U.K. and Migrant Benefits

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and that there are some features you can't use or read.

We are an active community of worldwide senior members participating in chat, politics, travel, health, blogging, graphics, computer issues & help, book club, literature & poetry, finance discussions, recipe exchange and much more. Also, as a member you will be able to access member only sections, many features, send personal messages, make new friends, etc.

Registration is simple, fast and completely free. Why not register today and become a part of the group. Registration button at the very top left of the page.

Thank you for stopping by.

Join our community!

In case of difficulty, email worldwideseniors.org@gmail.com.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

U.K. and Migrant Benefits; and Europe
Topic Started: Jan 29 2016, 05:11 AM (208 Views)
friendshipgal	Jan 29 2016, 05:11 AM Post #1
Guess everyone wants their own Trudashians Posts: 12,815 Group: Member Member #241 Joined: February 12, 2006	David Cameron is being offered a watered down emergency brake on migrant benefits for four years, if the EU allows it.. Really, I don't know what the consequences would be if he did it anyway, but considering the strain the U.K. is under I think I would do it anyway. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12127829/David-Cameron-being-offered-watered-down-emergency-brake-on-migrants-by-Brussels.html Meanwhile, anti Islam groups are forming and joining up in Europe to defend 'western civilization', although they will be mainly described as racist or far right, they are comprised now of many people who reflect the deep unease Europe is feeling about their civilization and the rise of Rise of radical Islamists. IMO Europe is on the brink of disaster and violence. http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article206960483/Die-Zahl-der-radikalen-Salafisten-in-Berlin-steigt.html



Bitsy	Jan 29 2016, 05:25 AM Post #2
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	I have yet to meet anyone who is so obsessed with Muslims and the refugee problems in other countries. Talk about a derangement syndrome; anyone that doubts just check all the posts about those subjects.



Delphi51	Jan 29 2016, 06:05 AM Post #3
Member title Posts: 13,967 Group: Administration Member #441 Joined: October 10, 2006	I appreciate hearing news from other countries. Many of them, like the Flint water story, and the EU migrant crisis inform the problems in my country. I hope Europe will find a way to handle the refugee crisis. I did not realize the individual EU countries had no control over these matters. Didn't Germany, Hungary and Austria just close borders to migrants?



haili	Jan 29 2016, 06:20 AM Post #4
Gold Star Member Posts: 7,084 Group: Member Member #387 Joined: September 15, 2006	I heard on the news yesterday that Sweden had just turned away refugees and closed their border to them. I watch the news from Europe once a week on PBS. It's interesting to see what's going on in the rest of the world. Out of Ireland is another show I watch once in a while.



Trotsky	Jan 29 2016, 06:30 AM Post #5
Big City Boy Posts: 38,319 Group: Member Member #79 Joined: September 8, 2005	Quote: "Berlin ist nach wie vor im bundesweiten Vergleich einer der Hotspots von Salafisten", sagte Berlins Verfassungsschutzchef Bernd Palenda. "Die Ausreisedynamik flacht zwar etwas ab, ist aber noch immer besorgniserregend." Auch wenn die Zahl der Salafisten nicht mehr so stark ansteige wie noch vor einigen Jahren, blieben sie eine Gefahr f�r die freiheitliche Gesellschaft. Out of the mouths of babes.



Bitsy	Jan 29 2016, 06:50 AM Post #6
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	I guess i am in the minority, i prefer a more balanced approach. One that leads to understanding than fear mongering. The refugee problems that currently exist in other parts of the word do not exist in our corner of the world. We are making enemies of some of our very own Muslims because of the negativity and ill-disguised hate that is directed toward them. But hey, let the negativity and feat mongering continue if it pleases everyone else.



Delphi51	Jan 29 2016, 08:09 AM Post #7
Member title Posts: 13,967 Group: Administration Member #441 Joined: October 10, 2006	We do occasionally hear of problems with migrants crossing into the US from points further south. I have the impression that that border is closed to refugees/migrants but they keep coming anyway. And many die on the way, just like the Syrian refugees making their way to Europe. Is this true? We also hear politicians complaining about Moslems crossing the border with Canada in large numbers. i don't think this is true. Would you favour welcoming all those refugees with open arms like Germany did? With immediate benefits American people must earn with payroll deductions as the Brits are objecting to in the first post link?



friendshipgal	Jan 29 2016, 09:40 AM Post #8
Guess everyone wants their own Trudashians Posts: 12,815 Group: Member Member #241 Joined: February 12, 2006	I find it quite an education/learning experience reading European news but very alarming, as it�s far more extensive and informative on the current situation then our own media reports . I have a European news aggregater on my tablet giving me quick access. If the subject does come up for discussion anywhere I�m surprised at how little people know about it, the little they do know is made up of the little boy�s tragedy and migrants drowning. I too have been surprised at the restrictions placed on the EU countries and how they cannot protect their own borders etc. Although they are now starting to take steps regardless, which means the Schengen free-travel zone accord is collapsing, but it was never intended to accommodate such an invasion. As I posted before, the EU has said the majority of these migrants are not genuine asylum seekers. The U.K. should be able to administer it�s benefits as they see fit, without the EU, but I suppose there are agreements in place when joining the EU. Cameron may have to move up the vote on staying in the union.



Bitsy	Jan 29 2016, 09:50 AM Post #9
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	Delphi51 Jan 29 2016, 08:09 AM We do occasionally hear of problems with migrants crossing into the US from points further south. I have the impression that that border is closed to refugees/migrants but they keep coming anyway. And many die on the way, just like the Syrian refugees making their way to Europe. Is this true? Yes, it is true as reported here but as you can see we are vigilant, and that is the operative word, IMO. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/world/americas/migrants-attempts-to-enter-us-via-mexico-stoke-fears-about-jihadists.html?_r=0 Quote: We also hear politicians complaining about Moslems crossing the border with Canada in large numbers. i don't think this is true. Yet, you believe they can come from Mexico? Quote: Would you favour welcoming all those refugees with open arms like Germany did? I think a realistic policy with quotas should be in place. But how many articles does it take make that point? How many articles do we have to have speculating about Merkel's political future? These are not issues that we face yet the implication in all of these repetitive articles seems to be that we are facing the same fate, and I call that BS. Quote: With immediate benefits American people must earn with payroll deductions as the Brits are objecting to in the first post link? Not sure what you mean? As a matter of fact, I didn't even read or if I did, I didn't understand what this 'emergency plan' consists of. Maybe you can enlighten me....does it meant that there are no benefits available to assist resettlement of refugees for four years? Will all benefits be suspended or just certain ones, and if so, which ones?



Delphi51	Jan 29 2016, 11:47 AM Post #10
Member title Posts: 13,967 Group: Administration Member #441 Joined: October 10, 2006	I don't know what the refugee deal in the UK is, just that the article in the first post says people are upset with it being better than UK citizens get. I like vigilance. A country should control its borders and let in migrants on a plan that doesn't upset the existing citizens and does have work, housing and supports available for the new ones.



Bitsy	Jan 29 2016, 11:59 AM Post #11
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	Delphi51 Jan 29 2016, 11:47 AM I don't know what the refugee deal in the UK is, just that the article in the first post says people are upset with it being better than UK citizens get. Exactly, I don't know that anyone knows what the article involved. That is my point, little context but just enough info to keep the focus on refugees and blame them for problems in the UK. I wonder how many read the article and say, oh yes, that is right but when queried on what it entailed could not explain. Quote: I like vigilance. A country should control its borders and let in migrants on a plan that doesn't upset the existing citizens and does have work, housing and supports available for the new ones. So do I, and I think Canada and the US will be successful in implementing their goals.



Darcie	Jan 29 2016, 12:17 PM Post #12
Skeptic Posts: 31,154 Group: Member Member #714 Joined: March 30, 2010	Quote: I like vigilance. A country should control its borders and let in migrants on a plan that doesn't upset the existing citizens and does have work, housing and supports available for the new ones. This is NEVER going to happen anywhere. People are resistant to change and differences and guard their possessions carefully. Most really don't care how much less the newcomer has, if we waited till everyone was in agreement there never would be immigration or refugees. I remember all the dread when we had to take in people after WWII - and every time it has happened. If I remember correctly there was a country (forgot which) who listened to its citizens and did not accept Jewish people. Thinking that the majority of people would accept newcomers is dreaming. This time Canada is so grateful to have shed their political shackles that some are coming in large numbers to help. I suspect that even with the great show of support that the vast majority of citizens are against this, and some are even rabidly opposed.



friendshipgal	Jan 29 2016, 12:28 PM Post #13
Guess everyone wants their own Trudashians Posts: 12,815 Group: Member Member #241 Joined: February 12, 2006	Delphi51 Jan 29 2016, 11:47 AM I don't know what the refugee deal in the UK is, just that the article in the first post says people are upset with it being better than UK citizens get. I like vigilance. A country should control its borders and let in migrants on a plan that doesn't upset the existing citizens and does have work, housing and supports available for the new ones. The first article is talking about putting a brake on migrant benefits due to financial concerns. Cameron wants to stop migrants claiming benefits in the UK because they are not claiming asylum in the first 'safe country' (see problems with Calais migrants) My understanding is that the U.K. has better benefits so the migrants want to get to the U.K., Cameron wants to stop this by not giving these illegal migrants any benefits. I believe Cameron wants to stay in the E.U. but needs to see adjustments to what they hand out to migrants. Migrants are supposed to claim asylum in the first 'safe country' but don't because they want to get to those with the best benefits. Also it's easier to get benefits in the U.K. due to their lack of identification requirements. Meanwhile Sweden is starting a mass deportation. Elsewhere an asylum seeker found guilty of rape will not be deported because of his low sentence... the laws are weird. None of this means that people don't care or don't want to help genuine refugees, they don't want economic migrants taking advantage of EU laws which would (and is) straining their systems. Edited by friendshipgal, Jan 29 2016, 12:31 PM.



Bitsy	Jan 29 2016, 03:30 PM Post #14
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	This article doesn't read as the UK being overrun, as a matter of fact, they do not even appear to be doing their fair shar. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/refugees-welcome-uk-germany-compare-migration



friendshipgal	Jan 30 2016, 04:40 AM Post #15
Guess everyone wants their own Trudashians Posts: 12,815 Group: Member Member #241 Joined: February 12, 2006	In order for the U.K. to qualify it has to demonstrate its welfare system and public services are under considerable strain. Which many and Cameron believe to be so. How many should any country take in before the lifeboat sinks, the U.K. is full but before anyone does anything they should enforce the rules for asylum claims first which is: asylum seekers should have their claim dealt with in the first country they come which has not been happening. If this were enforced Greece and France for instance would need a lot of financial help. Not to mention that in the legal sense most of the migrants are not refugees. There is another less reported crisis of refugees from Myanmar arriving in India, Bangladesh and Malaysia. Do we have a greater duty to help these too, if so how many? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6894267/EU-demands-David-Cameron-pay-migrants-benefits.html



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Rants, Bouquets, Consumer Issues · Next Topic »