Clearly, the people running our country are doing a great job. I especially like the fact that he'll no longer be able to contribute to the care of his disabled daughter- far better for the taxpayer to take care of that really- and obviously kids don't benefit from having their fathers involved with their upbringing do they?
Last edited by Rave; 27-09-2005 at 04:18 PM.
When you think of the scrotes that get leave to remain indefinitely on the taxpayers bill this is a sick joke. The guy was working and paying tax? From my take on that story he wasn't even aware that he was here illegally.
I'm all for depositing the likes of Abu Hamza off at our borders. As we are an island and our borders are 12 miles out to sea this may seem harsh. This case seems like a sledgehammer to crack a very small, thinly shelled peanut.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Far be it from me to disagree, but the guy requested a work permit that couldn't be approved, and was then deported for overstaying his visa by three years. How can you not know you've overstayed your visa? The guy might have been offered a job (there is nothing to suggest he has done any work at all over the last three years while he has been in the country illegally), but he has no right to work in this country.
An effective system in action.
Yeah, so now he can't support his daughter and so the taxpayer will (almost certainly) have to pay instead. I don't give a flying **** whether he has any right to stay, I'd rather that he was here working and supporting his daughter so I don't have to. You may love paying extra tax TeePee, but I think that deporting a chap when it will clearly cost us money and damage a family is extraordinarily perverse.
We don't know the full circumstances, and while I'd like to believe that he was applying to be a high paid medical researcher, I think that if this were the case then the company would have succeded in getting him a work permit. As it is I think it's far more likely that he has been living off his daughters benefits for the last three years before finally deciding to try to get a low paying job. Permit and leave to remain denied, he is deported and now a british person will get the job instead (paying the same tax and no longer claiming benefits) and the disabled daughter (who doubtless is already on benefits) will now be financially better off.
Agreed there are people more deserving of deportation, but this is a case of the system working (and saving us money!).
What has his level of pay got to do with it exactly? I earn about 2/3rds of the national average wage but I still pay my taxes, so if you could explain please?Originally Posted by TeePee
I think that if this were the case then the company would have succeded in getting him a work permit.
It seems to me that the company in question would not have offered to a) give him the job and b) offer to go through the rigmarole of getting him a work permit unless he was well qualified for the job and/or they'd had considerable difficulty finding a British person to fill the position. However, assuming that they did manage to find a previously unemployed Brit to fill the post (because, as an example, it's not as if the NHS have to recruit thousands of nurses from the developing world every year is it?As it is I think it's far more likely that he has been living off his daughters benefits for the last three years before finally deciding to try to get a low paying job. Permit and leave to remain denied, he is deported and now a british person will get the job instead (paying the same tax and no longer claiming benefits)) instead of paying for one Briton's JSA, we now have to pay for 50% of the care of a child with Spina Bifida. That's not cheap, so explain to me exactly how as a taxpayer I'm better off?
Oh, and while you're doing some explaining, perhaps you could explain how likely it is that a guy who's been 'living off his daughters [sic] benefits' for the last three years would have strolled into a plum research job that plenty of needy Brits had been competing for?
What has taxes got to do with it? I'd like to believe it was a highly paid job that would let him provide for his kid simply because that would be nice.
Skilled workers stand more chance of getting a work permit. I hope that helps with your confusion.
What 'plum' job? We have to assume he's been unemployed or unlawfully employed for 3 years (no work permit, see?) which means he's paid no taxes. It also makes it highly unlikely that the job he's been offered is a skilled one, which may well be why his work permit was denied. There are plenty of British people on job seekers allowance who could use an unskilled job (maybe our welfare system should encorage them to work, but thats a different argument). Nursing is a skilled profession, there aren't enough British people with the required skills.
Why would the company try to get him a permit? We don't know! See my first point above. Maybe he has friends working there? Maybe they thought the process was easier?
Why does the child suddenly have a right to more benefits? The father, as an illegal immigrant, was invisible to the system so she would be paid the same anyway. Net saving, one JSA. And with all the holidays they get, JSA isn't cheap either.
Yeah, it would be nice, and now instead of him providing for his daughter, the taxpayers of this country will have to instead.
It would, were it actually true. In fact as the system is run by a bunch of unnaccountable beaurocrats the actual rationale for awarding work permits is a mystery. Stories of unfathomable decisions are legion.Skilled workers stand more chance of getting a work permit. I hope that helps with your confusion.
Are you serious? You honestly think that not having a work permit is a serious impediment to having an otherwise legal job and paying taxes?What 'plum' job? We have to assume he's been unemployed or unlawfully employed for 3 years (no work permit, see?) which means he's paid no taxes.I know of people who have worked well beyond the date on which their work permit expired- working, in fact, for government departments
I admire your faith in the efficiency of the Immigration Service, but to be honest in this debate a little realism wouldn't go amiss.
This is pure speculation. I don't know what job he was offered and neither do you. I personally think it likely that the job was in fact skilled for the reasons I have given, but the point is simply that he was offered a job.It also makes it highly unlikely that the job he's been offered is a skilled one, which may well be why his work permit was denied.
No, it's the same argument. The government introduced the JSA several years ago, and in my opinion it is utterly foolhardy to deny employment to willing immigrants on the basis that we might be able to persuade a dole scrounger to take the job instead. They've had years to find these people jobs and failed, and denying an immigrant that job is just holding up the economy.There are plenty of British people on job seekers allowance who could use an unskilled job (maybe our welfare system should encorage them to work, but thats a different argument).
Total speculation again....Why does the child suddenly have a right to more benefits? The father, as an illegal immigrant, was invisible to the system
No, if he was legally in full time employment she would be entitled to less benefit as he would be supporting her.so she would be paid the same anyway.
Tomorrow, I will hit google and compare the cost of one person's JSA with the cost of employing a carer for a child with Spina Bifida. In the meantime, congratulations on your hilarious holidays commentNet saving, one JSA. And with all the holidays they get, JSA isn't cheap either.
This is an arguement which neither of us is going to win because neither of us really knows anything about the case. I look at this assuming a system which is generally working, with an unskilled immigrant being deported and everyone generally better off, (with the probable exception of the guy claiming JSA who now has to work for a living).
You look at it as a totally broken system and make all the assumptions that go with it. We can spend ages picking holes at each others arguements, mainly because there are so many huge holes. Why would he apply for leave to remain if he could work and pay taxes for years without doing so?
I'll end this by introspectively questioning why I see this as a system which generally works, while seeing welfare as totally broken. Maybe I should start reading The Daily Mail.
One thing I will point out is that the issue of work permits is not that mysterious. The information is available here: http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk I'm sure if you have the time and inclination you can go through and find some out of context quotes that back up your arguements, but theres lots of stuff about the Highly Skilled Migrants Program and stuff about permits not going to unskilled workers. Again I'm assuming his work permit was denied, the article only really suggests the guy believed the company had applied for it. He may have been deported part way through processing. Wouldn't that be ironic?
Are there no jobs outside of the UK?
DFI LanParty UT NF4 SLI-D; AMD64 3500+ Winchester ;
2x XFX 6600GT ; Corsair XMS3200XLPRO TWINX 1GB;
Dell 2405FPW TFT.
I read the daily mail. We should get rid of the kids too.
But on a slightly more seirous note, how about the french method? Send them all to another country, how about the Irish way of life?
Fact is, rightly or wrongly this guy over stayed his visa for 3 years, if this is a case of he didn't know. Then a pamphelete explaining the process might be a worthwhile idea. If he had any documentation supporting the notion he had a visa, it would of un-doubtly of been submitted as evidence, and as such mentioned in the news story.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
One thing, this guy walked quite happily of his own free will into an interview with immigration officers. This means he is either extremely stupid as anyone who has something to fear from immigration will do a disappearing act at the mere mention of their name. Or, perhaps, he felt he had nothing to fear. If he had been avoiding the system for 3 years then he would be in the former group.
If he was working with the NHS or some other major organisation then they would have been making sure his tax/NI was being paid as they would have to pay employers NI as well. The role of medical research and development doesn't sound like a sweat shop in the East End. Unless he was employed as a laboratory rat.
Considering who we actually let in indefinitely this guy is low priority. A waste of time and money really. But then, like nicking motorists instead of armed robbers. It's a nice easy collar isn't it?
Not that I have changed my views on immigration. I'm still in favour of the 12 mile helicopter ride out of Dover for the worst offenders.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
So far as I'm concerned, it's simple. He was here illegally, and couldn't have failed to know it, and had been for several years. If he doesn't have a good asylum claim for genuine persecution, then he should be deported. His job and his daughter don't affect that. Letting him stay because he has a job and may be paying tax is tantamount to saying that his illegal status in this country is fine, if he can pay us enough. And that encourages others to come illegally, and that means we give up any control over either the numbers of people coming here, or the qualifications.
So far as I'm concerned, illegal immigrants (as opposed to genuine asylum seekers) are deported, and only in absolutely exceptional circumstances (which most emphatically doesn't include having a job) would an exception be made.
There has recently been another similar case of a woman who came here fromt eh Carribean 5 years ago who applied to stay - whilst her case was being reviewed she went to Uni got a job as a nurse - now 5 years after she arrived she was asked to appear at a police station for her immigration case only to be man handled by 4 coppers, hand cuffed and put in a cell because they thought she might abscond when told that her application had failed.
She appealed but lost and is being deported.
I love this country - if you are an Algerian Al-Qeada sypathyser who enters the country with an illegal passport and then spouts anti-UK propaganda you can claim asylum and have all your expenses paid. Yet if you come to the UK, get qualified as a nurse and wait legally for due process we toss you out like garbage.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
And the daily mail readers return....
Yes? Explain why we don't want people to come here and contribute to our economy please?
We effectively lost control of it years ago. All the immigration services seem to do in this country is arrest people who are here illegally (often through having overstayed, not through having arrived without a visa in the first place) but who otherwise try and abide by the rules by getting jobs and paying tax. Meanwhile, the ones who disappear permanently into the black economy are essentially left to get on with it with no interference (until they drown in Morecambe Bay or somethingAnd that encourages others to come illegally, and that means we give up any control over either the numbers of people coming here, or the qualifications.
Yeah, because the law is the law, and it must always be enforced even when it's completely contrary to the interests of the country as a whole. There can't be any room for flexibility or common sense now can there?So far as I'm concerned, illegal immigrants (as opposed to genuine asylum seekers) are deported, and only in absolutely exceptional circumstances (which most emphatically doesn't include having a job) would an exception be made.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote