Showing posts with label state benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state benefits. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

No German, No Benefits: Turkish Family Fights Language Requirement

SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL: Imhan K., a Turkish woman living in Germany, had her welfare benefits slashed after her husband refused to let her take German courses. Now a court must decide whether immigrants can be forced to learn the language and adopt Western mores.

After three-and-a-half years of legal wrangling, there's still no end in sight. At least officially, the case centers on €290.70 ($392). The K. family, thus identified to safeguard its privacy, is made up of ethnic Turks living in Germany. They claim that the state owes them the money. But, in reality, it's a matter of principle.

The questions at the heart of the dispute are: Can immigrants be forced to learn German? Can people who decline such an offer be denied welfare benefits? Or, viewed from the other perspective, can immigrants who live off state benefits refuse to integrate into society, or can they live as a group as if on an island and free of societal obligations?

The case of the K. family is typical of the problems German authorities face in dealing with immigrants from countries such as Turkey who don't want to integrate. » | Bruno Schrep | Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Thursday, January 19, 2012

370,000 Migrants On the Dole

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: More than 370,000 migrants who were admitted to Britain to work, study or go on holiday are now claiming out-of-work benefits, according to official figures compiled for the first time.

The migrants, who can claim unemployment, housing and incapacity benefit, are costing taxpayers billions of pounds a year.

In other countries, many would have had to return home after their visas expired or their employment ended.

The figures are likely to reopen the debate over the generosity of the welfare system amid growing concerns that the country has become a destination for “benefit tourists”.

In an article for today’s Daily Telegraph, Chris Grayling, the employment minister, and Damian Green, the immigration minister, say that the large number of migrants now claiming benefits has been increased by the “organisational chaos” of Britain’s immigration system.

“It should never have been allowed to happen and Labour should be embarrassed by what it left behind,” they add. Read on and comment » | Robert Winnett, Political Editor | Thursday, January 19, 2012

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Why Does Britain Have an Islamist Problem While America Doesn't? Answer: The Welfare State

TELEGRAPH BLOGS – ED WEST: London was the global headquarters of Islamic terrorism in the years before and after 9/11. This fact wasn’t exactly a closely guarded secret, but the WikiLeaks Guantánamo Bay files shed interesting new light on the American perspective. (I especially like the detail that the US government suspected the BBC of being a “possible propaganda media network” for al-Qaeda after a BBC phone number was found on a terrorist. What do they mean “possible”? Have they not listened to Radio 4?)

London became the world terrorist hub partly because the country had a long tradition of shielding dissenters of all stripes; because it had a very unintrusive state compared to its European neighbours (no ID cards); and because of Britain’s historic links with many Arab countries. But there was another reason, and this is central to the reason why Europe has an Islamist problem and the United States doesn’t – the welfare state. Welfare is intimately linked to the failure of western European countries to integrate their Muslim populations, and explains why Britain has such a problem with Islamism.

Look at the two figures named by US intelligence as responsible for recruiting dozens of terrorists, Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. Qatada, a Jordanian preacher and advisor to shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 plotter, was expelled from Kuwait for supporting the Iraqi invasion, then claimed asylum in Britain on the grounds of religious persecution. We granted it, naturally. Come in! Read on and comment » | Ed West | Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Labour Minister Says Tories 'Want Muslims Out of London'

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Karen Buck, the shadow work and pensions minister, has launched an outspoken attack on the Government, claiming that Tories do not want Muslims in central London.

The Labour frontbencher said controversial plans to cut housing benefit were designed to force “black women, ethnic minority women and Muslim women” out into the capital’s poorer suburbs.

Her comments immediately prompted calls for her dismissal. Baroness Warsi, Conservative Party Chairman and Britain's first Muslim Cabinet minister, described them as “deeply offensive”.

Ms Buck, who was speaking at a public meeting in Islington, north London, also accused the Tories of being “deeply hostile” to the idea of lower income families having children, according to the Independent.

In comments that will raise alarm within the Labour leadership, she said: "(The Government) do not want lower-income women, families, children and, above all, let us be very clear – because we also know where the impact is hitting – they don't want black women, they don't want ethnic minority women and they don't want Muslim women living in central London.

“They just don't. They want people to be moving out of anywhere that is a more prosperous area into the fringes of London and into places like Barking and Newham. I have nothing against Barking and Newham. The problem is they are already full of people who are quite poor." » | Victoria Ward | Thursday, March 17, 2011

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Karen Buck profile: former council worker who rose to Labour front bench – Karen Buck was elected to parliament in 1997 through a controversial all-woman shortlist. » | Victoria Ward | Thursday, March 17, 2011

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

One Furious Judge!

MAIL ONLINE: Stanley Clifton, 31, has never had a job and receives hundred of pounds a month in benefits / Judge brands him 'embodiment of welfare-dependent culture'

A jobless layabout who receives incapacity benefit for alcoholism was branded 'the embodiment of the welfare dependency culture' when he appeared in court for failing to carry out his community service.

Judge John Walford expressed disbelief after hearing that Stanley Clifton, 31, has never had a job and receives hundreds of pounds a month in incapacity benefit because he is unfit to work due to his addiction.

The stunned judge vented his anger, calling the defendant a 'sponger' and branding the situation 'extraordinary'. Judge's fury at 'sponging' alcoholic who claims incapacity benefit because 'addiction makes him unable to work' >>> Daily Mail Reporter | Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Benefit Claimants to Have Payments Cut

THE TELEGRAPH: Benefits claimants will have their payments cut as ministers seek a further £4 billion in welfare cuts.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, said that the Government will go further than previously announced in trying to bring down the cost of Britain’s social security system.

The promise of new welfare cuts has caused strain in the Coalition, with some Liberal Democrat MPs protesting against the move.

Mr Osborne said the welfare system had grown out of control and allowed some people to make the “lifestyle choice” of claiming benefits for their entire life instead of working.

Reforms being drawn up by the Coalition will give welfare claimants “a strong incentive” to get a job.

Welfare now costs £192 billion a year, almost a third of all government spending. An estimated 5 million people of working age are now economically inactive and receiving benefits.

In the Budget in June, Mr Osborne announced that benefits cuts will save £11 billion a year by the end of the Parliament.

In a BBC interview, he signalled that ministers will now seek deeper cuts, reducing welfare spending by another £4 billion. >>> James Kirkup and Andrew Porter | Thursday, September 09, 2010

Monday, July 13, 2009

Activists Push Ballot Initiative to End State Benefits for Illegal Immigrants and Their U.S.-born Children

LOS ANGELES TIMES: The measure would end public benefits to illegal residents, challenge the citizenship of their U.S.-born children, cut welfare payments to those children and impose new birth certificate requirements.

In a stretch of desert just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, men and women in khakis and the colors of the American flag recently gathered at a border watch post they call Camp Vigilance and discussed their next offensive in the nation's immigration wars.

The target: Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children who receive public benefits.

The plan: a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates.

"We will be out in full force to qualify this initiative," said Barbara Coe, who helped develop Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that would have ended benefits to illegal immigrants but was ruled unconstitutional. "Illegals and their children are costing the state billions of dollars. It's invasion by birth canal."

Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally. >>> Teresa Watanabe | Monday, July 13, 2009

Thursday, February 26, 2009

New Dark Age Alert! Polygamy UK: This Special Mail Investigation Reveals How Thousands of Men Are Milking the Benefits System to Support Several Wives

MAIL Online: He cut a smart figure in his grey suit and crisply ironed shirt. The 6ft tall Somalian bowed to the judge, calling him 'Sir', before begging for his wife, Fatima, and their teenage son to be allowed to stay in Britain.

Fatima, with a black khimar veil covering her hair and shoulders, sat quietly next to her husband.

In her late 30s and wearing open sandals, she lowered her dark eyes as the details of the unconventional life she and her husband, Abdi, led in the West London suburb of Shepherd's Bush unfolded at a busy immigration court.

The judge listened in silence. Perhaps he knew from past experience what was coming next. Abdi went on to reveal that Fatima was not his only wife.

Indeed, he was a self-confessed bigamist who had a second, much younger wife and a 13-year-old daughter by her. They both lived nearby.

'I visit them regularly,' said Abdi, 51, who arrived in Britain in the 1990s and works in an old people's home. 'I have done nothing wrong. In Somalia, it is normal to have two wives - even three or four. Fatima is still my wife and she should not be deported.'

He was unable to produce wedding certificates or valid official documents to prove where, or when, he had married both women, therefore raising questions over the validity of the unions, under either Somali or British law.

Yet his story, unravelling at an ordinary weekday hearing at Taylor House, an asylum appeals' centre in North London, is just one example of the growing phenomenon of multiple marriage in Britain.

Officially, such unions are punishable by up to seven years in prison. They were first declared illegal in England and Wales in 1604, when the Parliament of James I took action to restrain 'evil persons' marrying more than one wife. Parliament ruled that anyone found guilty of the crime would be sentenced to death.

In the four centuries since, bigamy (having two wives) and polygamy (more than two) has been frowned on by the state, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet it is clear that officialdom is turning a blind eye to such marriages.

A recent review by four Government departments - the Treasury, the Work and Pensions Department, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office - has concluded that 1,000 men in the United Kingdom are now polygamists, although some say the figure is higher.

What is more, the review found, a Muslim man can claim state support of more than £10,000 a year to keep his wives, if the wedding took place in one of those countries where polygamy is commonplace, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and across huge tracts of Africa.

For example, a man can receive &£92.80 a week in income support for wife number one, and a further £33.65p for each of his subsequent spouses.

Therefore, if he has four wives - the maximum permitted under Islamic teachings - he can claim nearly £800 a month from the British taxpayer.

Controversially, a polygamist is also entitled to more generous housing benefits and bigger council houses to reflect the large size of his family. He is also able to claim £1,000 a year in child benefit for each of his growing brood.

The Government insists that polygamy has declined in Britain since the 1988 Immigration Act, which made it harder for men to bring second, third or fourth wives to the UK.

However, it's little wonder that critics claim our generosity simply encourages more Muslim men to keep several spouses.

Supporters of polygamy claim the Koran states unequivocally that a Muslim man can marry up to four women so long as he treats them equally.

But the Taxpayers' Alliance, a lobby group, has complained: 'Polygamy is not officially condoned here, so why should British taxpayers have to pay for extra benefits for men to have two, three or four wives?' >>> Sue Reid | Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Hat tip: Jihad Watch >>>

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>