Omnisis

[aargauer]

Oct 28, 2022 17:07:03 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:03:38 GMT aargauer said:

Im actually not against joining Schegen. Quite like governments not knowing where I am.

I have always been perplexed by people who want a small gov but tighter immigration

Schengen isn't much to do with immigration. I have Swiss and amusingly, Greek permanent residence (been to Greece once ever, on holiday) but would be treated as non-EU if I wanted to move to the EU (apart from Greece).

With immigration, I see both the reactionary pro and against camp as quasi religious.

Reality is some immigrants are good and some aren't. I personally favour a reasonably open system as long as migrants are not entitled to benefits. Give people a chance, but it's not liberal to let people come and suck the natives dry.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 28, 2022 17:10:00 GMT aargauer said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:07:03 GMT mattbewilson said:

I have always been perplexed by people who want a small gov but tighter immigration

Schengen isn't much to do with immigration. I have Swiss and amusingly, Greek permanent residence (been to Greece once ever, on holiday) but would be treated as non-EU if I wanted to move to the EU (apart from Greece).

With immigration, I see both the reactionary pro and against camp as quasi religious.

Reality is some immigrants are good and some aren't. I personally favour a reasonably open system as long as migrants are not entitled to benefits. Give people a chance, but it's not liberal to let people come and suck the natives dry.

I don't want to derail this thread. But any sort of immigration policy that doesn't allow immigrants a safety net is not responsible. You're inviting immigrants to be homeless

[J.G.Harston]

Oct 28, 2022 17:30:51 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:10:00 GMT aargauer said:

Schengen isn't much to do with immigration. I have Swiss and amusingly, Greek permanent residence (been to Greece once ever, on holiday) but would be treated as non-EU if I wanted to move to the EU (apart from Greece).

With immigration, I see both the reactionary pro and against camp as quasi religious.

Reality is some immigrants are good and some aren't. I personally favour a reasonably open system as long as migrants are not entitled to benefits. Give people a chance, but it's not liberal to let people come and suck the natives dry.

I don't want to derail this thread. But any sort of immigration policy that doesn't allow immigrants a safety net is not responsible. You're inviting immigrants to be homeless

Well, do as Hong Kong did when I was there. On entry you have to prove that you can afford to go home.

[aargauer]

Oct 28, 2022 17:30:51 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:10:00 GMT aargauer said:

Schengen isn't much to do with immigration. I have Swiss and amusingly, Greek permanent residence (been to Greece once ever, on holiday) but would be treated as non-EU if I wanted to move to the EU (apart from Greece).

With immigration, I see both the reactionary pro and against camp as quasi religious.

Reality is some immigrants are good and some aren't. I personally favour a reasonably open system as long as migrants are not entitled to benefits. Give people a chance, but it's not liberal to let people come and suck the natives dry.

I don't want to derail this thread. But any sort of immigration policy that doesn't allow immigrants a safety net is not responsible. You're inviting immigrants to be homeless

Safety net is a flight home when they run out of cash. That's what I've signed up for.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 28, 2022 18:25:31 GMT aargauer said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:30:51 GMT mattbewilson said:

I don't want to derail this thread. But any sort of immigration policy that doesn't allow immigrants a safety net is not responsible. You're inviting immigrants to be homeless

Safety net is a flight home when they run out of cash. That's what I've signed up for.

if you've run out of cash how do you afford a flight home?

[mattbewilson]

Oct 28, 2022 17:43:33 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:30:51 GMT mattbewilson said:

I don't want to derail this thread. But any sort of immigration policy that doesn't allow immigrants a safety net is not responsible. You're inviting immigrants to be homeless

Well, do as Hong Kong did when I was there. On entry you have to prove that you can afford to go home.

that does seem more responsible tho impossible to know as who knows whether you can afford the live somewhere a year from now.

[finsobruce]

Oct 28, 2022 21:35:36 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 28, 2022 18:25:31 GMT aargauer said:

Safety net is a flight home when they run out of cash. That's what I've signed up for.

if you've run out of cash how do you afford a flight home?

I think the idea is that one would be provided for you.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 28, 2022 21:48:14 GMT finsobruce said:

Oct 28, 2022 21:35:36 GMT mattbewilson said:

if you've run out of cash how do you afford a flight home?

I think the idea is that one would be provided for you.

that seems like an expensive taxi and not fiscally responsible

[Khunanup]

Oct 28, 2022 21:51:48 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 28, 2022 21:48:14 GMT finsobruce said:

I think the idea is that one would be provided for you.

that seems like an expensive taxi and not fiscally responsible

It already exists though.

Like with benefits, there are already safeguards against people being able to claim benefits until they have been here for sometime (via permanent residency status etc.) and of course there are plenty of right to remain statuses that exclude benefit claiming completely (other than for children when they have eligibility, the benefits follow the child not the parent).

Our benefit system of course is non-contributory mainly which causes this ambiguity. In other countries you have to be paying taxes etc. for a certain amount of time prior to even be eligible to claim (and in Switzerland for example, your income, and therefore tax paid, has a direct correlation to the rate of benefit you get) but here there's nothing so clear cut. The problem with an outright ban on benefits for immigrants is that because their home country's benefits are most likely to be contributory, than unless you have paid taxes in your home country you may well have forfeited the ability to claim any benefit when you get home either, and even if you have they may have similar rules to the UK where British citizens are assessed in the same way for centre of interest for claiming benefits as foreign nationals. It's not an automatic right.

[aargauer]

Oct 29, 2022 2:10:57 GMT Khunanup said:

Oct 28, 2022 21:51:48 GMT mattbewilson said:

that seems like an expensive taxi and not fiscally responsible

It already exists though.

Like with benefits, there are already safeguards against people being able to claim benefits until they have been here for sometime (via permanent residency status etc.) and of course there are plenty of right to remain statuses that exclude benefit claiming completely (other than for children when they have eligibility, the benefits follow the child not the parent).

Our benefit system of course is non-contributory mainly which causes this ambiguity. In other countries you have to be paying taxes etc. for a certain amount of time prior to even be eligible to claim (and in Switzerland for example, your income, and therefore tax paid, has a direct correlation to the rate of benefit you get) but here there's nothing so clear cut. The problem with an outright ban on benefits for immigrants is that because their home country's benefits are most likely to be contributory, than unless you have paid taxes in your home country you may well have forfeited the ability to claim any benefit when you get home either, and even if you have they may have similar rules to the UK where British citizens are assessed in the same way for centre of interest for claiming benefits as foreign nationals. It's not an automatic right.

Amusingly they consider RAV, basically short term (up to 18 month - 2 year) unemployment benefit as "insurance" rather than benefits, and foreigners are eligible to claim at least up to expiry of their permit. It's astonishingly generous. You get up to 80% of your at work salary, capped at c. £120k a year.

It is contributory though, depends on your salary and time worked in the last few years. Actually much fairer than the UK where you could work hard for years and pay loads of tax and get 0 reflection for that if you lost your job.

[J.G.Harston]

Oct 28, 2022 21:46:50 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 28, 2022 17:43:33 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Well, do as Hong Kong did when I was there. On entry you have to prove that you can afford to go home.

that does seem more responsible tho impossible to know as who knows whether you can afford the live somewhere a year from now.

You have a return 'plane ticket.

I wasn't allowed entry to Hong Kong or Japan until I'd shown my return ticket.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 29, 2022 11:33:06 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Oct 28, 2022 21:46:50 GMT mattbewilson said:

that does seem more responsible tho impossible to know as who knows whether you can afford the live somewhere a year from now.

You have a return 'plane ticket.

I wasn't allowed entry to Hong Kong or Japan until I'd shown my return ticket.

it's not something I know enough about. Is it an open return, is that a thing in flying

[Khunanup]

Oct 29, 2022 7:28:48 GMT aargauer said:

Oct 29, 2022 2:10:57 GMT Khunanup said:

It already exists though.

Like with benefits, there are already safeguards against people being able to claim benefits until they have been here for sometime (via permanent residency status etc.) and of course there are plenty of right to remain statuses that exclude benefit claiming completely (other than for children when they have eligibility, the benefits follow the child not the parent).

Our benefit system of course is non-contributory mainly which causes this ambiguity. In other countries you have to be paying taxes etc. for a certain amount of time prior to even be eligible to claim (and in Switzerland for example, your income, and therefore tax paid, has a direct correlation to the rate of benefit you get) but here there's nothing so clear cut. The problem with an outright ban on benefits for immigrants is that because their home country's benefits are most likely to be contributory, than unless you have paid taxes in your home country you may well have forfeited the ability to claim any benefit when you get home either, and even if you have they may have similar rules to the UK where British citizens are assessed in the same way for centre of interest for claiming benefits as foreign nationals. It's not an automatic right.

Amusingly they consider RAV, basically short term (up to 18 month - 2 year) unemployment benefit as "insurance" rather than benefits, and foreigners are eligible to claim at least up to expiry of their permit. It's astonishingly generous. You get up to 80% of your at work salary, capped at c. £120k a year.

It is contributory though, depends on your salary and time worked in the last few years. Actually much fairer than the UK where you could work hard for years and pay loads of tax and get 0 reflection for that if you lost your job.

Indeed, when I first worked for the DWP in the early '00s my job was doing internal checks on claims (to ensure they were real) and it included quite a few imported benefit claims (where of course you got the equivalent in £s of the rate you would get in the country you were importing your claim from, though some reduced that as part of their policy).

The least generous was Poland (somewhat predictably, especially at that time) and by far the most generous was Switzerland, but the latter was only available for a short period whereas the former was available for months.

[J.G.Harston]

Oct 29, 2022 12:43:40 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 29, 2022 11:33:06 GMT J.G.Harston said:

You have a return 'plane ticket.

I wasn't allowed entry to Hong Kong or Japan until I'd shown my return ticket.

it's not something I know enough about. Is it an open return, is that a thing in flying

When I went to Japan I had a fixed return ticket. When I went to Hong Kong I had an open return ticket. I also overstayed, entered for six months with no visa, stayed for three years. I was detained at the airport when leaving and had to pay for a visa before being allowed to leave.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 29, 2022 15:55:55 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Oct 29, 2022 12:43:40 GMT mattbewilson said:

it's not something I know enough about. Is it an open return, is that a thing in flying

When I went to Japan I had a fixed return ticket. When I went to Hong Kong I had an open return ticket. I also overstayed, entered for six months with no visa, stayed for three years. I was detained at the airport when leaving and had to pay for a visa before being allowed to leave.

how long is an open return or is it as long as possible. What happens if you can't afford to pay for your expired visa on leaving?

[J.G.Harston]

Oct 29, 2022 17:02:51 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 29, 2022 15:55:55 GMT J.G.Harston said:

When I went to Japan I had a fixed return ticket. When I went to Hong Kong I had an open return ticket. I also overstayed, entered for six months with no visa, stayed for three years. I was detained at the airport when leaving and had to pay for a visa before being allowed to leave.

how long is an open return or is it as long as possible. What happens if you can't afford to pay for your expired visa on leaving?

I'm not sure, I almost couldn't as I'd already transfered the majority of my funds to the UK. I had just enough on my credit card to pay for it.

[timmullen1]

[london(ex)tory]

Breaking records again today 

[mattbewilson]

UKIP 2013 vibes

[aargauer]

Not surprised with the way Jeremy Hunt is going.