to think immigrants should work before being entitled to benefits?

[judgejudithjudy]

EU immigrants will only be allowed to claim benefits 12 weeks after entering the UK but surely EU immigrants should only be entering the UK to work - not claim? I can understand if they enter the country to work & then lose their jobs - more than entitled to benefits but surely you should pay into the system first?

ready to be flamed so wearing my flame coated coat :-)

Kisses,

That's a very interesting fact and £12600 per person seems to be quite a lot. But I think it is worth remembering that income tax and NI are not the only forms of tax. Anyone who buys something which attracts VAT is also paying a tax of at least 20% (more on alcohol, cigarettes and petrol) on that purchase. Also, don't forget council tax, stamp duty, car tax and there are probably more that I can't think of.

Yes, WestieMamma - I've pointed this out upthread.

OP, click the link I posted upthread, and read the legislation. It's there in black and white.

we already struggle paying benefits to UK residents that dont want to work

No we're not.

We could easily afford to pay the small part of the welfare bill caused by unemployment.

What we can't afford is the pensions which make up the majority of the welfare bill.

But no politician will go near the wealthy baby boomers.

It wasn't an attempt to shut the OP up - don't be ridiculous.

Really? And your response proves my point. Super debate there.

If a person does not contribute to the system, is not disabled, is not caring for a disabled person, is not sick or elderly, is not in full time non advanced education, is not working and has not worked in any capacity for the last 10 years, then I don't think the govt should financially support those people, no.

However, since you are determined to focus only on immigrants, despite the majority of people in this situation being UK nationals, I am left wondering if claiming under these circumstances is what annoys you, or is it just immigrants that annoy you?

From what you've said, you appear to have no issue with people claiming under these circs, so long as they are not immigrants, and personally, I find that racist.

jeez no - only people who are entitled to benefits should claim but how can you prove who is entitled & who isnt?

I find that racist.
here we go. the usual reasoned debate.

We have these wonderful things called 'national insurance numbers'. And EU visitors will have passports - you know official documentation.

You seem a little confused.

moogy I'm still wondering in what ways you think 'mass immigration' has altered UK society?

Surely op started the thread because its top item on the news today.

Quite right Westiemama

Please take a look at this people who are worried about EU citizens coming over and taking benefits. Article 7 in particular. This is not new btw, this directive is from 2004. Directives are EU law which are made into national law by the various national authorities.

There is a right to stay in the UK for three months if you are an EU citizen or a dependent of an EU citizen (as defined). Then you have to comply with certain conditions if you want to stay any longer. For example, by being employed or self employed, or otherwise having sufficient means to support yourself. So this article is addressing exactly the problem of benefit-tourism. You can't just stay in a EU country in which you are not a citizen and require them to pay benefits to you. It is of course up to the national authorities to legislate for this, and then actually chase people up if they do stay in the country and claim benefits. But the EU has the framework there.

I care about this as a UK citizen who enjoys the right to go and work in other EU countries. I would hate to lose that right.

Janine it really beggars belief that you would wonder if society has changed?
Can I poin you in the direction of the areas of cities populated almost wholly by immigrants. Or the schools where most children don't spesak English? Or the vast amounts of money spent by the NHS and legal system / councils / schools on translations.
Or the removal of the right to express concern without someone shouting racist at you.
I really could go on and on. Some positive benefits, some negative consequences but no one would surely argue that mass immigratrion has had no effect on our society?

exactly thisisaghostly - only heard about it this afternoon hence post :-)

Brianthemole

I love that you're accusing me of being aggressive and not entering into debate, when I've asked questions of the OP, given personal accounts and answered questions put to me, whereas your sum of contribution has been, erm, to have a go at me.

But thanks for engaging with the discussion - you've given some excellent points to do with the subject. Oh, no, you haven't.

Super debating there, really. Do continue.

janine - if EU immigrants have no access to benefits then why state they can claim after three months of living here? confuzzled.....

Why would anyone move to a different country if they have no job or accomodation to go to?

moogy you are talking about changes in UK society in the last 20 years.

There have always been areas of UK cities populated almost wholly by immigrants - this is nothing new.

Same goes for children with English as an additional language. What has changed is that there are more mechanisms in place to measure this and to support those children.

I think that translation services are a good thing, as it happens.

EU immigrants have the same entitlement to unemployment benefits as UK residents - this is the EU wide agreement

We just happen to have different rules on benefit than other EU countries

OP - scaremongering. Pandering to the xenophobic, anti-immigrant and sadly vocal section in society.

thanx janine but i thought gordylovessheep was correct?

translation services are nothing new - and many NHS staff can translate being immigrants an all that jazz

Have you read the link I posted, OP? WannabeFayeMouse has also mentioned it, as has WestieMamma.

Or the vast amounts of money spent by the NHS and legal system / councils / schools on translations.

Any chance we could have some statistics to prove these vast amounts please? Preferably from a reputable source and not The Fail?

That would mean having to challenge the Daily Mail attitude and we can't have that.

Go and goad somewhere else, OP.