Cameron looking to change benefit system for immigrants

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigrants claim welfare at less than half the rate of the native born. Around 6% of immigrants, and 15% of native born.

Very interesting Hamish.

I wonder if a study has been done on comparing the costs between the two groups? Let's say as a wild example that those 15% of the native born population, on average have a couple of kids each.

But I believe EU legislation entitles foreign nationals to claim for kids back at home. Whether you believe this is done all above board or not, and that no-one manipulates the system by stretching the truth a little is another matter. However, I am not saying it is, but it could be the case that that 6% claim disproportionately more.

I would be interested to know if anyone has actually done a cost analysis.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The facts are the facts Conrad.

Immigrants claim welfare at less than half the rate of the native born. Around 6% of immigrants, and 15% of native born.

The rate of recent immigrants that are allocated social/council housing is also far lower than native born.

It's no a fair comparison.

You are looking at ALL immigrants, including those who leave after a couple of years. These people really drag down the welfare benefits, as you are comparing british people taking a pension in their later years against those who never will.

I put all the graphs up a while back, and it was child benefits, pensions and DLA that made the UK population stand out as taking more. Makes sense, a lot of immigrants don't have children, hence they are free to ge up and go. They aint gonna claim a pension here as they are sending money home and it's unlikely the disabled will move countries and emigrate to the UK as things are more difficult.

When comparing unemployment benefits, housing benefits and NHS care, there was no real difference. Infact, immigrants claimed mor in housing benefits.

You didn't comment on those figures. While you are right in what you are saying overall, it's only through the removal of any context that you are able to make your point with any type of conviction.

Sampong

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2012/nat_nino_regs.pdf

This is the document you refer to - is it not?

Unfortunately it doesn't give any information about costs.

What a bummer eh.

For all I know that 15% and 6% might mean naff all.

Graham_Devon

Sampong wrote: »

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2012/nat_nino_regs.pdf

This is the document you refer to - is it not?

Unfortunately it doesn't give any information about costs.

What a bummer eh.

For all I know that 15% and 6% might mean naff all.

Thats the same sort of thing, yer. Look at working age benefits for those in London. Nearly 4x as many "non national" people are on working age benefits in London.

There was a document with the same sort of table as on page 8, but including UK nationals.

It was there that you could compare the claim rate.

MacMickster

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't think the high profile Abu Qatada case helps either. I can't really rationalise my reasoning here - I think legal aid access is right but not in cases like that:o.

I think that the Abu Qatada case rankles because any country should be able to stop undesirable foreign nationals from roaming their streets.

I agree that we should not send people to face torture. I would, however, have been quite happy to see Abu Qatada given the option of being deported to any country that would take him, but whilst he was making his mind up or finding a willing government to have him he would have to remain in detention. I can't see how that can be seen as a breach of his rights.

talkinpeace

As a first generation economic migrant, I admit to finding it hysterically funny that the British - who once prided themselves on having colonised and taken over the government of half the world now object when a few of the people they invaded come to check out the home land.

andy2004

how about forgetting the cost, and just BLOCKING ALL ENTRY into the UK for all IMMIGRANTS, come here for your holiday Fine, but as for jobs stay where you are, until at least this country is BACK ON ITS FEET.

but if you want more immigrants coming into the UK taking away jobs from british people and having more british unemployed and claiming benefits, please rememeber to increase your TAX payments to the government so the government can pay the unemployed their £70 a week to live on.
OH, and also remember to buy british when out shopping, and trying to keep british shops open after all in the news you hear about businesses going into adminstration every day.
Comets, HMV, blockbusters, jessops, oh and a new one for today, a clothing chain that also had a website.

MacMickster

andy2004 wrote: »

how about forgetting the cost, and just BLOCKING ALL ENTRY into the UK for all IMMIGRANTS, come here for your holiday Fine, but as for jobs stay where you are, until at least this country is BACK ON ITS FEET.

but if you want more immigrants coming into the UK taking away jobs from british people and having more british unemployed and claiming benefits, please rememeber to increase your TAX payments to the government so the government can pay the unemployed their £70 a week to live on.
OH, and also remember to buy british when out shopping, and trying to keep british shops open after all in the news you hear about businesses going into adminstration every day.
Comets, HMV, blockbusters, jessops, oh and a new one for today, a clothing chain that also had a website.

I think that The White Horse's prediction of his iminent demise has come true. I spot traces of TWH DNA in the above post - no capitals at the start of a sentence.

olly300

Sampong wrote: »

V
But I believe EU legislation entitles foreign nationals to claim for kids back at home. Whether you believe this is done all above board or not, and that no-one manipulates the system by stretching the truth a little is another matter. However, I am not saying it is, but it could be the case that that 6% claim disproportionately more.

Regardless of whether it's changed or not, the system should be that the claimant has to prove they have the child first. This means the DWP has to pull it's fingers out and delay paying until they have confirmed the child exists.

If a few of the government agencies and the NHS actually did proper checks on people we wouldn't be complaining. In other EEA countries you actually have to prove things first with documentation and then by them writing to the UK, before you gain the benefits/allowances you are allowed.

[Deleted User]

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bravo Cameron.

As he says, it's simple common sense.


My vote to stay in the EU, so long as the changes we require and stuff like this happens, come the referendum will now most likely be to stay in.

I hope he pulls this off, though he's already being attacked as "removing access to justice".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9867628/David-Cameron-pledges-to-overhaul-benefits-system-for-immigrants.html

graham you had a go at me on DT for having 7 threads on page one,i see you`re almost there on here:rotfl: