Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: 5 year ban on benefits for migrants rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25630036

Of course, it is Nigel Farage. Such a ban would not be possible within the EU, which suits Mr Farage down to the ground. I also wonder if Mr Farage includes Syrian refugees (whom he is so keen to welcome to the UK) in this putative ban. If he doesn't include refugees then his policy likely breaks the Refugee Convention too (although quite likely he could get round this by giving refugees the levels of funding currently provided to destitute asylum seekers rather than the more generous benefits refugees have access to now).

The current government is increasingly preventing migrant benefits where possible- before 2012 migrants with Discretionary Leave to Remain had full access to public funds. DLR is no longer granted as such (except to people who had it before), but what has replaced it is generally no recourse to public funds (the decision in an individual case being Home Office discretion).

Another example: Primary carers of British citizen children, who would have had access to benefits as a result of a landmark European court judgement in 2011, had that access curtailed in 2012 by a series of amendments to the relevant regulations. To me it seems madness that the primary carer of a British citizen child, who has been given permission to stay in the UK because of that child's welfare, is not entitled to collect child benefit in respect of that child- and indeed the policy is still under challenge in the courts although so far without success.

Not that I am against refusing access to public funds for some migrants. Visitors, workers, students, and most others without settled status in a country should not expect to receive public funds in that country, except where there is some kind of reciprocal agreement in force (which is essentially the case with respect to EU nationals). But a blanket ban goes too far.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Much as I dislike Welfare migrants (and I do think they exist) I really am not happy about actually causing people poverty. I would rather we lived in a country people sponged off then allowed children to go hungry.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Much as I dislike Welfare migrants (and I do think they exist) I really am not happy about actually causing people poverty. I would rather we lived in a country people sponged off then allowed children to go hungry.


Fortunately there is section 17 of the Children's Act (1988? Or maybe 1989) which obliges local authorities to provide support to children, regardless of immigration status* who are in need (starving would be an example). This support is not provided through the benefits system and is much less generous than the support for children that is provided through the benefits system. But it does (at least in theory) stop the children actually going hungry.

Edit: Of course, the support is an added burden to local taxation.

*Social services do normally ask the child's parents to make an immigration application though. Which is where I come in!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Teabagger.


Everyone drink.
I use PG tips, they remind me of RSP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Much as I dislike Welfare migrants (and I do think they exist) I really am not happy about actually causing people poverty. I would rather we lived in a country people sponged off then allowed children to go hungry.


Fortunately there is section 17 of the Children's Act (1988? Or maybe 1989) which obliges local authorities to provide support to children, regardless of immigration status* who are in need (starving would be an example). This support is not provided through the benefits system and is much less generous than the support for children that is provided through the benefits system. But it does (at least in theory) stop the children actually going hungry.

Edit: Of course, the support is an added burden to local taxation.

*Social services do normally ask the child's parents to make an immigration application though. Which is where I come in!
True, but a child cannot live on food alone, I used hungry as a metaphor for poverty. We live in a country that does the right thing, not the pragmatic thing, and I am proud of that (but becoming less proud every time the Torrie's bring in a 'reform').
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Indeed, and support provided at this early stage in a person's life has a multiplier effect the years which, besides making for better, healthier, more productive people, could also save public money in the long run.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
We live in a country that does the right thing, not the pragmatic thing, and I am proud of that (but becoming less proud every time the Torrie's bring in a 'reform').

But pragmatic and right are not mutually exclusive. Here's the stamp in my passport from my only trip to the UK.
I was darned proud of you guys when I read it. Over the years, I've become somewhat less proud, but that includes of my own home country and of my adoptive country as well. Pride is overrated, I guess.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Willward wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
We live in a country that does the right thing, not the pragmatic thing, and I am proud of that (but becoming less proud every time the Torrie's bring in a 'reform').

But pragmatic and right are not mutually exclusive. Here's the stamp in my passport from my only trip to the UK.
I was darned proud of you guys when I read it. Over the years, I've become somewhat less proud, but that includes of my own home country and of my adoptive country as well. Pride is overrated, I guess.
NO they are not mutually exclusive, but in this case I think they are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would argue that providing resources sufficient for children living in the United Kingdom to have a childhood where their basic needs are met and they are enabled to grow up into productive members of society is extremely pragmatic and in the long term interests of the country.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
I would argue that providing resources sufficient for children living in the United Kingdom to have a childhood where their basic needs are met and they are enabled to grow up into productive members of society is extremely pragmatic and in the long term interests of the country.
The problem is that we are a country with (very finite) economic, social and logistical resources. We seem to be having a hard time coping with those we already have, so having more people drawing benefits (and using social resources) is a drain we cannot really afford. In fact we have more people then jobs, the one thing we do not need is more workers.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
I would argue that providing resources sufficient for children living in the United Kingdom to have a childhood where their basic needs are met and they are enabled to grow up into productive members of society is extremely pragmatic and in the long term interests of the country.
The problem is that we are a country with (very finite) economic, social and logistical resources. We seem to be having a hard time coping with those we already have, so having more people drawing benefits (and using social resources) is a drain we cannot really afford. In fact we have more people then jobs, the one thing we do not need is more workers.


You mean people. More workers (people actually in work) would be great! Since the children are going to grow up to be people anyway, we might as well equip them to be workers.

We need to create wealth and jobs, and one of the ways we do that is by taking proper care of our children and educating them so that they become wealth and job creators.

There is indeed a difficult balancing act to follow. But if we are not careful, penny-pinching on support to children now will end up costing us even more public money in the long run on benefits, healthcare, and (sad to say) the criminal justice system, as well as losing out on future tax revenues.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
I would argue that providing resources sufficient for children living in the United Kingdom to have a childhood where their basic needs are met and they are enabled to grow up into productive members of society is extremely pragmatic and in the long term interests of the country.
The problem is that we are a country with (very finite) economic, social and logistical resources. We seem to be having a hard time coping with those we already have, so having more people drawing benefits (and using social resources) is a drain we cannot really afford. In fact we have more people then jobs, the one thing we do not need is more workers.


You mean people. More workers (people actually in work) would be great! Since the children are going to grow up to be people anyway, we might as well equip them to be workers.

We need to create wealth and jobs, and one of the ways we do that is by taking proper care of our children and educating them so that they become wealth and job creators.

There is indeed a difficult balancing act to follow. But if we are not careful, penny-pinching on support to children now will end up costing us even more public money in the long run on benefits, healthcare, and (sad to say) the criminal justice system, as well as losing out on future tax revenues.

Except if you have already got more people then jobs you need to create the jobs before you bring in more people (not the other way around). Simply put (and this is what the likes of the BNP play on) if you do not have migrants you spend less on them, and yet will still have people to fill the jobs. Thus arguments like "£but if we given the children a decent life" will be countered with "well why have them here to need that help".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But they are here already! The children are right here in this country now. Many of them were born here.

Moreover, despite what the BNP and its allies in the Tory party might think, there is no realistic way to halt migration: it is a fact of life. We need to plan how to deal with it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Bradley
United Kingdom
Haverhill
Suffolk
flag msg tools
badge
The best things in life aren't things.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The immigrant issue is a smokescreen created by the moneyed classes to deflect attention from themselves.

The only real reason we have a "problem" is pressure on infrastructure and housing stock.
The reason we have pressure on housing stock is because the landlord class likes to see its property go up in value.
The reason we have pressure on infrastructure is because the moneyed classes don't use our public infrastructure and therefore don't give a crap if it's inadequate.

But blame the immigrants. Blame the immigrants. Because otherwise people might notice the real culprits and start decorating the lampposts.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
But they are here already! The children are right here in this country now. Many of them were born here.

Moreover, despite what the BNP and its allies in the Tory party might think, there is no realistic way to halt migration: it is a fact of life. We need to plan how to deal with it.
And Farage was talking about new migrants, not those already here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fwing wrote:
The immigrant issue is a smokescreen created by the moneyed classes to deflect attention from themselves.

The only real reason we have a "problem" is pressure on infrastructure and housing stock.
The reason we have pressure on housing stock is because the landlord class likes to see its property go up in value.
The reason we have pressure on infrastructure is because the moneyed classes don't use our public infrastructure and therefore don't give a crap if it's inadequate.

But blame the immigrants. Blame the immigrants. Because otherwise people might notice the real culprits and start decorating the lampposts.
I am not sure that is wholly true, we do have a finite amount of building land (for example) but yes, on the whole I do agree that many of the 'immigrant issues' are manufactured to create scapegoats for social issues that are sod all to do with them (such as the shortage of affordable rented accommodation).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon M
United Kingdom
Hitchin
Herts
flag msg tools
Avatar
High costs of housing are more to do with our planning policies.

There is plenty of land in the UK (even in the Southeast) to build on. However collectively the choice has been made to keep the green belt and not allow uncontrolled expansion of our towns and cities. This artificially limits new housing stock and therefor keeps prices (and therefore rents) artificially high.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jon_1066 wrote:
High costs of housing are more to do with our planning policies.

There is plenty of land in the UK (even in the Southeast) to build on. However collectively the choice has been made to keep the green belt and not allow uncontrolled expansion of our towns and cities. This artificially limits new housing stock and therefor keeps prices (and therefore rents) artificially high.
There are very good reason for teh green belt, such as drainage. To built on every inch of land it not practical. Besides, we have empty housing stock, we should make use of that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fwing wrote:
The immigrant issue is a smokescreen created by the moneyed classes to deflect attention from themselves.

The only real reason we have a "problem" is pressure on infrastructure and housing stock.
The reason we have pressure on housing stock is because the landlord class likes to see its property go up in value.
The reason we have pressure on infrastructure is because the moneyed classes don't use our public infrastructure and therefore don't give a crap if it's inadequate.

But blame the immigrants. Blame the immigrants. Because otherwise people might notice the real culprits and start decorating the lampposts.

The problem with this view is that it is at least as myopic as the view it criticizes. There are, in fact, plenty who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their families but who are perfectly willing to let others do so. Crying "but I only want to help the kids" is a smokescreen of its own.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
But they are here already! The children are right here in this country now. Many of them were born here.

Moreover, despite what the BNP and its allies in the Tory party might think, there is no realistic way to halt migration: it is a fact of life. We need to plan how to deal with it.
And Farage was talking about new migrants, not those already here.


No, he was talking about people here, who have been here for less than 5 years. In the context of children, that means he's suggesting we shouldn't pay child benefit in respect of 0-5 year olds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
But they are here already! The children are right here in this country now. Many of them were born here.

Moreover, despite what the BNP and its allies in the Tory party might think, there is no realistic way to halt migration: it is a fact of life. We need to plan how to deal with it.
And Farage was talking about new migrants, not those already here.


No, he was talking about people here, who have been here for less than 5 years. In the context of children, that means he's suggesting we shouldn't pay child benefit in respect of 0-5 year olds.
Is he? All I can find are soundbites, how about a link to the full text of what he said as the linked radio interview is talking about future immigration.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He can't be talking about people abroad, because the UK state doesn't pay them benefits anyway. So he must be talking about people here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Stein
msg tools
Philip Thomas wrote:
He can't be talking about people abroad, because the UK state doesn't pay them benefits anyway. So he must be talking about people here.


You may want to re-read Slaters comment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CaffeineBot wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
He can't be talking about people abroad, because the UK state doesn't pay them benefits anyway. So he must be talking about people here.


You may want to re-read Slaters comment.
I Shall re word it to make it easier to understand.

Fargae is talking about further immigration, not current immigrates, if you have a quote that says otherwise please provide it. But to answer you point, actually people abroad are receiving UK benefits (for example £55 million goes in child benefits to children who are not resident in the UK).

It does not help the anti-UKIP (or BNP) cause when you say this that are easy to disprove, it raises doubts about what else may not be true.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, the £55 billion goes to the parents of the children, who are in the UK.

So even if he is talking about future migrants, he's talking about future migrants when they are here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.