Reply to: surprise

[vetran]

Right, so stop claiming this is an issue about foreigners claiming benefits, when it isn't; it's an issue of a stupid system set up by British politicians elected by British voters neither of which category seems able to distinguish its tail from its arse.

I didn't claim it was solely an issue about foreigners claiming benefits.

Its about low economic value foreigners entering the UK, their ability to undercut the locals and to claim benefits and use resources.

Even if they work 48 hours a week down t' pits they can claim working family tax credit. That is not their fault, I even admire them for it. While they undercut locals (of all flavours) we have to pay the locals benefits. so its a double whammy.

This combined with the issues to social cohesion of a massive change in population composition is a serious problem.

If it were highly skilled migrants with no recourse to public services or funds they would better received.

If the system worked and this wasn't a pull factor I believe we would have less immigration.

It was OG that got excited about his missus drawing benefits, I pointed out she probably wouldn't get any despite her contributions because that isn't how the system works and he is better off insuring himself.

The thing I was really shocked by was that in one decade we had imported more people than the previous 50 years. This was a cynical plan by a government that I didn't vote for.

In fact when I first posted I didn't make any comment. It wasn't until someone suggested 13% compared to the swiss 20% was reasonable. I pointed out we weren't comparing like for like.

not quite sure how that is going on about foreign workers claiming benefit.

of course you could all be prejudiced about the subject.

[Mich the Tester]

Agree, but that is the way it is.

I'll let the confirmation of my points pass.

Right, so stop claiming this is an issue about foreigners claiming benefits, when it isn't; it's an issue of a stupid system set up by British politicians elected by British voters neither of which category seems able to distinguish its tail from its arse.

[vetran]

Point 1; that's stupid and there's no reason why it can't be limited to three years as is thte limit here or 18 months as the government here are doing.

Agree, but that is the way it is.

I'll let the confirmation of my points pass.

[Mich the Tester]

Doesn't expire, no contributions required :

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/eligibility

Rules here have changed frequently

British nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but location of birth is not important now, its the nationality of one parent and marriage.

Point 1; that's stupid and there's no reason why it can't be limited to three years as is the limit here or 18 months as the government here are planning. If Britain is stupid enough to merge the old contribution independent income support and the contributions dependent unemployment benefit, then frankly you have nobody to blame but the British government.

Point 2; yes, indeed, rules change, but location of birth has never been relevant to getting British citizenship, except that those born in Britain used to be automatically entitled, and now there are more restrictions than in the past. There is the issue of jus sanguinis, which affects non-UK born British citizens who have children overseas, like Boris Johnson, whose children are Belgian because he got British nationality through his father instead of through birth, but this is a different issue to what you are talking about. You do not and have never had to be born in Britain to be a British citizen. There are very good reasons for that. The British government protects its citizens against statelessness this way; if a British person has a child overseas (unless he got British citizenship through jus sanguinis), then that child has the right to British citizenship, and that is important because the child might not have the right to citizenship of the country of birth, and might therefore be stateless, which is a pretty awful state of affairs. The law is there to protect YOUR right to have children on holiday, on work assignment abroad, when you as a couple might be off on a placement with the army etc etc, without worrying about their nationality, and it does a very good job of that.

[vetran]

Not as long as you have a rightful income from benefits you've paid contributions for. If those benefits run out and you don't have any other rightful income they can chuck you out, as can any country in the EU too.

Doesn't expire, no contributions required :

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/eligibility

Rules here have changed frequently

British nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but location of birth is not important now, its the nationality of one parent and marriage.

[Mich the Tester]

so if you go to work in Switzerland and lose your job you may find your visa not renewed.

Not as long as you have a rightful income from benefits you've paid contributions for. Getting the visa and keeping it are two different matters. The Swiss, believe it or not, have the rule of law; income from benefits that you have paid contributions for is legal, rightful income. If those benefits run out, as will unemployment benefit after some set time, and you don't have any other rightful income they can chuck you out, as can any country in the EU or it's agreements with other countries like Switzerland and Norway. I can be easily chucked out of NL if I have no income, but not if I have benefits after I've paid into the benefit system. There is a scheme called 'bijstand', similar to income support, for which you don't have to pay contributions and it's given as emergency help to those who have no other income. If I try to claim it, I can be chucked out and it's quite easy to chuck an EU citizen out who doesn't have an income, except that the government's admin is such a mess they wouldn't know where to start. Britain can do that too but doesn't seem to bother. Of course, if they did then it would be much more difficult for politicians to blame foreigners for burdening the system. The laws to prevent abuse are there, and new ones are being made all the time; that's probably why the system is such a mess, continually growing complexity due to knee jerk legislation that's often nothing more than political symbolism.

[Mich the Tester]

The link between being born in the UK and being british was broken years ago due to abuse.

Actually I don't think there was one until the British government in the 1960s started tightening up regulations to slow immigration from the Commonwealth. You've never had to be born in Britain to be a British citizen, you just have to have a connection, like British parents, long time residence, or even being appointed king, like William III.

It would have caused quite a few constitutional crises if you had ever had to be born in Britain to be British.

[vetran]

So actually, your problem is with a social insurance system that is structured the wrong way and badly run, regardless of the rights of foreigners. Not the fault of foreigners, immigrants, the EU, muslims or anyone else on the standard list, but the fault of British governments and the British citizens that put them in power. Stop clouding the issue with nationality, because in the system as it should be run, it's irrelevant.

no I am also against cheap labour being imported which traps people on benefits.

Unfortunately that is part of the mix.

[vetran]

Because that's not the point of the system, you aren't accruing benefits by paying in.

my point.

[vetran]

Your position is clear from the above and subsequent discussion.

I fear it isn't because you are still accusing me of wishing your wife ill.

I just asked why increased immigration is a good thing and in that posting pointed out quality control is an important factor.

quick analogy
20% of your investments make you more money than 20% of my investments and overall your investments make 2-3 times as much per pound invested suggest you (the swiss) have it right and can afford to be more generous to the unfortunates they meet. They may well meet fewer unfortunates because they can afford to live in a better area and the police move them on.

You said your wife should be entitled to benefits because she contributed, I pointed out contribution doesn't equal right to benefit. In some ways like the Swiss & German systems I wish it did. That link in benefits was also broken years ago.

You brought your children into it and I pointed out that the place of birth is not directly relevant to benefits. Their eligibility depends entirely on their citizenship. The link between being born in the UK and being british was broken years ago due to abuse.

The Swiss restrict their yearly Visas based on having employment:

Work permits for Switzerland are handed out based on nationality, skills and quotas. - swissinfo.ch

so if you go to work in Switzerland and lose your job you may find your visa not renewed.

Not sure what the deal is if you marry a swiss national?

NAT - so your relatives are all high value / skill migrants? would they expect to be admitted to any country with little difficulty & add value at that point? If so they aren't part of the discussion.

[NotAllThere]

When I was in Switzerland someone told me 20% of their population was made up of foreigners, of which I was obviously one

25% in Basel. The largest immigrant group is Italian, followed by German/Austrian and the former Yugoslavia.

My wife has a British passport and wasn't born in the UK. Neither were her brother and sister. All three have degrees (Biochemistry, Chemical Engineering, Business and Law - so at least two proper degrees). However, 33% have emigrated.

[d000hg]

If many UK citizens pay tax all their lives and never see of it back as benefits why should we pay out to someone who isn't a UK citizen who has paid tax?

Because that's not the point of the system, you aren't accruing benefits by paying in.

[Old Greg]

My point exactly, OG brought in his 'UK born children' they however cute they may be they are irrelevant.

and the answer is 'it depends on the rules' not 'its not fair'.

I'm all for an insurance backed JSA scheme and a much less generous safety net with workfare.

The relevance ought to be obvious. Overseas born non-citizens have dependents who are born in the UK and British citizens. See?

[Old Greg]

Sorry that's a bit Glib




FTFY

If 20% of our population were like

Johnny Chung Lee - Projects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Mittal

etc

and had no recourse to benefits and could be deported if they broke our laws, I think most people would see them as a benefit.

and I said that where?

Your position is clear from the above and subsequent discussion.

[Mich the Tester]

My point exactly, OG brought in his 'UK born children' they however cute they may be they are irrelevant.

and the answer is 'it depends on the rules' not 'its not fair'.

I'm all for an insurance backed JSA scheme and a much less generous safety net with workfare.

So actually, your problem is with a social insurance system that is structured the wrong way and badly run, regardless of the rights of foreigners. Not the fault of foreigners, immigrants, the EU, muslims or anyone else on the standard list, but the fault of British governments and the British citizens that put them in power. Stop clouding the issue with nationality, because in the system as it should be run, it's irrelevant.