• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

BRITONS IN THE UK ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS BY EURO-FARCICAL LAWS

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
By BRITON it is meant any person who is a British citizen of any ethnicity whether born in the UK or became a citizen.
Refugees are welcome in the UK and entitled an equal right which is as it should be.

However there is an imbalance:
Any EU citizen in the UK is entitled to bring in a non-EU spouse no matter what he earns or doesn’t. A British citizen is not permitted to bring in a non-EU spouse if he earns less than £18,600.00 in case he is burden on the system. This is thanks to EU Laws which have made Britons into second class citizens.

The report a few years ago is self explanatory and worth reading to understand why the majority of people in the UK voted to leave.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/298
Family Permits for EU citizens [1] in Britain
________________________________________
European Union: MW 298
________________________________________
Summary
1. Recent reforms to family migration for British citizens are undermined by EU law that allows EU citizens living in the UK to bypass British Immigration Rules and bring in their non-EU partners and family members with no salary or other conditions. They gain immediate and full access to benefits. 20,000 took advantage of this route in 2012.

Family Immigration Rules
2. In 2012 there were around 40,000 family visas issued under the Immigration Rules of which about 30,000 were for partners, 5,000 for children and 5,000 to other relatives such as parents and grandparents [2].

3. British nationals living in the UK are now required to earn a minimum salary of £18,600 to sponsor a spouse from outside the European Union (technically the EEA). This is the salary level that the government considers necessary so that the spouse will not be a burden on the taxpayer.

EU Rules
4. However, EU nationals living in the UK can bypass the UK immigration rules and bring in a non-EU partner and even their partner’s extended family members under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006[3].

5. A non-EU family member has to apply for an “EEA family permit” but, to qualify; the EU nationals only have to be exercising their treaty rights to be in the UK. All EU nationals have an initial right to reside in the UK for three months. Thereafter, they can extend their right of residence if they are a:
• Jobseeker
• Worker
• Student
• self-employed person
• self-sufficient person
Therefore, there is no salary threshold required to sponsor a family member from outside the EU and there is not even a requirement to be in employment.

6. In 2012 there were over 20,000 EEA family permits issued to non-EU citizens to accompany or to join EU citizens living in the UK. The total over the past five years has been almost 100, 000. [4]

7. The holder of an EEA family permit has the same right to work and to access benefits as the EU national who has sponsored them. This means they can claim all the benefits available to a British citizen resident in the UK. These include Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit, Working Tax Credit and State Pension Credit as well as social housing and homelessness assistance.

8. The EEA family permit is issued for an initial six months after which it can be extended. After five years the holder can apply for permanent residence in the UK and, if they wish, can then apply for British citizenship [5].

Examples
9. There are two broad categories, one legitimate but which undermines UK immigration law, and the other effectively an abuse of the system.

a) A Polish or French person can marry someone from outside the EU, say Kenya or Vietnam, and can bring their spouse into the UK, even if they do not have a job earning a minimum of £18,600 or indeed any job. The couple would be entitled to full access to the welfare state. A British or non EU settled resident would not be allowed to bring in a spouse without this minimum income. This is also an incentive for sham marriages between, say, Eastern European women and African and Asian migrants, a number of which have been detected.

b) An Indian national from the former Portuguese territory of Goa can apply for Portuguese citizenship on the basis of their or their parents’ Portuguese heritage (Goa was part of the Portuguese Republic until 1961). They can then move directly to the UK, without even going to Portugal, and bring their family with them on EEA family permits. Again, they do not have to satisfy the minimum income threshold as British and settled residents do. They are immediately entitled to full access to the British welfare state. There is anecdotal evidence that this has been happening in the UK – many Goans have moved to the town of Swindon.
9 May, 2013
END OF QUOTE

Assuming BREXIT will really go ahead it is hoped that the UK government removes such asinine laws.
 
So your issue with this is that some people are treated generously, and others are treated less generously; and your solution to this unfair situation is to excise the UK from the EU so that those ungenerous rules can be applied to everyone?

It's not FAIR that you didn't get an ice-cream, so your solution is to prevent ANYONE from having ice-cream? And to do so in a way that totally fucks up the country for everyone?

Grow up.
 
It's a curious component of contemporary Western society that those closest in affiliation are treated the worst. Past European societies - and, indeed, pretty much every present-day non-Western society - gave highest loyalty to those most approximate to that society. However, now the fashion (it seems, anyway) is to demean concentric loyalty in favor of leapfrogging loyalties. Brexit is a good example, where Remainers bypassed traditional loyalty to other Brits in favor of continentals. This may be in play with current immigration policy, too; with non-westerns viewed as having a perceived unalienable right to migrant while the indigenous Western population is to apologize for being in the way. Really, I'm unaware of any non-Western society that is similarly discourteous to its own kinfolk.
 
So your issue with this is that some people are treated generously, and others are treated less generously; and your solution to this unfair situation is to excise the UK from the EU so that those ungenerous rules can be applied to everyone?

It's not FAIR that you didn't get an ice-cream, so your solution is to prevent ANYONE from having ice-cream? And to do so in a way that totally fucks up the country for everyone?

Grow up.

Are you replying to this post or something else.

A Briton who is a citizen of the UK cannot bring in a spouse if his income is less than 18,600.00 but someone who is not a Briton can. This is called equality not who gets the ice cream.

Refugees rightly must have equal rights and EU citizens in gainful employment must have equal rights but Britons due to the EU do not. No wonder the British voted against the Jack-ass's of Brussels.
 
So your issue with this is that some people are treated generously, and others are treated less generously; and your solution to this unfair situation is to excise the UK from the EU so that those ungenerous rules can be applied to everyone?

It's not FAIR that you didn't get an ice-cream, so your solution is to prevent ANYONE from having ice-cream? And to do so in a way that totally fucks up the country for everyone?

Grow up.

Are you replying to this post or something else.

A Briton who is a citizen of the UK cannot bring in a spouse if his income is less than 18,600.00 but someone who is not a Briton can. This is called equality not who gets the ice cream.

Refugees rightly must have equal rights and EU citizens in gainful employment must have equal rights but Britons due to the EU do not. No wonder the British voted against the Jack-ass's of Brussels.

You are griping because others can do something you want to be able to do. And your preferred solution is to let NOBODY do it; and to take your bat and your ball and go home and refuse to play anymore. That's seriously fucking childish.

Grow up.
 
It's a curious component of contemporary Western society that those closest in affiliation are treated the worst. Past European societies - and, indeed, pretty much every present-day non-European society - gave highest loyalty to those most approximate to that society. However, now the fashion (it seems, anyway) is to demean concentric loyalty in favor of leapfrogging loyalties. Brexit is a good example, where Remainers bypassed traditional loyalty to other Brits in favor of continentals. This may be in play with current immigration policy, too; with non-westerns viewed as having a perceived unalienable right to migrant while the indigenous Western population is to apologize for being in the way. Really, I'm unaware of any non-Western society that is similarly discourteous to its own kinfolk.

Also I spoke to 2 not so rich Brits who worked abroad (instead of going on benefits). When they returned to the UK they were told they must undergo a habitual residence test where they have to demonstrate they intend to live in the UK. They cannot claim unemployment and one was turned away by Westminster Council on the grounds he had decided to leave the UK and no longer has a right of abode in the country. This was incorrect by the way because what it means is a Briton will have to wait several weeks before having this test. Then he has to wait a month for a decision.

This is the first time I have ever heard of a citizen being refused rights of abode and citizenship benefits.

After being rejected by Westminster he went to Ealing Council (London). The kind lady advised there were no houses as building of government housing has almost ceased and it took large amounts of refugees so there is no room. However she provided a list of private properties for him to look at and then he can pay for this through the council. (The UK should help refugees and this is not the issue).
 
Maybe they earned 2nd Class status with their decision to give the EU the finger?
Just like Americans earned the right to get fucked by Uncle Vlad with their choice...
 
It isn't just England. Here in Ontario OHIP pays for most medical expenses (funded through taxes), but not for dental not eyeglasses. Refugees get free dental and eyeglasses....
 
And refugees get free second-hand clothing from charities, while citizens get nothing. Homeless people get free meals from soup kitchens, but try getting a free meal when you are obviously well off, and they treat you like shit. It's all just so UNFAIR. It makes me want to hurl myself on the ground and kick and scream. :rolleyes:

How DARE people less well off than me expect special treatment.
 
And refugees get free second-hand clothing from charities, while citizens get nothing. Homeless people get free meals from soup kitchens, but try getting a free meal when you are obviously well off, and they treat you like shit. It's all just so UNFAIR. It makes me want to hurl myself on the ground and kick and scream. :rolleyes:

How DARE people less well off than me expect special treatment.

The issue, very clearly stated in the OP, is that governments are treating their own citizens as second rate. Why would a non-citizen of the UK be given more right and privilege than a citizen of the UK? What other countries in the world do that?
 
The problem is not Euro-laws. The problem is the British gov't. Euro laws do not mandate this 2nd class treatment - the British elect gov'ts that treat them like 2nd class citizens.
 
And refugees get free second-hand clothing from charities, while citizens get nothing. Homeless people get free meals from soup kitchens, but try getting a free meal when you are obviously well off, and they treat you like shit. It's all just so UNFAIR. It makes me want to hurl myself on the ground and kick and scream. :rolleyes:

How DARE people less well off than me expect special treatment.

The issue, very clearly stated in the OP, is that governments are treating their own citizens as second rate. Why would a non-citizen of the UK be given more right and privilege than a citizen of the UK? What other countries in the world do that?

NO, the issue is that the UK government treats their own citizens in accordance with their own rules; and (due to treaty obligations) treats citizens of other EU nations better. The UK citizen isn't being treated badly; the EU citizen is merely being treated even better.

Complaining that the UK citizen is treated as 'second rate' is fucking stupid - they are being treated just as they always were, in accordance with UK law.

IF we accept that this is sufficiently unfair as to require action, then there are TWO options to fix it - Change UK immigration law to treat UK citizens better, by giving them the same rights that citizens of other EU nations have; or abandon the EU altogether.

Only a total fucking MORON would say that the latter is the better of these options.
 
So much nonsense. An EEA national can only enter the UK if they're working in the UK, or have enough money to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

Recourse to public funds is grounds for rejecting an EEA family permit. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eea-family-permits-eun02/eea-family-permit-eun02

Where the applicant can show that he / she is the extended family member of an EEA national, the ECO may issue an EEA family permit if in all circumstances, it appears to the ECO appropriate to issue the EEA family permit. Therefore, an EEA family permit may be refused:

  • where refusing the family member would not prevent the EEA national from exercising his / her Treaty rights or would not create an effective obstacle to the exercise of Treaty rights;
  • if the applicant would have been refused entry to the UK on general grounds for refusal had they been applying for entry under the Immigration Rules;
    [*]maintenance and accommodation requirements aren’t met, for example, the non-EEA national’s admittance would result in recourse to public funds.

Public funds are (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--2/public-funds)

Public funds include a range of benefits that are given to people on a low income, as well as housing support. These are:

  • income-based jobseeker’s allowance
  • income support
  • child tax credit
  • universal credit
  • working tax credit
  • a social fund payment
  • child benefit
  • housing benefit
  • council tax benefit
  • council tax reduction
  • domestic rate relief (Northern Ireland)
  • state pension credit
  • attendance allowance
  • severe disablement allowance
  • personal independence payment
  • carer’s allowance
  • disability living allowance
  • an allocation of local authority housing
  • local authority homelessness assistance

Compare to item 7 in the OP at your leisure.
 
And refugees get free second-hand clothing from charities, while citizens get nothing. Homeless people get free meals from soup kitchens, but try getting a free meal when you are obviously well off, and they treat you like shit. It's all just so UNFAIR. It makes me want to hurl myself on the ground and kick and scream. :rolleyes:

How DARE people less well off than me expect special treatment.

The issue, very clearly stated in the OP, is that governments are treating their own citizens as second rate. Why would a non-citizen of the UK be given more right and privilege than a citizen of the UK? What other countries in the world do that?

Every third world country that is dependent on tourism, for starters...
 
Are you replying to this post or something else.

A Briton who is a citizen of the UK cannot bring in a spouse if his income is less than 18,600.00 but someone who is not a Briton can. This is called equality not who gets the ice cream.

Refugees rightly must have equal rights and EU citizens in gainful employment must have equal rights but Britons due to the EU do not. No wonder the British voted against the Jack-ass's of Brussels.

You are griping because others can do something you want to be able to do. And your preferred solution is to let NOBODY do it; and to take your bat and your ball and go home and refuse to play anymore. That's seriously fucking childish.

Grow up.

If non Nationals can do something that Nationals cannot doe then that is discriminatory. If this was discrimination against ethnic minorities there would rightly be discriminatory. British is nothing to do with ethnicity but citizenship.
 
The issue, very clearly stated in the OP, is that governments are treating their own citizens as second rate. Why would a non-citizen of the UK be given more right and privilege than a citizen of the UK? What other countries in the world do that?

NO, the issue is that the UK government treats their own citizens in accordance with their own rules; and (due to treaty obligations) treats citizens of other EU nations better. The UK citizen isn't being treated badly; the EU citizen is merely being treated even better.

Complaining that the UK citizen is treated as 'second rate' is fucking stupid - they are being treated just as they always were, in accordance with UK law.

IF we accept that this is sufficiently unfair as to require action, then there are TWO options to fix it - Change UK immigration law to treat UK citizens better, by giving them the same rights that citizens of other EU nations have; or abandon the EU altogether.

Only a total fucking MORON would say that the latter is the better of these options.

The laws are imposed by the EU which override English Law.
 
You are griping because others can do something you want to be able to do. And your preferred solution is to let NOBODY do it; and to take your bat and your ball and go home and refuse to play anymore. That's seriously fucking childish.

Grow up.

If non Nationals can do something that Nationals cannot doe then that is discriminatory. If this was discrimination against ethnic minorities there would rightly be discriminatory. British is nothing to do with ethnicity but citizenship.

So your solution is to smash the system, rather than lobbying for a simple change in the law?

Grow up.
 
NO, the issue is that the UK government treats their own citizens in accordance with their own rules; and (due to treaty obligations) treats citizens of other EU nations better. The UK citizen isn't being treated badly; the EU citizen is merely being treated even better.

Complaining that the UK citizen is treated as 'second rate' is fucking stupid - they are being treated just as they always were, in accordance with UK law.

IF we accept that this is sufficiently unfair as to require action, then there are TWO options to fix it - Change UK immigration law to treat UK citizens better, by giving them the same rights that citizens of other EU nations have; or abandon the EU altogether.

Only a total fucking MORON would say that the latter is the better of these options.

The laws are imposed by the EU which override English Law.

The laws 'imposed' by the EU ARE English Law, under the terms of the various treaties signed by the UK.

Your objections are moronic and childish.

Your solution (Brexit) is VASTLY more harmful than the status quo; it leaves those who you describe as 'second class' with their status completely unchanged; and ignores an easy and trivially disruptive fix that could be applied by the UK government without reference to the EU.

Grow up.
 
So much nonsense. An EEA national can only enter the UK if they're working in the UK, or have enough money to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

Recourse to public funds is grounds for rejecting an EEA family permit. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eea-family-permits-eun02/eea-family-permit-eun02



Public funds are (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--2/public-funds)

Public funds include a range of benefits that are given to people on a low income, as well as housing support. These are:

  • income-based jobseeker’s allowance
  • income support
  • child tax credit
  • universal credit
  • working tax credit
  • a social fund payment
  • child benefit
  • housing benefit
  • council tax benefit
  • council tax reduction
  • domestic rate relief (Northern Ireland)
  • state pension credit
  • attendance allowance
  • severe disablement allowance
  • personal independence payment
  • carer’s allowance
  • disability living allowance
  • an allocation of local authority housing
  • local authority homelessness assistance

Compare to item 7 in the OP at your leisure.

This is partially correct but a EU citizen who has worked in the UK or works in the UK can claim various benefits. An Eu citizen who is working in the UK can claim varoius benefits but the point was on bringing in spouses.
A Briton cannot bring in a non English spouse if the income is less than 18,600.00 plus an extra 2,500 for each child. A EU citizen can. A refugee rightly can but the UK Citizen lost this due to Eu legislation.


In EUN2.4 para 2 from the list you quoted there is a 3 month waiting list applied in some case for Europeans as follows

the EEA national is residing in the UK in accordance with the EEA Regulations (as qualified person (exercising treaty rights) if more than 3 months) and the non-EEA national is joining them; or the EEA national intends to travel to the UK within 6 months and will have a right to reside under the Regulations on arrival, and the non-EEA national will be accompanying or joining the EEA national; and
if applying as a spouse or civil partner, there are no grounds to consider that the marriage or civil partnership is one of convenience; and
if applying as dependent family members (dependent children 21 and over and dependent relatives) they are dependent on the EEA national or the EEA national’s spouse or civil partner; and
neither the applicant nor the EEA national should be excluded from the UK on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.


The issue was the right to bring in a spouse but nonetheless this is something which local councils sometimes have difficult in interpreting. See here where the rights of Britons are on paper a little easier but some have been told recently they lost their right of abode when the left the UK which of course is nonsense.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/b...bitual-residence-test-how-a-decision-is-made/
 
The laws are imposed by the EU which override English Law.

The laws 'imposed' by the EU ARE English Law, under the terms of the various treaties signed by the UK.

Your objections are moronic and childish.

Your solution (Brexit) is VASTLY more harmful than the status quo; it leaves those who you describe as 'second class' with their status completely unchanged; and ignores an easy and trivially disruptive fix that could be applied by the UK government without reference to the EU.

Grow up.

The rights imposed by the EU are European Law. English laws still exist until overridden by the EU. One of the reasons for BREXIT winning the vote is the UK wants to make its own laws by its own parliaments to avoid less cock ups.

Where there is a conflict between EU law and UK Law, EU Law prevails. Anyway the current government is too busy toadying up to the EU to contemplate anything. It was the vote and not the government which chose BREXIT.
 
Back
Top Bottom