RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

Katie Hopkins. Love her or hate her but check this video out!
here illegal or not it’s unreal what you get. Be an ex pat that can’t work and you get nothing!

https://www.facebook.com/794535180/posts/10161269974510181/

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Seen it.
But the libtards on here will deny, deny, deny, then call you asa a xenophobe, racist etc etc.

BMWhere?

Either the link you posted has been taken down or as an expat I cannot see it!

I presume its another immigrants taking our benefits rant!

I watched the film "I, Daniel Blake" the other night and its pretty disgusting how the UK has made it almost impossible for genuine claimants to get the benefits they deserve. Of course its a typical right wing government response to the problem of benefits cheats - toughen the system! The problem is, the benefits cheats still know how to work the system and quickly find the loopholes while those who are less familiar with the system have to jump through hoops to get the benefits they are entitled to and deserve and are quite often denied because of technicalities. This is of course a much cheaper simpler solution to save benefits costs than to actually go after and stop the real cheats!

Of course this problem has nothing to do with immigration and the valid benefits paid to asylum seekers which are handled by completely separate departments with completely different rules. Of course its easy for the right wingers to point the finger at the immigrants and say they get all this and that while we get nothing and making two unrelated issues the same problem. You could just say the benefits system is wholly unfair and not fit for purpose and leave it at that, there is no need to bring immigration into the argument. The point is, I doubt Katie Hopkins gives a flying f*** about the British people suffering because of the terrible benefits system, but she knows its a great argument to use in her anti-immigration rhetoric.

Is it not fair to say, we should support British people who need and deserve benefits AND support asylum seekers while their application is being processed?

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Forwarded the vid to you on FB messenger Al.

Mr Fuji

I notice she doesn't mention the eligibility or claim conditions. It's almost as if Katie Hopkins is misrepresenting stuff, who'd a thought eh?

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

BMWhere?

Failed asylum seekers are deported but it can sometimes take some time to process the deportation. Should they then be left to starve to death while waiting for deportation?

And once again, how is this related to the general benefits system which is failing the British public? Two very different systems for two very different groups and one doesn't affect the other, they are simply not related!

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

If this is an issue that interests you, you'd be better off researching it yourself, rather than take as gospel anything written by someone who is paid a lot of money to rile people up. Just to remind you, here's a snippet of Hopkins' regard for telling the truth:
"In 2016, Mail Online was forced to pay £150,000 to a Muslim family whom Hopkins had falsely accused of extremist links. In a 2017 libel case, Hopkins was required to pay £24,000 in damages and £107,000 in legal costs to the food writer Jack Monroe after making defamatory remarks on Twitter. Later in 2017, Mail Online was forced to pay substantial damages and legal costs to a teacher about whom Hopkins had made false claims. A day before, in late November, it had become known Hopkins' contract with the media outlet had not been renewed. Her final column was published on 5 October 2017. She joined the Canadian far right website The Rebel Media in January 2018."

My point being that if you see something presented as truth by someone who has been proved to be a liar, in court, multiple times, and who is paid to get a reaction just like yours, it's probably not a good idea to just believe everything they say. Find out the facts for yourself, then come to a conclusion.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Surely the easiest thing to do to see if she is telling the truth or making it up is to go to the website and download the form she was waving about and reading from and see if it says what she said it says or not. Then we can clear this up once and for all.

JackClark

The issue is that the people she's targeting don't know the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker, she's pushing the buttons of a certain type of moron.

RAGGY DOO

iTrader: (1)

ZANY

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Told you, LOL

Regular as clockwork: first the denial, then the insults. And if you keep at it, then come the threats. Then the violence.

It's the lefty's way, don't y'know?

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Tell us then, exactly how much in handouts is an asylum-seeker allowed to claim for in this country, at each different stage of the asylum-seeking process?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Why? Go and Google it yourself.

YOU claim Hopkins is lying, YOU prove it.

BMWhere?

Why is giving benefits to asylum seekers a problem?

BMWhere?

This is the info she's reading from!
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

What she says: "You can choose if you want a flat, a house, a hostel or bed and breakfast."
What the website says: "You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast. You can’t choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England."

So, there is no choice, you live where you're put, so she's distorting the truth a little there saying they can choose where they live.

The website also states: "You’ll get £37.75 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries."

That is £5.39 per day to live off - Once you've eaten, there won't be much left over for clothes and toiletries. Remember, asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are not entitled to other income benefits. For comparison, jobseekers allowance for under 25's is £57.35 (£8.19/day) and over 25's £72.40 (£10.34/day) and they may also be entitled to other income benefits including housing benefits depending on their circumstances. So, asylum seekers are hardly going to be living the life of luxury and are worse off than the domestic benefits claimants.

Another key bit she fails to mention: "Eligibility: You can apply for asylum support if you’re homeless or don’t have money to buy food."

So basically, if they can already sustain themselves, they'll get nothing!

Also: "You must return to your country as soon as possible if you’re refused asylum."
Short term support is still available, but if you're refused, you have to leave!

Another quick google:
Asylum applications are typically processed within 180 days! So if it really takes the maximum 180 days, an asylum seeker will receive a total of £970.71 in cash benefits - The value of the housing benefit will depend on where they are placed, but you can bet in the most cases it won't be of much value, particularly if they are without any family!

In 2016, there were 39,000 asylum applicants in the UK, that means the total cash benefits for all asylum seekers is under £38 million per year. Obviously with housing and health benefits, that figure will be somewhat higher, but still barely makes a scratch on the UKs total tax revenue and certainly doesn't justify the amount of attention that is given to asylum seekers!

Since 2015 the applicant numbers have been steadily falling. The percentage of applicants granted asylum have also fallen over the last few years with 18% successful in 2017.

So really, why is this a big issue?

Mr Fuji

It's not, it's right wing bigots and the idiots who believe this tripe that are the problem.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Worse than that, they believe it without even knowing themselves what the true figures are (as demonstrated by our resident bile-spewer here). Quite tragic, really.

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

JTaylor

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

sonyour haply for someone to travel 5,000 miles through many safe countries, come here illegally on a tiny boat and then get endless hand outs?
im sure in any other country this wouldn’t happen.

BMWhere?

Endless hand outs? Very minimal handouts for a limited time. If they are granted asylum, then they can work and stop receiving handouts. If they fail, then they are sent home and stop receiving handouts. Endless handouts is just propaganda and simply not the case.

We're talking about people fleeing war zones or persecution here. These are desperate people often fearing for their lives. It's simply not true that they are all trying to get to the UK and definitely not for the benefits. If they were after benefits, they would all be heading for Sweden. The fact is they are heading all over the place, more often than not to places where they already have family rather who pays out the most. It's right that the UK takes a fair share, particularly given we created many of the problems they are trying to escape, but actually the UK takes relatively few asylum seekers compared to other safe countries.

The simple fact is, the numbers and the cost to the tax payer are so small, this is simply a non issue being blown awa out of proportion by the media and right wing bigots like Hopkins.

If you want to complain about how we treat our own people reliant on the benefits system, then I'm with you, but that's a separate issue that is unrelated to asylum seekers. Nobody in government ever said "hey let's cut the benefits to Brits so we can pay for foreign immigrants", they simply cut benefits to save money and keep taxes low (particularly for the rich and large corporations!).

​​​​​​Just look at the costs for the NHS, defense, education, benefits (for Brits), the cost of government of even MPs salary and expenses - asylum seekers cost us next to nothing in real terms!

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

So go to the government website and read it for yourself. Use your own judgement, if you really think this is a burning issue. Personally, iI'd like to see people making a fuss about more important things.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

But none of the resident libtards on here have yet answered the question:

How is anyone allowed to ask for asylum from france, belgium or Ireland? Because that's against the law.

Mr Fuji

Because it isn't against the law, contrary to what the Daily Fail or other right wing rag you read may have told you.

BMWhere?

According to the Dublin agreement, they have to apply for asylum in the first country in which they are registered (legally entering a country will count as registration), not the first country which they physically entered. Anyone who is registered in a country on the way will automatically be returned to their first country for asylum processing unless they can prove they have a family dependency in the country why they apply for asylum (e.g. a child who has a relative in the country). Actually the number of transfers under the Dublin agreement are pretty low and in the last few years there have been more transfers back to the UK than the UK transfers out.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/444

Yes, that's right, there are actually migrants that first arrive in the UK then travel to other countries to claim asylum! Bet you didn't know that!

Mr Fuji

They probably do, but it doesn't suit their agenda

trails

iTrader: (41)

Facts are not their friends. Wild speculation and highly emotive language on the other hand...

Mr Fuji

Also, if we Brexit, we will no longer be bound by the Dublin agreement, and cannot send them back. As there is no provision in international law with regards to where they must seek asylum, these idiots have actually made the situation worse from their perspective. You really could't make it up.

And Alcazar calls us Libtards, so what the hell does that make them?