Immigrants appeal benefit decision

[LillyThePink]

WTF?

OK sorry this is the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2778581.stm

Right, so my basic problem is this. At the risk of sounding like JK, who the hell do these people think they are. What makes them think that just becuase they have managed to get over here (legally or not) that the state should look after them. Not being rude (or maybe I am) but I don't see why people like this should be able to claim ANYTHING from a benefits system that they have contributed nothing to. They had enough initiative to get over here, they have initiative enough to get off their arse and find a job. I'm sure they could manage "you want to super-size that?"

Human rights violation? Where does it say that bludging off the dole in the UK is part of your human rights?

/end rant

Edited to add: - Sorry - this comes across as really xenophobic, doesn't it? I don't have any issue with people who are genuinely seeking asylum AND FOLLOW OUR RULES when they get here. I'm utterly sick of spongers on our welfare system, and that includes people who have never had a job and people who keep having kids they can't afford.

[Jon_in_london]

Lilly, the problem is if they dont get benefits they are either going to end up begging in the streets, resorting to crime or working below minimum wage AND resorting to crime.

The reason for this si because you cant just allow everyone work-permits. If we did this then many people (me included) would say that these 'asylum seekers' (haha) are taking jobs away from Brits.

The whole solution is to NOT LET THEM GET IN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DEPORT THEIR ARSES IF THEY DO!! By law, refugees must go and seek asylum in the FIRST SAFE COUNTRY THEY COME TO which means that unless, for example, someone flies direct from Iraq to the UK they shouldnt bloody well be here.

Somehow this simple, legal, solution escapes that bunch of idiots in Westminster.

Im not anti-immigration (having been a foreigner for most of my life and married to an LEGAL immigrant myself) but I am anti-ILLEGAL immigrants. If we dont imprison/deport illegal immigrants then what the point in having a border at all?????????????????

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Lilly, the problem is if they dont get benefits they are either going to end up begging in the streets, resorting to crime or working below minimum wage AND resorting to crime.

The reason for this si because you cant just allow everyone work-permits. If we did this then many people (me included) would say that these 'asylum seekers' (haha) are taking jobs away from Brits.

The whole solution is to NOT LET THEM GET IN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DEPORT THEIR ARSES IF THEY DO!! By law, refugees must go and seek asylum in the FIRST SAFE COUNTRY THEY COME TO which means that unless, for example, someone flies direct from Iraq to the UK they shouldnt bloody well be here.

Somehow this simple, legal, solution escapes that bunch of idiots in Westminster.

Im not anti-immigration (having been a foreigner for most of my life and married to an LEGAL immigrant myself) but I am anti-ILLEGAL immigrants. If we dont imprison/deport illegal immigrants then what the point in having a border at all?????????????????

We have the same issue in America. Recently California put an initiative on the ballot to refuse certain public services (among which education became the poster child) to illegals.

Judging by the hue and cry, you'd think they wanted to round up every Hispanic in the state and put them into death camps, when all they really wanted to do was enforce the rules (written and unwritten) about who pays for services and who's entitled to them.

Can't remember if it passed, but it was close.

[Jon_in_london]

[RANT] Also I HATE those lazy sods who do nothing at all but live in a council flat and collect their doll cheque once a week- I see them when I go to work in the morning. Sitting around outside the social security building- drinking tins of lager, having babies and smoking cigarettes. If I were king I'd have these people scrubbing the Northern Line until its clean enough to eat off!!
[RANT]

[LillyThePink]

EXACTLY! I gave up smoking so I could afford my house, and I'm working to save up to have a baby - and these people smoke drink, breed and don't work, yet expect to be kept!!


I think claiming that they didn't know the rules about claiming asylum straight away is just an excuse. I also think that we should have stricter capping of the numbers of people we will accept per year and after that SOD OFF is the answer.

I don't think "the first country" is very practical, though?

It is hard to know what position to take on the immigration problem. In an increasingly unstable world, with a growing population and with a widening gap between rich and poor it is absolutely inevitable that more and more people will try to get into Europe. The problem is that many places just about the entire population could claim that they are oppressed by their state. If we let everybody in who 'deserves' to be 'helped' then before long there will be more immigrants than natives. This isn't xenophobic paranoia either - it is a basic unavoidable consequence of the inequalities of the world and the number of places where people face really difficult lives. I don't know what the solution to this problem is.

[LillyThePink]

I generally consider myself to be a bleeding-heart liberal about most things, and I can genuinely see that some people would really truly fear for their lives because of their politics/what they have seen etc, and I don't have any objections to immigrants per se. I DO however object to people not declaring their intention to be considered for asylum, and their seeming assumption that they are entitled to housing and food just for showing up here. How the hell does that work? Would I automatically get an apartment and an income in the US if I just showed up on a boat? I think not.

[Soubrette]

Jon

The first safe country is just too mealy mouthed for words for me.

Basically it's saying that we won't take any asylum seekers because we're not on mainland Europe. A much fairer system would be if each EU country has a quota. Now how that would work is anyone's guess:)

Also we have a demographic time bomb here - too many old people and not enough workers. You may find in 25 years that you are arguing strongly for more immigration so that we have enough workers to support us in our old age :)

These issues are never simple :(

Sou

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
I generally consider myself to be a bleeding-heart liberal about most things, and I can genuinely see that some people would really truly fear for their lives because of their politics/what they have seen etc, and I don't have any objections to immigrants per se. I DO however object to people not declaring their intention to be considered for asylum, and their seeming assumption that they are entitled to housing and food just for showing up here. How the hell does that work? Would I automatically get an apartment and an income in the US if I just showed up on a boat? I think not.

Lilly, I did a business studies A level a year or two ago just for fun :p

One of our topics was demographics. And the fact of the matter is that immigrants put more into our economy (in taxes) than they take out (in benefits) however I got rid of all my text books:( so I can't tell you where I got that fact from - sorry :(

Also this obviously wouldn't include black market immigrants who aren't on any records and may possibly be fraudulently claiming benefits.

Sou

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Jon

The first safe country is just too mealy mouthed for words for me.


I dont give a toss- Its international law.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Basically it's saying that we won't take any asylum seekers because we're not on mainland Europe.

Good, Like Ireland basically.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Also we have a demographic time bomb here - too many old people and not enough workers. You may find in 25 years that you are arguing strongly for more immigration so that we have enough workers to support us in our old age :)


I know that we have an ageing population but this is caused by the sudden drop in birth rate which means the demographic has 'mushroomed' but this problem must be allowed to run its course. Although it may be difficult for a period, just pumping in more and more young(ish) immigrants is no solution at all.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


.....I know that we have an ageing population but this is caused by the sudden drop in birth rate which means the demographic has 'mushroomed' but this problem must be allowed to run its course. Although it may be difficult for a period, just pumping in more and more young(ish) immigrants is no solution at all.

And the fact that people are living so much longer - I believe when the state pension was first introduced - the average lifespan for a bloke was 68 now it's more like 75.

Do you think birth rates and lifespans have stabilised?

Sou

[LillyThePink]

Don't worry about the birth rate - always goes up during a war.
:D Since one is imminent, we should be fine....
:rolleyes:

Thanks for your points about immigrants paying taxes - I quite agree that those who follow the rules and claim asylum and are granted asylum according to THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY THEY HAVE LANDED IN!! can quite easily be welcomed into our society. What annoys me is those people who DON'T follow the rules adn still expect bed and board for free.. what makes them think we owe them anything, let alone board and lodging?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soubrette


And the fact that people are living so much longer - I believe when the state pension was first introduced - the average lifespan for a bloke was 68 now it's more like 75.

Do you think birth rates and lifespans have stabilised?

Sou

Also people are more healthy and able when they are older these days. It simply isnt reasonble demand that peeps retire at 65 any more. Used to be they only had a few years to live after that. These days loads of peeps live until they are 90+

About the taxation thing= because they cant work they dont pay taxes. I have no problem with people entering legally, obtaining work permits in their country of origin and either working for a few years or staying here permannetly

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Also people are more healthy and able when they are older these days. It simply isnt reasonble demand that peeps retire at 65 any more. Used to be they only had a few years to live after that. These days loads of peeps live until they are 90+

.....



Yeah - the big problem with that is that there needs to be a huge change of attitude by employers either voluntarily or imposed by the government.

It's much cheaper and better PR to get rid of your 50+ through early retirement when cuts are made.

It's much cheaper to employ a youngster in the first place rather than someone one in their 40's or in some industries even in their 30's - let alone someone in their 50's (where is that shrug smiley when you need it :mad: )

Sou