Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Americans claim asylum in Britain

  1. #1
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,083
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Americans claim asylum in Britain

    Feel free to move this mel, but I thought that I would post here as the underlying factor is welfare, money and healthcare in this story.

    By ALEX PEAKE
    October 16, 2006

    BRITAIN is such a soft touch that even AMERICANS are coming here to claim asylum and sponge off the state.

    The incredible revelation comes from immigration whistleblower Rory Clarke.

    And yesterday the Government was forced to admit figures that backed him up.

    Disgusted Rory, 34, contacted The Sun to expose the true depth of the asylum shambles. He said:

    Britain is seen as such a soft touch that poor people from countries such as America are even coming here now. [snip]

    ...Rory also revealed a shocking catalogue of blunders by officials, and lying by applicants that is making our asylum system the gravy train of the world.

    He spent five years heading a team evicting failed asylum seekers from their homes after applications were turned down.

    But the dad of one quit the Government’s National Asylum Support Service (NASS) in disgust at what he encountered.

    When he started the job he calculates 50 per cent of asylum seekers were genuine. But now he reckons that figure is FIVE per cent.

    Those waiting for applications to be processed get immediate free healthcare, free accommodation and £35 a week in benefits.

    Rory maintains the deluge is dominated by freeloaders.[snip]
    The full story here http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006480089,00.html


  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    Actually, Seraya, this is the correct forum to discuss such issues. The obvious points of comparison are the taxation levels and standard of living of middle class people in the UK compared to middle class people in the USA, versus the level of social welfare benefits provided to low income / unemployed people in the UK compared to low income / unemployed people in the USA.

    There is also the side issue that the UK 'culture' has supported generous social welfare benefits for at least an extra generation (i.e. the 30's great depression) versus the USA (where social welfare programs and spending really didn't gain a major foothold until the mid 1960's). Thus in some ways the situation in the UK today can be looked upon as a 'predictor' of the future situation which will occur in the USA re tax rates, unemployment rates, middle class standard of living etc. if the USA continues along the same course.

    Perhaps what disturbs me the most from a personal standpoint is that, regardless of country, there are now so many people out there who are 'content' to collect as many social welfare benefits as possible and to perform as little work as possible. At one time the 'work ethic' was strong enough that people were made to feel guilty about 'sponging' off the taxes paid by their friends and neighbors for extended periods, but this is clearly no longer the case. Even more ironically, there are now people out there who are willing to go 'shopping' in regard to which states and now which countries have the most generous social welfare systems that will in turn provide them with the highest standard of living in return for 'taking up space'.

    But in reality, the number of American social welfare seekers in the UK is absolutely tiny. I assume that the reason is that in many US states i.e. CA, NY, MI, IL, NJ, to name just a few, the levels of social welfare benefits available exceed those of the UK !


    The 'tin foil hat' crowd would argue that by America's adopting of the 'great society' social welfare programs of the late 60's and abandoning the use of War as an economic / political / social 'stabilizing force' in the very early 70's (i.e. walking away from Vietnam), that the USA chose to start operating under a 'Peace Economy' versus a 'War Economy' as the UK did immediately after WW2. Uncannily, a (then) secret study of this change in policy was begun under the Kennedy administration, and resulted in a 'disturbing' study titled the 'Iron Mountain' report - which accurately predicted many many economic changes (as well as social and political) would occur if America's 'War Economy' of the 40's, 50's and early 60's were abandoned and a 'Peace Economy' adopted instead.

    and


    (snip)"Economic surrogates for war must meet two principal criteria. They must be "wasteful," in the common sense of the word, and they must operate outside the normal supply-demand system. A corollary that should be obvious is that the magnitude of the waste must be subject to arbitrary control. Public housing starts, to meet the needs of a particular society. An economy as advanced and complex as our own requirements of a stable economy might dictate. An economy as advanced and complex as our own requites the planned average annual destruction of not less than 10 percent of gross national product1 if it is effectively to fulfill its stabilizing function.

    When the mass of a balance wheel is inadequate to the power it is intended to control, its effect can be self-defeating, as with a runaway locomotive. The analogy, though crude2, is especially apt for the American economy, as our record of cyclical depressions shows. All have taken place during periods of grossly inadequate military spending. Those few economic conversion programs which by implication acknowledge the nonmilitary economic function of war (at least to some extent) tend to assume that so-called social-welfare expenditures will fill the vacuum created by the disappearance of military spending. When one considers the backlog of unfinished business--proposed but still unexecuted--in this field, the assumption seems plausible.

    Let us examine briefly, the following list, which is more or less typical of general social welfare programs.

    Health. Drastic expansion of medical research, education, and training facilities; hospital and clinic construction; the general objective of complete government guaranteed health care for all, at a level consistent with current developments in medical technology.
    Education. The equivalent of the foregoing in teacher training; schools and libraries; the drastic upgrading of standards, with the general objective of making available for all an attainable educational goal equivalent to what is now considered a professional degree.
    Housing. Clean, comfortable, safe, and spacious living space for all, at the level now enjoyed by about 15 percent of the population in this country (less in most others).
    Transportation. The establishment of a system of mass public transportation making it possible for all to travel to and from areas of work and recreation quickly, comfortably, and conveniently, and to travel privately for pleasure rather than necessity.
    Physical environment. The development and protection of water supplies, forests, parks, and other natural resources; the elimination of chemical and bacterial contaminants from air, water, and soil.
    Poverty. The genuine elimination of poverty, defined by a standard consistent with current economic productivity, by means of a guaranteed annual income or whatever system of distribution will best assure its achievement. This is only a sampler of the more obvious domestic social welfare items, and we have listed it in a deliberately broad, perhaps extravagant, manner.

    In the past, such a vague and ambitious sounding "program" would have been dismissed out of hand, without serious consideration; it would clearly have been, prima facie, far too costly, quite apart from its political implications.4 Our objection to it, on the other hand, could hardly be more contradictory. As an economic substitute for war it is inadequate because it would be far too cheap. If this seems paradoxical, it must be remembered that up to now all proposed social-welfare programs have had to be measured within the war economy, not as a replacement for it. The old slogan about a battleship or an ICBM costing as much as x hospitals or y schools or z homes takes on a very different meaning if there are to be no more battleships or ICBM's.

    Since the list is general , we have elected to forestall the tangential controversy that surrounds arbitrary cost projections by offering no individual cost estimates. But the maximum program that could be physically effected along the lines indicated could approach the established level of military spending only for a limited time--in our opinion, subject to a detailed cost-and- feasibility analysis, less than ten years. In this short period, at this rate, the major goals of the program would have been achieved. Its capital-investment phase would have been completed, and it would have established a permanent comparatively modest level of annual operating cost-- within the framework of the general economy.

    Here is the basic weakness of the social-welfare surrogate. On the short- term basis, a maximum program of this sort could replace a normal military spending program, provided it was designed, like the military model, to be subject to arbitrary control. Public housing starts, for example, or the development of modern medical centers might be accelerated or halted from time to time, as the requirement of a stable economy might dictate.

    But on the long term basis, social-welfare spending, no matter how often redefined, would necessarily become an integral, accepted part of the economy, of no more value as a stabilizer than the automobile industry or old age and survivors' insurance. Apart from whatever merit social-welfare programs are deemed to have for their own sake, their function as a substitute for war in the economy would thus be self-liquidating. They might serve, however, as expedients pending the development of more durable substitute measures."(snip)

    ^^ keep in mind that this was written in 1966 !!!

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-21-2006 at 10:01 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member susan22's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    Wow! That's unbelievable. And there you constantly get to read in the european press how much more market oriented and capitalist things are in the UK compared to continential Europe. In most european countries any purely economically motivated asylum seekers are immediatly put on the next flight home. In fact it has become so difficult to be accepted for political asylum that the strategy of most claimants has become to destroy any documents of identification prior to arrival. That way, especially with africans, the asylum countries frequently cannot send them back as they are unable to determine their nationality. And some african countries even actively refuse to take back their own citizens.

    They just changed the laws here enabling them to lock up rejected asylum seekers for up to two years in prison if they don't cooperate in their repatriation.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    ^^^ which actually explains the decisions on the part of most european countries to throw out as many 'unskilled' immigrants / asylum seekers as possible ...

    from the same Iron Mountain study circa 1966 ...

    (snip)"In advanced modern democratic societies, the war system has provided political leaders with another political-economic function of increasing importance: it has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary social classes. As economic productivity increases to a level further and further above that of minimum subsistence, it becomes more and more difficult for a society to maintain distribution patterns insuring the existence of "hewers of wood and drawers of water." The further progress of automation can be expected to differentiate still more sharply between "superior" workers and what Ricardo called "menials," while simultaneously aggravating the problem of maintaining an unskilled labor supply."(snip)

    (snip)"The most obvious of these functions is the time-honored use of military institutions to provide antisocial elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. The disintegrative, unstable social movements loosely described as "fascist" have traditionally taken root in societies that have lacked adequate military or paramilitary outlets to meet the needs of these elements. This function has been critical in periods of rapid change. The danger signals are easy to recognize, even though the stigmata bear different names at different times. The current euphemistic clichés "juvenile delinquency" and "alienation"-- have had their counterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or outright enslavement.

    But, it is not hard to visualize, for example, the degree of social disruption that might have taken place in the United States during the last two decades [mid 40's to mid 60's] if the problem of the socially disaffected of the post-World War II period had not been foreseen and effectively met. The younger, and more dangerous, of these hostile social groupings have been kept under control by the Selective Service System.[i.e. mandatory induction into the military, separation from 'normal society' under 100% military discipline, with some percentage being killed or wounded/disabled thus never to return to 'normal society]"(snip)

    Thus in the world's most evolved 'Peace Economies' of Germany, Holland, France etc. it is absolutely essential that the 'younger, and more dangerous, of these hostile social groupings' be controlled by any other available means ... in this case by deportation. However, based on last year's widespread fire bombings and other disruptions, it may very will be that deportations are a case of 'too little-too late', as this brand new international news item comments ...



    Of course, the burgeoning 'Peace Economy' in America hasn't escaped these latest developments either ...



    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-21-2006 at 04:24 PM.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    ...Even more ironically, there are now people out there who are willing to go 'shopping' in regard to which states and now which countries have the most generous social welfare systems that will in turn provide them with the highest standard of living in return for 'taking up space'...
    The following I can only present as hearsay, but it comes from my favorite morning show host on the radio (Doug McIntyre, whom you can hear on streaming radio 5am-9am Pacific Time, Windows Media Player for Mac or Windows required)

    http://www.kabc.com


    One morning, he talked about the People's Republic of San Francisco having a problem with this very topic. San Francisco is a fairly unique situation, being both a city and county combined, but somehow, some legislation was passed which would pay $459.00 monthly to anyone who was homeless and apparently had lived within the city limits for a month or two. But even my Northern Socialist neighbors had to repeal this little gem - it started to attract far too many people from all over the U.S. who wanted to collect these checks, without the requisite tax base to sustain the checks. The last I heard, the program still exists, but the amount was reduced to $59 per month, and with a longer qualifying period. Someone who actually lives in San Francisco should have far more accurate information about this program and any of its benefits vs. problems created.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member StuartL's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    Location
    European Man Of Mystery
    Posts
    648
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 21 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    The UK has these scandals all the time now.

    There is a current loophole that enables people arriving from places like Romania to claim child support for all their kids back at home. more amazingly, the Romanian govt seems to train people to be able to do this. And since many of these E European nations don't have any accurate cesus or birth data, there is no way of checking if these kids are even real.

    In France currently, the profession most students want is that of civil servant!! They just want a guaranteed income and no hassles. When I first learned about this I was amazed.

    In Belgium, the system is so generous that there are big numbers of Belgians that seem to have no job. Either on unemployment, or long term sick, or they are property owners who legally pay no taxes. Without the EU and all the expats (and tax revenues) they bring, much of Belgium would be third world.

    Its a funny old world!

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    There is a current loophole that enables people arriving from places like Romania to claim child support for all their kids back at home. more amazingly, the Romanian govt seems to train people to be able to do this. And since many of these E European nations don't have any accurate cesus or birth data, there is no way of checking if these kids are even real.
    ^^^ the US has a pretty much analogous situation going with Mexican immigrants being instructed how to apply for US social welfare benefits ---> which is sponsored by UniVision (a spanish language TV network with roots in Mexico and Venezuela that now has affiliate stations in some major US cities)

    There is probably a difference though ... where Romanian immigrants applying for UK social welfare benefits is concerned, those Romanians have to be 'legal' immigrants - whereas 'illegal' Mexican immigrants to the US can legally apply for US social welfare benefits !

    It's a funny 'new' world too LOL

  8. #8
    Veteran Member StuartL's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    Location
    European Man Of Mystery
    Posts
    648
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 21 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Americans claim asylum in Britain

    Yeah you are right. They do have to be legal. But that said, there was a scandal about 18 months ago relating to this. It seems (as I recall) that the UK immigration office was allowing and processing applications from all sorts of people. The most famous application was from a one legged Romanian roofer!!!! He was successful.

    When these things were exposed in the print media, changes were made and processes 'tightened' whatever that means.

    There has been discussion in the Belgian media for some time, about 2 years I guess, about a controversial idea to pay all Belgian citizens.

    The basis of the idea being that the govt pays out too much in benefits and it would be cheaper to simply pay every Belgian citizen 1,000 euro per month for life. As you can imagine, Belgium would likely become a baby factory, as a husband and wife with 3 kids would be bringing in 5,000 per month (which you could live reasonably well on, even between a family) essentially just to breed.

    Needless to say, the expat community was up in arms since they are the high earners here and thus pay many of the high taxes. As I understand it, they didn't go ahead with the plan and the idea is on ice, but there was very serious discussion about it for quite a time.

Similar Threads

  1. Britain's Labour Party Resorts to Class Warfare
    By Eric Stoner in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 02:34 PM
  2. Great Britain...ummmm What the f**k?
    By ArmySGT. in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-19-2006, 06:22 PM
  3. Looking for clubs in Britain
    By jessiejessie in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-09-2006, 12:39 PM
  4. Britain's 100,000 terrorists
    By Deogol in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2005, 08:04 PM
  5. Canada Cracks Down on Asylum Seekers
    By Tigerlilly in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-02-2005, 07:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •