how will benefits be affected if my asylumseeker boyfriend movesin.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

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.

That is very unfair, you said something that was untrue, I pointed it out.

AlisonHarrison

margaretclare wrote: »

Another nit-picker!

Why is it when someone points out the inconsistencies and lies in your posts, they are "nit picking?

I am not looking for anyone to 'hate'. I don't have the energy.

What do you call the comment about "not giving the time of day to asylum seekers" A group fleeing for their lives?

And yes, the term 'racist' is one of the easiest to throw around without justification and impossible to counter.

You can counter it by not being racist. Your unkind and unchristian comments have now been removed, presumably because they flouted the anti racism rules on the board.

I do know that DH's forebears would have been 'racist' towards me had they known me.

And that makes it OK does it? I thought you said that they had all integrted into our society. Another lie.

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.

Your comments are just what was said in the early part of the 20th century. Read Clemmatis' post.

The Jews are a minority and they themselves are worried about their declining population.

And your point is?

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.

Clearly not, as you are back

It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to debate immigration. However, your posts are ill informed, reactionary and untrue. Why lie?

Compare your posts to the well informed pieces by Mumps and Clemmatis.

clemmatis

margaretclare wrote: »

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.

But it was specifically asylum seekers you targeted. (Yes, the posts have gone; I assume you removed yours.) In 2010, as I said, there were 17,790 asylum applications; 3,480 people were granted refugee status. -- #130.

As I also said -- #143

"It is estimated that around 150,000 refugees settled between 1880 and 1905..."

that's around 6,000 a year.


In 1881, the population of the UK was 24,402,700. In 2011, it was 53,013,000. So, far fewer people, pro rata, are able to gain refuge here now.

SnooksNJ

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).

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.



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

its ok if MP's etc say "we can treat you differently because you werent born here" but if we pop down to tescos and tell somebody "go back home" we get arrested etc...

---

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

and certainly not giving birth... Esp when the child is considered british...
WE already went through that part of the system in late 2009 when our daughter was born

Interesting that my experience has been was quite different to yours. I received my spousal visa in 2009 and now have citizenship. If a MP says you should be treated differently, fair enough since I am a guest in the UK and it's a privilege to live here. But it's not really an issue because I found as long as you follow the rules the visa process was quite simple and nothing the UKBA required seemed unreasonable to me. Apply for the correct visa, no overstaying, and no public funds isn't rocket science.

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

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

I really am trying to help your wife. The benefit scroungers know all the rules and you don't seem to know them, so I haven't put you in with them in my mind.

I'm still concerned about your wife's name being the main claimant for CTC. Being legal in the UK is not the same as being able to claim public funds. As you saw from Snooks list, CTC are public funds i.e. a visitor is legal in the UK, but they can't have public funds or free NHS.

The benefit person (John) on the Claiming Benefits board of immigrationboards.com always tells posters to put the claim in the Brits name if their spouse has 'no recourse to public funds' but to make sure the claim is in joint names, as a single claim would be fraud.

Perhaps join that site and ask (they will be able to give advice on other immigratin matters too) or look for a thread about claiming tax credits in the Brits name?
http://immigrationboards.com/viewforum.php?f=38&sid=8e0d146b3d99d9853acfee26a3fd94fa
I don't know what an IS96 form is or what it entitles your wife to claim; if anything; or whether UKBA allowed her NHS for free; but posters on that site will and will be able to direct you to the relevant UKBA laws.

Your wife is in a bit of a mess now. That site is free to join. Sometimes they show people (by directing them to the rules) that their solicitor has given them the wrong advice. I'm not saying your is, but it doesn't hurt to check or be directed on the correct way to go.

Gilbert2

donaghgirl wrote: »

Lone parent on jsa.ctc.hb.ctb. just found out I'm pregnant. Partner is asylum seeker in detention.planning to try and bail him to my address. How will it affect my benefits. He's not allowed to work and no support. Will I have to look for 24 hrs a week during any hrs rather than current 16 during school hrs. Will my ctb be reduced. I'm considering applying for esa as im a longterm sufferr ofdepression. The stress is making me unwell again. How will my benefits be affected. He would stay with me until a decision made on his case.thanks

This must be a wind up.

On benefits and you decide to have another child with some asylum seeker who may not be able to carry out his fatherly duties because he may be sent back to where he came from and you're moaning about benefits!

Unbelievable. I'd give you a few options-

1 Get a job to support yourself and your family, whether the seeker is allowed to stay or not.

2 If he is deported, the state should provide you and your family with a one way ticket to go with him.

3 If the above doesn't appeal then your children should be taken into care where they will properly be looked after and you can fend for yourself.

It is already a form of child neglect the way you have behaved.

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

... 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.

Not from what I have read. If you claimed extra JSA for your wife, then that is not allowed as she has no recourse to public funds. If her name is required on the claim, then that doesn't seem to matter, but you can't claim extra JSA money for your wife. i.e. you just take the single JSA rate of £74(?)

The same with Housing Benefit is seems; the spouse name is on the claim but you can't have extra money for her or an extra rate i.e. shared room rate to 1 bedroom rate. I assume that applies for Council Tax Benefits too. Most posters seem to say they have a job persuading councils not to give extra HB money as the councils don't seem to understand that they are breaking their visa conditions by having that extra money.

It doesn't seem to work like that for tax credits or child benefit as the settled person (Brit or on an ILR visa) can claim extra money, as long as the claim is in the name of the person who can have public funds. You really need to check that on immigrationboards.com

It's making me wonder about what will happen with "No recourse to public funds" when all these benefits are replaced by Universal Credit.

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

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

Please ask on immigrationboards before your wife leaves the UK. She may be better waiting out the 10 years plus to get citizenship because from what you have told us, it could be nearly impossible for her to ever come back to the UK, should you or her British children want to live in the UK.

If you have the money to pay for her NHS births/any other treatment and can pay back any public funds she took, then the spouse visa will be the quickest route to citizenship (applied from her own country). It is now 5 years to citizenship on a spouse visa and you will need to be able to afford to sponsor her; earn £18,600pa. Ask about this on immigtaionboards. You aren't the only one who tried to get your spouse into the UK through the backdoor, but the rules have now changed and they will be able to give you the benefit of their experience.

MissMoneypenny

AlisonHarrison wrote: »

You can counter it by not being racist. Your unkind and unchristian comments have now been removed, presumably because they flouted the anti racism rules on the board.

You really need to educate yourself. Margaret did not single out a race; therefore her comment wasn't racist. She didn't even moan about a citizens of a country; but that still may not be racism. French, Germans' and English moaning about each other, wouldn't be racism; because we are from the same race; Ayran race. You can look all this up on the internet if you were off sick for several weeks/months, when your primary school covered all this.

EDIT. Here you go Alison and those others of you who don't understand about races. It took me all of 2 seconds to find this on google.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/

MissMoneypenny

wayne0 wrote: »

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".

I have read that part now. But on page 4 it states

b) My partner is allowed to claim tax credits
- can I claim them too?

Claims for child and working tax credits are
assessed jointly. If you are living with a spouse
or partner who is allowed to claim tax credits,
your name may be included in the claim.

It's the "included in the claim" that they talk about on immigrationboards. You're allowed to claim tax credits and your wife is included in the claim: which means you claim more welfare for her; or less if she works too. It doesn't say she can claim them (as the main applicant) just that she is included in your claim.