Thought for the Week

2 Responses to “Thought for the Week”

1. Graeme Hoskin
   October 13th, 2006 - 5:05 pm

   Mmmm. Interesting point but probably missing the main issue. If you set asside the issue of illegal imigrants and workers, which I;m sure we’re all against, then immigrant workers contribute significantly more in taxes than they take in services, more so than British workers, and this is not surprising as they are not eligible for much in the way of benefits. This is why the Treasury is all in favour of allowing more foreign worker. The problem is that these foreign workers depress wages and compete with our own workforce. This is likely to lead to higher unemployment amongst the most marginalised in British society, for example black and asian people in London. This is why the CBI are all in favour of allowing more foreign workers into the country. Therefore middle class tax payers gain from increased migration in terms of higher revenues to govt which they don’t have to plug and lower proces whilst the poor and, often, non-white are most likely to lose out in the labour market. The opposite to the BNP argument but true nonetheless.

2. GHJ
   March 3rd, 2011 - 8:16 pm

   There is however one group that the current policies on “benefits following immigration” is severely punishing.

   Natural-born Britons (of British parents and grandparents, etc) who have expatriated outside the EEA for several years or more, are returning to the UK and finding themselves treated as non-European non-British.

   In many cases, these “repats” have been forced back to the UK by the crash in Sterling’s value internationally, and the subsequent collapse in the value of their earnings from savings or pensions. Many countries, especially in the Far East, require foreign residents to have a minimum income to meet visa permissions to stay in them. Sterling’s collapse now places many of those unable to legally remain in the countries they made their homes.

   The Habitual Residency Test (HRT) excludes these returning repatriates (repats) from safety-net benefits, and thus from housing and housing benefits, and in many cases pushes them into street homelessness. This is often at an advanced age with attendant age-related infirmities and illnesses.

   Those who are forewarned of the HRT often leave their spouses and children overseas until they can establish homes and employment here (assuming they are below pensionable age), leading to familial distress and forced separation as a direct consequence of government policy. When the repat families include young children, particularly of pre-school age, this can lead to long-term developmental issues for those children.

   I am sure the HRT and attendant rules were not designed to disadvantage natural Britons in this manner, however the fact remains that it does do so.

   Sadly, as more countries go the route of recent events in Egypt and Libya, these crises will tip more and more Britons into returning to the UK and becoming poverty-ensnared outside of the safety net that social security benefits were originally intended to provide … and the majority of such returnees are unaware that they no longer do so.

   Meanwhile, those denied what they considered their rightful assistance have to watch in wonder as legions of Eastern EEA nationals snap up the lower cost housing and the mundane employments that would have been stepping stones back into normal British society for the repats.

   It is sad that no acknowledgement of this situation has come from the Conservatives, when most expats are of the ilk that are staunch Tory supporters. Repatriation conditions in 21st Century Britain may just be losing the Conservative Party its overseas reservists and floating votes … perhaps that’s one reason so many marginal seats slipped out of the Party’s control last year?

Leave a Comment