is estimated that around 150,000 refugees settled between 1880 and 1905... inaccurate statistics were published regularly. Reports of influxes of as many as 800,000 led to outraged readers’ letters. Arrivals found themselves accused of spreading everything from cholera to anarchism.

When popular national tabloids started to appear in the 1890s things intensified further. In 1904, The Sun wrote of “criminals, undesira!bles and radicals” who were “flock!ing to England in their thousands” to “fill our hospitals, our asylums and prisons and the taxpayer has to support them and smile”.

The Express called immigrants a “menacing evil” while in June 1904 The Mirror claimed “with almost every tide of the Thames a deposit of the floating wreckage of the continent is being left on our shores”.

The Mail, meanwhile - who only a few years back published 200 anti-asylum articles in one year - wrote a piece in February 1900 entitled “So-Called Refugees” about a boat bringing 600 refugees to South!ampton. “There were scarcely a hundred of them that had, by right, deserved such help” it reported, “and these were the Englishmen of the party. The rest were Jews”.'

http://www.thenewlondoners.co.uk/news-a-features/immigration

MissMoneypenny

AlisonHarrison wrote: »

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.

You do realise that this country has a minimim wage, don't you? And that many work for the minimum wage?

Or are you saying that those jobs pay less than the legal minimum wage? If you are, then has it occured to you that perhaps those firms get away with paying less than the legal minimum wage, because their staff are working illegally?

barbarawright

margaretclare wrote: »

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?

If you think comparisons can't be made, I suggest you look up Darfur. There are still millions of innocent people caught up in civil wars that are not of their making. Or perhaps you saw the news item about this very brave young lady. Who, you no doubt think should have stayed put. I just hope not everyone in your church shares your views.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

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 am bored with you accusing me of nit picking when all I did was ask a perfectly reasonable question about your husbands grandparents arriving here and you gave a very definite answer so I followed up with another question. I don't know why that annoys you so much unless it is because you made the answer up.

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.

You said they arrived in 1890 and did not stop in any country enroute, it seemed logical to me that you would know where they set off from. Or were you making it up when you said they did not travel through any safe countries?

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.

Fifty years later, I think Jews had been living safely in France till then. I am not saying there was no anti semitism, the Dreyfuss case springs to mind, but there were no pogroms and by the start of WW1 anti semitism had died down until the Nazi invasion. There was anti semitism in England as well. Are you saying we should be taking in asylum seekers because of what might happen in their country of origin in 2060?

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


Do you seriously think genocide only happened to the Jews in the 1940s?
Any more nits to pick?

I am amazed that a woman who boasts of her education, her career as a nurse and her religious beliefs could be so narrow minded. I don't nit pick but I never understand why someone would make things up on an anonymous forum but if they do well at least be consistent.

You are entitled to your views on immigration and asylum seekers and it is reasonable to debate that. I don't understand why you seem to take such exception to people disagreeing with you. I think the thing that has surprised some people is how vitriolic your first reply was, I assume you rethought it as it has been removed but perhaps a board guide removed it. I don't know. I do know that your first post did not fit with the Christianity I was brought up to believe in.

If you do a search online you can find lists of passengers arriving here in the 1890s, if you know his grandparents names and roughly when the arrived you might find more details about them. I don't know if your husband might find this interesting, I have friends who spend alot of time on stuff like this but I have never tried myself.

mumps

barbarawright wrote: »

If you think comparisons can't be made, I suggest you look up Darfur. There are still millions of innocent people caught up in civil wars that are not of their making. Or perhaps you saw the news item about this very brave young lady. Who, you no doubt think should have stayed put. I just hope not everyone in your church shares your views.

She is a very amazing young woman, I do hope she makes a full recovery, she seems to be doing better than could have been expected. Margaretclare has mentioned her past in the women's movement so I would hope she would admire Malala.

barbarawright

mumps wrote: »

She is a very amazing young woman, I do hope she makes a full recovery, she seems to be doing better than could have been expected. Margaretclare has mentioned her past in the women's movement so I would hope she would admire Malala.

Yes indeed - I hope she is able to stay here and get the education she deserves and be an inspiration to other young women

wayne0

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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?

http://www.bridgesprogrammes.org.uk/images/public_funds.pdf
PDF file from the home office. see page 6.

I am elegible for tax credits. therefore so is my wife (even though she is not allowed them on her own) she can infact be either the main claimant or listed as the partner ...
she is listed as "partner".

Child benefit is only claimed by one person (myself). but if my wife wished to claim it, she could, as i am elegible.

claiming either does not count as public funds in our situation.

but as i said, an passed information onto a somebody else... ME claiming JSA is also the same as my wife claiming JSA even if its a single persons rate - as her name needs to be listed on the claim too.

wayne0

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

thats fine... but the fact remains... even if my wife cannot get leave to remain, she is currently LEGAL in the country. (even if she is on an IS96 form and "liable to being detained"...)
an IS96 form issued by UKBA is essentially a tempory visa...

should UKBA wish to attempt to remove her, then article8 of the human rights can still prevent her being deported... (this is a different thing to being granted DL.

we are however considering moving to Indonesia... but thats one of many possibilities...

I thank you for information, I am unsure whether you are being argumentitive over the facts or truely trying to be helpful though?

margaretclare

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Well here is some "nitpicking". Margaret didn't pick on a "race" therefore she didn't make a racist comment. Knowing about different races is basic primary school education.

England has had exceptionally high numbers of immigrants (mainly low skilled) arrive in the last decade. We have always allowed immigration, but have never had such high numbers as have arrived in the last decade. It is not "racist" or even being a "bigot" to talk about that because of the problems that high numbers of low skilled immigrants arriving in a short time, cause a country i.e. strain on education, welfare, housing, NHS, jobs, roads, services etc

Thank you. Exactly what I meant. More of that has happened in the last 50 years than in the last thousand, and on top of that, more of it has happened in the last 10 years than in the past 50. This was illustrated by the comparison between the 2001 census and that of 2011.

My remark about 'nit-picking' was for mumps, who, on a completely unrelated thread, picked up on every little thing I wrote. I did get a lot of thanks from the OP on that particular thread so maybe it was worthwhile. No, I haven't removed anything that I wrote and I don't know who did.