Cyberknight:


Yes, there's that perception about France which is ironic, because the French were actually the first oyibo country to not only preach, but also actually attempt to practise so-called Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite. France is definitely not more racist in any way; the major problem France has is because it is such a heavily regulated place, it is not very easy for people to get ahead in life when you are disadvantaged as opposed to the more lightly regulated Anglo countries like the UK and the US, which of course tends to lead to relatively higher numbers of immigrants at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

Agreed, even legal immigrants struggle in places like France and Belgium and many are forced into the black market to survive.

UK and US are very different though. I think the US is one of the only places where an illegal immigrant can "thrive". They even have sanctuary states where they have the right to drive, go to school etc, working under the table is normalised to an extent and there are large communities e.g. Hispanics that provide safe havens

The UK is very regulated now - you have to provide identity and residency documents for pretty much everything. The only area that is easy for an illegal immigrant is enrolling their children into school because the government/courts have ruled that children should not be prevented from attending school, regardless of their immigration status.

missjekyll:
How luxurious is your life if you get 50 pounds per week for accommodation, food and toiletries?

If you are pregnant you get an extra 5 pounds per week.

I dont understand why people say their lives are luxurious, it is not

Thank you. It really beggars belief.

Let's not forget that asylum accommodation tends to be of lower quality and in cheaper areas - very very unlikely to be London or even south east England. Asylum seekers cannot choose where they are put up and they can be moved by the home office at any time to a new part of the country where they don't know anyone. Even if the children have to change schools, you're on your own.

Many times it's shared accommodation such as hostels or a bed and breakfast. Many even have to share rooms with strangers. And this luxury is only while their application is being considered; as soon as it's decided on - accepted or refused - the claimants have to leave the asylum accommodation.

Cyberknight:


I don't think it's foolish. It might not be working as a policy, but its aim is to serve as a deterrent of sorts. If anyone can turn up and claim asylum then start to work while their claims are heard, that becomes a draw.

Of course this is allowed in the US and France, among others, which are major recipients of asylum seekers. It's interesting that so many asylum seekers pass through France and come to the UK instead - most likely because they feel that its easier to get under-the-table work in the UK than actual proper employment in France with its heavily regulated labour market (is it?).

I think most feel that the UK is less racist than France, some have family members here and there's also the language barrier in France.

But it's increasingly very difficult to get under table work here with the new immigration rules that stipulate fines of over £20k to
employers and landlords found to be harbouring illegal migrants.

The only businesses willing to take that risk imo are criminal enterprises or slave masters that take full advantage of people's desperation and pay them peanuts with zero rights.
Businesses such as restaurants, car washes and others get raided on the regular by the home office via tip-offs etc

missjekyll:
You can work. They are not allowed to. Thats a foolish policy enacted by the labour government.

Let them work while their claims are going through the courts. the country gets the tax and doesn't have to support them. The asylum seekers have a sense of purpose and more money for themselves. Its a win for everyone.

I dont think anyone should have public money until they ve paid into it. 5 years is a bit much though.

They do grant right to work to claimants who have been waiting longer than 12 or 18 months for a decision. Although they are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list.

The argument is that giving them unrestricted access to the labour market from day 1 would act as a stronger pull factor for intending boat crossers and false asylum seekers.

elengine:
Omo, the day I heard of someone who has been an illegal immigrant here for close to 19 yrs now. Fear catch me. Does it mean these people will be avoiding police, not able to own car etc for their lives[

Typically yes - no documents means no car, no legal work,no house, laying low from the popo,no new/ bank accounts, staying far away from any airport etc,

But don't be afraid, Facebook says it's now en vogue to be illegal and it's no longer a suffering life.

giselle237:
Do not give yourself a headache.. some have even laid low for 20 whole years and after 20 years file via the long residence route. How can a person decide to be illegal for 20 years? But it is what is in vogue + there is a route(loophole) to this.

[b]On facebook they are in their thousands and hundreds of thousands . Asylees get free accommodation, free meals, free nhs services, free prescriptions, kids must be registered in schools, living stipends, you get more if pregnant or if you have children…. Forget all the reporting stuff… Asylum seekers are not worried. The numbers are enormous.

Now healthcare workers are been trained on how to manage asylum or refugee seekers because the numbers are huge and they are now a very growing part of the system especially the babies, children and young adults.
I can tell you for a fact, a lot of people choose to stay back and hide for whatsoever number of years than go back home.
They are doing cash in hand jobs, not paying taxes and still getting all of the above. It is what it is. They are not suffering as you say. If they were, they would perhaps choose to return home or go somewhere else.
The era of going to Croydon or Liverpool to sign is also not as strict as it used to be. [/b]

Lol no one's getting a headache. I was presenting the realities of the challenges that people on the outside often don't realise, but I guess as long as Facebook says that (Nigerian?) asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are having a grand old time - getting free houses, spending money and other perks, no worries or fears - just chilling and enjoying life until they get their papers 10 or 20 years later, then it's cool.

profemebee:
then add the fact that it is hard to get jobs paying even minimum wage..

Home Office don't smile with employers of illegal immigrants etc..

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-for-employing-illegal-workers

People need to watch UK Border Force show to see the reality of things.. how people suffer for years earning way below minimum wage and are still caught

It is one thing to say she should do this and that and stay lowkey... It is another thing to actually see it through....

Yes you're right, it's much more difficult in practice to lay low these days because of stricter rules/penalties and better technology. As you've said, the emotional torture involved as well. When you're of working age and you're not able to work for close to a decade, maybe more -how does the individual take care of themselves, never mind their family back home. Any hospital treatment outside of A&E would bring fresh worry because you are not entitled to NHS.

It may sound like I'm being a Debbie Downer or scaremongering because people are calling out 7 years like it's so simple - in practice this could even end up being 9 years because the home office can take their time to respond - there is no 2 week SLA here. If it gets refused, appeal etc that would add more time and costs.

It's not a life one should opt for if there are any other viable options.

giselle237:
After the refusal re asylum, you are allowed to appeal or file fresh claim. There is no definite shut door and that’s why the fiasco. They go on to give birth and hoping to buy time- 7 years to put in for private life route.
And a lot get to prolong and prolong and meet up with this 7 year timeline.

It is the home office who decides if you have the right to appeal - it is not automatic. If they decide that the case has no merit, then there would be no appeal right- only a judicial review which is a form of an expensive administrative review. These are frequently refused and then the claimant can only make a fresh claim submission IF there is new evidence such as a material change to their initial circumstances. You are not allowed to just make a brand new asylum application.

While the asylum process is going on (which can be concluded quickly for a meritless case), the claimant will be mandated to report to a specific immigration reporting centre - it might be weekly, bi monthly or monthly. If their application is refused, they are at risk of detention and removal when they report. If they fail to report, they are classed as absconders and might trigger a home office search/raid and removal. It would also make any future human rights applications more complicated.

This is why some people choose to lay low if there is an unrealistic chance of asylum success (which tbh would apply to the vast majority of Nigerian asylum applications) because you bring yourself under the direct radar of the home office.

People rarely reveal all of the details of their journey as an illegal immigrant- most times it's impossible to express the amount of mental, emotional, physical and financial stress they have gone through. It is no where near as easy as it might seem.

giselle237:

Not exactly. The spouse visa route to a settled person or person with British citizenship is actually the only route where you won’t suffer the brunt of your previous overstay period so harshly IF YOU GO BACK to your home country and apply from there to return as the spouse of a British citizen + declare ALL of one’s true immigration history in the UK on your application form with no lies.
Some go as far as seeking asylum inbetween so that their 3c leave is not broken, then when they find the spouse(scapegoat) they would now try to do the spouse one. It is a whole mess with so many loopholes.

Agree with the bolded which is it's almost always better to go back and keep your options open/make another application.

Preferably before overstaying as this could complicate/delay any subsequent applications.

Regarding seeking asylum, this only works to buy time if there is a huge asylum backlog. However the govt now seems committed to working through asylum applications quickly and a refusal could be returned before a scapegoat spouse is found.

wonlasewonimi:


This is you thinking she's going to have a baby with a fellow overstayer

It doesn't matter if the father is British - unless he plans to carry and deliver the child himself, it is the mother who actually uses the NHS and who will receive a bill for the hospital birth.
Only difference is that the child in this instance will be born British and will not need to regularise their status.

There is a section in the antenatal registration form that requests details of the mother's immigration status. Some trusts might be a bit laidback on checks, but others such as Kings College, St George's etc - are strict and will follow up.

Viruses:


Let her give birth, after 7 yrs she can use the child to regularize her stay.

Go the LGBTQ route and have the community protect you. Yes they can. Infact if you know the loopholes, you will get ILR before you say jack.

As she does not have a valid visa, she will likely receive a hefty NHS bill for the birth of the child which she will need to pay ( at least with a payment plan) before her visa is granted.

In the intervening 7 years how will she take care of her child without the right to work? How will she afford nursery fees? Where will she live if she doesn't have the right to rent? How will she afford the visa application fees for both her and her child - she will need to pay IHS fees for both of them and will likely need a lawyer to help with the application.

Being illegal is not as easy as some are making out. As a PP opined, going back should be an option, certainly before leave expires.

Santa2:


This quite different from the US..In the US overstayers get married and obtain residency.. There is a reason why UK and the word conservatives go hand in hand.

Conversely in America, am overstayer parent cannot regularise their status even though they have American children born in the US.

Viruses:


Let her give birth, after 7 yrs she can use the child to regularize her stay.

Go the LGBTQ route and have the community protect you. Yes they can. Infact if you know the loopholes, you will get ILR before you say jack.

Not quite Jack - ILR in 10 years after making 4 applications (2.5 years * 4)

hustla:



Maybe marriage or someone that's on COS to do join man with

Once an individual becomes an overstayer, it is virtually impossible to regularise via the marriage route. The only open route now is human rights via a British/settled child or via private life.

The human rights route is typically a 10 year route from the date of regularisation to ILR.

makazona:


Thanks a bunch.

This is very helpful. I will work on it.

You're welcome, I hope you're able to find a favourable deal

Jamesclooney:


What’s the recommended interval if I may ask? I know someone who’s got 2yr visa. Can the person spend 6mths, 2 months interval, the come back for another 6mths? Any risk of being turned away at Border Control?

There isn't a recommended interval - it's down to the discretion of the border official.

The rules state that you must show that you’ll not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits, or make the UK your main home

So a pattern of long and successive visits will likely raise questions at immigration control.

Poanan:


Well, @jedisco may not be entirely wrong with his position. The bolded from the write up wrt 25% is an estimate. An estimate is normally based on judgement .

Yes, but it would be reasoned judgement and not finger in the air.

Even with a generous margin applied to the estimate, the figures would still point to under 50% of dependants being economically active.

jedisco:


Careful with all these innuendos being thrown around. I'm yet to see any publication stating 80% of dependants are economically inactive. The reverse tends to be the case. If a Brit with access to public funds can barely survive on entry wages, how then does a family with visa fees do same on one income?

It's not innuendo, it has been stated numerous times by the government and I'm sure they have access to data points and not just anecdotes:

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/02/01/reducing-net-migration-factsheet-december-2023/

Surely some dependants work – so by banning them you are reducing the amount of working people coming to the UK?   

We estimate that only around 25% of dependants work when they come to the UK.

It's obvious, even from this forum, that the majority of master's students came in with or were joined by their families. Some are now struggling to pay the PSW fees for the family especially with the increased IHS. Some have opted to send the kids back in the short term, some have opted to leave out the children and just apply for the parents for now. Some had planned to jump onto the care visa and avoid paying IHS altogether but have been caught out by the new policies.

ehizario2012:


Hahahahhahahaha so you too noticed the drop in Iceland chicken... Chai, 3 for £10 still but the numbers have reduced. Nawa ooo. God help us for everywhere. Amen

Lol it was looking like a crisp packet last time I bought it 😂😂 and they're still claiming the same 600g weight. It is well

lavida001:


No forget to add “you are being rude” .

Thats all they know how to say.

Ukrainian who came here recently are e title to all the benefits but we that pay 16k tuition are not entitled to public funds 😭

They are entitled to some benefits as charity for obvious reasons and due to situations outside of their control or will.
It's very different to an international student who presented proof of self sustenance before wilfully applying for a visa. Why should this student then require public funds?

umarwy:


The 80% of dependant that don't work mostly can't because they are kids

Yes, but the point of the government is that they consume resources without working/giving anything to the state.

Resurgent2016:


Beyond universities funding. It will likely strain the nhs as students are massive net contributors and were helping to fill many low skilled job vacancies without recourse to any sort of public funding. Am very sure they offered many economic benefits that were overlooked and underappreciated.

I strongly suspect students sharp slowdown is one of the reasons why the country went into a recession and inflation stopped falling.

Completely agree with the bolded.

I suspect also that the sharp drop in student numbers may be why we experienced a very mild winter this year, and is very probably the reason why Iceland has drastically reduced the amount of chicken in their chicken thighs pack.

hustla:



Sensible thing would have been age and number restriction on dependents, not outright ban

Na them know Sha

Then people would complain that the home office is splitting families ,discriminating against young families etc

You can't please everyone unless they throw open the borders and let everyone in, and even then the immigrants would complain that everywhere is so congested, London is worse than Lagos, no school or hospital places etc lol

jedisco:


It'd take a while for whatever is going on in that sector to settle. This is an election year and the anti-imigrant narrative is the lowest hanging fruit for the Tories and they've thrown everything at it. They should see the tightening through to the election at least.

OTOH, the universities are strong at lobbying and would push thru facts moreso with their cash cow (i.e international students) being muzzled while fees for local students have been capped since 2016. Interestingly 'international students account for one in every five pounds in income received by UK universities'.

The dependant ban will not be lifted anytime soon. More prestigious/higher ranked universities might be influential enough to lobby some type of exemption, but the average to lower ranked universities will have to find alternative ways to attract international students without their dependants, because for every pound an international student might contribute, the state has estimated that 80% of dependants do not work and are a net beneficiary of the state.

jedisco:


This is classic whataboutism.

The issue of discuss here is an article exemplifying how some sections of the British media use certain innuendos to spur up hate against immigrant groups.

The general issue of human discrimination can always be discussed INB and not dragged in to cast a shadow on this specific issue.

Erm the bolded is a bit hyperbolic isn't it ? For starters, unless the nurse was not born in Nigeria, it is a statement of fact. Secondly this fact wasn't emblazoned in their headline, accompanied by any derogation, it was simply mentioned in the middle of the article.

Call it whatabboutery, but would the same outrage apply if a Nigerian publication mentioned the hometown of an individual in their report e.g. "Edo native".....or are they incapable of "spurring up hate" among different ethnic groups?

makazona:


This was exactly same question I asked few days ago and nobody cared to even look at it. It is well

A provisional is a temporary, learner's license so it would incur a higher premium due to a higher risk factor. A higher premium also typically applies to a foreign license.

Best move would be to get a full UK license.
However if you want to drive on your foreign license, try using a comparison engine like
https://www.confused.com/campaign/car-insurance/car-insurance-quotes?
to search the market for you.

Alternatively if you already have home insurance, check if your provider offers discounts/bundle deals for additional policies.

jedisco:


It's a classic example of racial microagrression - a way the media has used to frane public thinking over time.

I agree with your write-up.

However I do think there is a bit of a double standard/victim mentality amongst some immigrants who would cry out as "victims" of the white man racism, but often times display or ignore worse discrimination against other clans or tribes in their own home country. Even in the UK I've heard Nigerians slur a fellow Nigerian just on the basis of their tribe. Indians are largely the same. They only recognise "ism" when it's directed at them.

So while we speak out against racism in the UK,whether real or perceived, let's also be introspective and speak out loudly against any form of discrimination among your own people.

Lexusgs430:
Ghen Ghen........

It was bound to happen, chicken yansh don open, when wind blow ........ 🐥😭😭🐥

'Cash for care jobs' scandal EXPOSED: Vulnerable UK patients are being looked after by unqualified … https://mol.im/a/13152411 via https://dailym.ai/android

Nigerian Bishop, don carry hin saare pass moshalashi........😂😜

Daily Mail strikes again. Its "investigations" have played a big part in the tightening of various immigration policies over the past 20 years because love or hate them, they have a large reader base and influence.

Cash for care jobs.....people were warned that the clampdown day would come but they said "they (the UK) need us more than we need them"

And now dodgy care agencies and homes are losing their licenses left and right, and when the new policy kicks in officially next week, it's going to become very difficult to get a care cos due to an oversupply of immigrant labour,
tighter CQC regulations and greater home office scrutiny.

Smh, too much "overdo".... same way the masters route got cast

claremont:


It's the Daily Mail, and it's literally their job to whip up racial hatred. Unfortunately for this Nurse, she will most likely be kicked off the NMC register.

This has got nothing to do with racism.

The nurse knowingly broke the law. She knew she wasn't entitled to the parking permit and forged her way around it. Her contriteness is what spared her a harsher sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13148651/amp/NHS-psychiatric-nurse-forged-health-emergency-badge-park-Mercedez-pay-display-near-home-free.html

The nurse has worked in the NHS for 15 years but she was still referred to as "Nigerian born" in the article lol

The consequences of her actions could have been avoided as the judge remarked
" When you are entitled to something, you are entitled to it, but when you're not, you're not."

Viruses:
Just saw this even though it's been said here severally before. Is my three years old eligible for 15hrs free child care considering that I'm not entitled to public funds?

Yes, 15 hours from 3 years (England) is universal irrespective of immigration status and earnings.

It's the new free hours from 2 years and below that has immigration status and other eligibility criteria.

A new immigration salary list has been recommended to replace the shortage occupation list in April. There are 21 occupations on the new list, many roles will be demised from the current shortage list, such as all IT and engineering jobs.

The list of recommend roles includes (among others):
biological and chemical scientists;
social and humanities scientists;
artists; dancers, choreographers and musicians; carpenters and joiners; care workers and home carers; laboratory technicians and pharmaceutical technicians; and bricklayers, masons and boat builders.

Full list here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-review-of-the-immigration-salary-list/rapid-review-of-the-immigration-salary-list-accessible