Making a "fake" asylum application to secure accomodation

MobileSaver

aaaaa11111 wrote: »

I earned a few quid, maybe off the record,

So you didn't pay your fair share of taxes when you were doing OK but now you're struggling you want the State to support you? You couldn't make it up.

aaaaa11111 wrote: »

Some 70% of Somali mothers claim to be "single mothers". Somalis are Muslim. Islam does not permit !!! outside marriage. Something does not add up.

Possibly that 500,000 Somalians have died since the war began? Do you think that may account for a huge number of single mothers or do your racist prejudices blind you to such a reality?

Dird

csgohan4 wrote: »

While your statement sounds reasonable, there is a shortage of housing and are you expecting a British single male/female to get a room over a refugee with children who has fled war?

From what I'm aware there is no war happening in France. The second they decide to leave Turkey in pursuit of Germany/Sweden/UK they are economic migrants, not refugees.

Some of them are also quite funny. A popular interview for anti-immigrant people is a guy who moved to Sweden. His family was given a house & a 4x4 but he was complaining because the nearest shops were 30 minutes walk (or < 10 minutes if he drove his free car) and wanted to be moved to the city centre instead

AdrianC

Dird wrote: »

From what I'm aware there is no wars happening in France. The second they decide to leave Turkey in pursuit of Germany/Sweden/UK they are economic migrants, not refugees.

So the semi-stable countries bordering war zones should carry the burden alone?

Some of them are also quite funny. A popular interview for anti-immigrant people is a guy who moved to Sweden. His family was given a house & a 4x4 but he was complaining because the nearest shops were 30 minutes walk (or < 10 minutes if he drove his free car) and wanted to be moved to the city centre instead

I know Sweden. That's complete and utter ballcocks.

[Deleted User]

Is this thread for real? Gobsmacked that so many people are so proud of their racism and elitism. God forbid any of you ever require help from the state.

lisa110rry

Now then, to answer the OP's question, would not the response be a charge of "wasting police time"?

Can I just say that I'm absolutely convinced that if I tried to enter this country today instead of on 18th July 1977, I would be turned away and on the next flight home.

My mother was a British girl who served in the ATS who became a GI bride. Unfortunately, when I was born she did not travel the 160 miles to the nearest Embassy to register my birth, so I was not born British as well as US (unlike our son, who is).

I travelled with my mother to the UK by Constellation, by the Queen Elizabeth and by Pan Am 707. I always travelled on my own passport since the age of three months.

At 21, I met and fell in love with an Englishman. He asked me to come to England, and I did. However, I was now no longer a minor and although I used the same travel agent used by my mother, no one mentioned I needed a visa! When asked by the Immigration Officer the purpose of my visit, I said "to get married". (Well, I was young and naive!)

I was allowed in for three months. Three months later Geoff Rooker, MP (now Lord Rooker) helped me get an extension of a further three months. I was married on 21st December 1977, our 38th wedding anniversary is coming up.

Apart from £5.25 per week child benefit, I have never received a benefit. Apart from a short time when we moved almost half the length of the country, I have always worked (around the needs of my child).

I have been lucky enough not to need much from the NHS in the past 38 years (thank God).

I have been a net contributor to this country.

But I'm convinced I wouldn't be allowed in (without a visitor visa) today. And certainly not if I said "to get married"!

Edit to add: So I guess you could call me an economic migrant and for that reason I never take a side in this sort o discussion!

Dird

AdrianC wrote: »

I know Sweden. That's complete and utter ballcocks.

What exactly is ballcocks about it Mr Swedistan?

And yes, they take the burden while receiving financial support from the global community. Large swathes of Africa & ME have minorities being treated unfairly or war, you can't relocate them all to Europe

AdrianC

Dird wrote: »

What exactly is ballcocks about it Mr Swedistan?

I could just say "all of it", but it's probably better that I show you the reality.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150910/why-do-refugees-prefer-sweden-to-denmark

Note that refers to Syrians being given permanent residency. Not all those granted asylum. And, of course, many of those who seek asylum are not granted it.

Have a look, also, at the first and third bar charts in this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/aug/20/asylum-seekers-eu-comparison-germany-datablog

Dird

AdrianC wrote: »

...

Partially wrong, doesn't seem he has a car (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT3Y4KslTAw) although a previous upload of the video with an English description suggested he did.

Just because Germany chooses to accept everyone doesn't mean every EU country should. Also they accept around 50% of applications which is pretty crazy considering how many they receive.

wastedtalent

TBeckett100 wrote: »

OP, just realised you are already one step closer to being a refugee. You are homeless with a mobile phone. I've lost count of the numbers of men being interviewed on TV after losing their wife and child on a rubber dingy but have managed to keep hold of their mobile phone

No-one says they were poor before they had their livelihoods destroyed. Also, many of the phones they have are old generations of iPhones and so on that can be picked up for a few quid anyway.

aaaaa11111

Hello,

Thanks for the replies, although I am still trying to find the answer to my question.

My failure in life is all my fault, either by my choices or by my reactions and decisions when faced with issues. I am not "blaming asylum seekers" for my failings. I am not accusing "asylum seekers" of "taking" anything.

I make no reference to the current events. It's irrelevant. The area I and my family lived in for generations has experienced a constant intake of people, so much so that it has changed beyond all recognition, and I would hazard a guess that people of my ethnic background are now a minority in large parts of the area, if not the borough as a whole. Were people in the current crisis to arrive, it would not be noticeable. The place is already overcrowded to bursting point.

I have paid into the system all my life, both national and local. I have not "avoided" tax,. An odd spot of labouring is hardly likely to take you over the tax threshold of £10,600.

Statistics are not "racist". They are just numbers. 73% of "British born or infant naturalised Bangladeshis" marry a foreign born spouse. As do 65% of "British Pakistanis". 85% of "Pakistani Children Born In Bradford in 2009" had only one "British" parent. The average British Somalian woman has 3.9 children. They are just ways of counting things. Of course, technically none of these statistics refer to Bangladeshi or Pakistani or Somalian people, because legally they are BRITISH. However, they might not consider themselves British. The terms can be used as either nationality or ethnic group.

With regard to my reference to "Somalians", the people I was referring to were not necessarily from Somalia, nor are they asylum seekers fleeing war. Some of them might be. Many would not be. I was referring to Somalians as an ethnic group ( as they appear extremely homogenous and do not appear to reproduce outside their ethnic group nor integrate. I would have used the word married, but it would not be technically correct when they are claiming to be single). More than likely "Somalians" are "British". In my area I first noticed an influx of adult "Somalians" in the 80s. They had children and are very likely grandparents now. On more than one occasion I have seen British born couples in my local post office applying for a British passport for a baby and the father's name has been left off all documentation ). Perhaps it is a cultural thing, I never asked. In the real world, outside of the Guardian offices, people do do things that the Guardian would prefer to ignore. Such as unofficial polygamous marriages where 2nd and 3rd wives claim to be single mothers and are funded by the state. The world is not black and white, it is various shades of grey.

My question is this. The area I grew up in has exploded in terms of homes. Tens upon tens of thousands of flats have been built in the local authority area. The council gets 10% of them. Yet there is no decrease in homelessness. Because of migration and high birth rates. Every square inch of the area could be built on. It will not decrease homelessness. They will be filled by people who are a "priority".

Now I am homeless.

If I go to the council again, I will be told they can do nothing for me.

It is not the same for somebody claiming asylum. Of course they are not handed the keys to social housing. But what they will get is immediate accommodation. Unlike a homeless person. The latest handwringing in the Guardian is that once asylum is granted, the asylum seekers are only housed for a further 28 days, then have to apply for accommodation like the rest of the natives. An asylum claim will result in immediate accommodation.

For that reason, I am considering claiming asylum. I would not be the first British person to do it. Journalists from the BBC Panorama and newspapers have done it. Yes, it might not be nice, but I really don't care. Its a roof over my head. I will get a few books and keep my head down. There is no doubt I would be found out, but seeing as an asylum claim guarantees immediate accommodation it keeps a roof over my head for a few weeks I would do it.

Yes, I guess I could commit some sort of crime. I appear to be guilty of "thought crime".

Internet access is not a luxury these days. You can sit in Wetherspoons from 8 AM to 2 PM and get free refills of coffee for 99p and use the internet for 6 hours.