While listening to a very heated conversation 2 night, I began to wonder if there are any figures which show how many people that come from other country’s and live in Britain(asylum seekers) are claiming benefits? Are there any official figures that show this kind of information?

Before going in all guns blazing about the detail of the discussion I’d like to know if there are any stats that prove the things that were discussed are wrong

If I understand your question - how many non UK nationals are in receipt of benefits? I'm sure it's the sort of question an MP could ask in the house when they re-convene so the information will be there somewhere. Whether or not it's available for public consuption is another matter. You could try the DWP website and also the Office for National Statistics?

Hi,

Just modified the title to make it meaningful - Hels, thanks for the precis of the question!! :)

Would agree with the source of information - I would have thought that the 'process' involved in Asylum seeking is known to a couple of people at least on the Forum who work in the field in some way.

I guess that as they can't work, they must get soem state benefits to live on? Dunno.

Joe

Hels interpretation is NOT the same as SeAnY's question.

SeAnY asks specifically about Asylum Seekers who are a clearly defined group of people and who are usually "seekers" only for a limited period of time until they are either refused or granted residency.
If SeAnY means any other group(s), it should be up to SeAnY to clarify that.

Information on Asylum Seekers in reciept of benefits is recorded and published. Some of the statistics can be found via the DWP site and this page gives some information and links:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pub_scheme/2005/feb/foi_pdfs/stasonasylumseekers.pdf

.................................................. ................

You ask specifically about asylum seekers. As they are not allowed to work they receive 70% of normal benefit payments:

Qualifying couple: £61.11
Lone parent aged 18 or over: £38.96
Single person aged 25 or over: £38.96
Single person aged 18 to 25: £30.84
16 to 18 year old: £33.50
Under 16: £42.27

These figures are from the Refugee Council (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/infocentre/faqs/faqs001.htm#11) website.

Dont know the information you want but you try a search on

www.homeoffice.gov.uk
www.dwp.gov.uk
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

From a quick perusal I dont see that there are large numbers of people involved either legally or illegally (possibly 435,000, ie I think the quoted stat is 0.01% of UK population. You could try calling DWP/Home Office at Moorfoot when they open tomorrow and someone should hopefully be able to provide the specific information you need.


As I was closing down the Uni system I found this:

ASYLUM SEEKERS GIVEN VOTES TO GET LOANS, Mail on Sunday (London), 1 May 2005 Asylum seekers are not allowed to vote in local or general elections in the UK, nor do they have any access to loans. People can only register on the electoral roll if they are British, Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizens. Far from getting extra help, asylum seekers receive just 70% of income support (£39 a week). They are not allowed work so are forced to live in poverty. In 2002, a joint Refugee Council/Oxfam report found that 85% of organisations working with asylum seekers said their clients experienced hunger while 95% said they could not afford clothes or shoes.

Also

HALT THIS CROOKED TIDE, The News of the World, 30 January 2005A report by the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that the “vast majority of people seeking asylum are law abiding citizens.” In fact, asylum seekers are much more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators. A study conducted by Refugee Action found that one in five of their clients had experienced some kind of harassment while 83% of asylum seeking women do not go out at night for fear of being abused and harassed.


For more info see: www.dontbelievethetype.org.uk/why/facts.html#kickout

Hope that provides you with the sort of information you needed.

I would imagine some government department will have the figures, but its my guess there are a darn sight more getting benefits than us 'brits'

The laughable thing is, some of them come here, get our standard of living, then start going about trying to kill us.

Ah well, NOT getting into that argument, but I wonder if the 'do gooders' are feeling proud of them selves these days.

Originally posted by SCENIC
I would imagine some government department will have the figures, but its my guess there are a darn sight more getting benefits than us 'brits'


How can there be? There aren't nearly as many asylum seekers in the country as there are British people claiming benefits, surely? :confused:

It always amazes me how people who are perfectly fit or have a minor ailment get away with claiming benefits for years on end. It may be for example that somene cannot do lifting because of a bad back but this appears to mean unlimited benefits when surely there are jobs for them to do which do not involve lifting. I am a professional person who many years ago was made redundant but the crap I had to go through to claim benefit was unbelievable. I was only out of work a few months and I was pressured to apply for crap jobs. If you are out of work long term you should have to earn your benefits it really annoys me that work shy people get away with murder. They also breed like rabbits for more benefits. We are just too bloody soft.

Originally posted by SCENIC
I would imagine some government department will have the figures, but its my guess there are a darn sight more getting benefits than us 'brits'

The laughable thing is, some of them come here, get our standard of living, then start going about trying to kill us.

Ah well, NOT getting into that argument, but I wonder if the 'do gooders' are feeling proud of them selves these days.

No, the laughable thing is this generalisation.

The alleged underground bombers of 7/7 were mostly British born, as I understand it.

The Northern Irish Republicans, who worked as the IRA, in NI, and mainland Britain, bombing, during the "troubles" were mostly British born.

P "irritated" T

Originally posted by mrplodge
It always amazes me how people who are perfectly fit or have a minor ailment get away with claiming benefits for years on end. It may be for example that somene cannot do lifting because of a bad back but this appears to mean unlimited benefits when surely there are jobs for them to do which do not involve lifting. I am a professional person who many years ago was made redundant but the crap I had to go through to claim benefit was unbelievable. I was only out of work a few months and I was pressured to apply for crap jobs. If you are out of work long term you should have to earn your benefits it really annoys me that work shy people get away with murder. They also breed like rabbits for more benefits. We are just too bloody soft.

Breeding like rabbits for benefits eh? surely there must be an easier lig?!!

I am also amazed how some people (that I know personally) manage to get by on sick benefit for minor ailments or personal problems that have long since passed. Whereas others, full time carers and single mothers, for example, seem to get a minimum of support for a maximum effort.

However without far more 'intrusion' into people's homes and lives I can't really see a way of better assessing how much people are entitled to.

I would imagine some government department will have the figures, but its my guess there are a darn sight more getting benefits than us 'brits'

Translation: I have no idea of the facts or complicated nuances surrounding this subject but I will make an uneducated guess into catagories of 'us' (good) and 'them' (bad) based on some stuff a bloke told me in the pub.

.................................................. ..............................

Originally posted by nitelife40
im aware there are people who claim sick and work on the sly, but im also aware of disabled people who work full time! dont blame the people blame the system.......

Why exactly shouldn't 'disabled people' work if they are able to and want to? Are they stealing the jobs of able bodied people who can't be bothered to sign off?

The British welfare state evolved in the 20th century (although with antecedents in the 19th) on the basis of an implicit social contract. Welfare would be provided on the basis of need rather than be proportionate to contributions. However, a fundamental assumption was that those in receipt of benefits would contribute something, or had done so in the past. In a cohesive society, undrpinned by a strong work ethic and social mores which disparaged 'sponging', this social contract was widely accepted as a good thing. Human nature being what it is, I think it was also accepted that a minority would abuse the system. But as the UK has had in large measure a settled indgenous population, going back in most cases for well over a thousand years, this was generally tolerated, if not condoned.

Three factors have however undermined the logic and acceptability of this social contract.

Firstly, the decline of the work ethic amongst certain sections of the indigenous population - i.e in cases where no stigma is attached to never having, or even having sought, a job;

Secondly, the rise of an 'entitlements culture', exacerbated by the difficulties involved in checking the veracity of welfare claimants;

Thirdly, mass immigration in recent decades (quite unlike any other immigration into the UK in scale, scope and diversity)
As our welfare system is based on need, it has meant that asylum seekers and other migrants have received housing, subsistence and other benefits as soon as they enter the country and probably in most cases for long afterwards, even though they have contributed nothing to the welfare 'pot'. They are also being supported by an industry of NGOs and other welfare workers, apprising them of their rights and in some cases inculcating in them a culture of grievance and entitlement (based on pursuit of 'rights' rather than
acceptance of responsibilities). Our welfare system was never designed for this. Denmark, being a highly cohesive society with a strong sense of identity, has a highly generous welfare system. The Danes have recently taken steps to ensure that their system is nor abused, so that the country does not become a magnet for welfare migrants of one kind or another. We should do the same.

.................................................. .........................

I see - apologies from a 'officially disabled' worker ;)

.................................................. .........

Again I am sure that there are many more British born people living on benefits than there are Asylum Seekers. Asylum Seekers have no choice but to live on benefits as they are not allowed to work.

A huge proportion of the workforce of my organisation are immigrants/refugees (so after they have been granted asylum). It is low-skilled, low-paid work - work that many British born people on benefits refuse to do. I can't tell you how many white British people I see coming for interview, having been sent by the job centre, but who make it perfectly clear they don't want to work. ("I can't work there, it's too far from home." "[when applying for domestic work] I didn't realise it was cleaning!". "I can only work between 11am and 1pm". - along with giving deliberately incorrect answers to interview questions.) They only come along for the interview so that they can keep claiming their dole. I've never interviewed anyone who is an immigrant to this country who is so blatently abusing the system as this.

What I don't like about anyone claiming benefits is those who claim them for years, even though they are perfectly capable of working. I have a cousin who is 24 years old and has never done a paid day's work in her life, and never intends to. She stayed in education until she was 18 and then started signing on. So she has now been signing on for 6 years! I find this ridiculous in an employment market where there is a massive shortage of unskilled labour. In that time she has had to attend various college courses and do work for voluntary organisations (such as charity shops) in order to keep her benefits - but she has not applied for one single job in this time. I thought that you had to prove you were looking for a job to get job seekers allowance? Anyway she now has gall stones and has been signed off sick from the dole (I didn't even know you could be signed off from it!). It means she doesn't have to do any of the courses/work in order to keep her benefits. But I know people who work who are waiting for the same operation as she is. And now she has been "off sick" for a year, she is actually entitled to more benefits!! Where exactly is the incentive to actually find a job? Why don't the government make people do the actual full time jobs that are available out there, but just for their dole money instead of getting them to do a few hours work in charity shops? I'm sure people would soon realise that they could do the same job and get paid more!

Originally posted by SheffieldSean
You ask specifically about asylum seekers. As they are not allowed to work they receive 70% of normal benefit payments:

Qualifying couple: £61.11
Lone parent aged 18 or over: £38.96
Single person aged 25 or over: £38.96
Single person aged 18 to 25: £30.84
16 to 18 year old: £33.50
Under 16: £42.27

These figures are from the Refugee Council (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/infocentre/faqs/faqs001.htm#11) website. is this right? as it looks like a single person 18 - 25 year old gets less than a 16 - 18 year old, plus the extra benefits of housing etc and fully furnished accomodation etc.?

Originally posted by kathythebean
I am also amazed how some people (that I know personally) manage to get by on sick benefit for minor ailments or personal problems that have long since passed. Whereas others, full time carers and single mothers, for example, seem to get a minimum of support for a maximum effort.

However without far more 'intrusion' into people's homes and lives I can't really see a way of better assessing how much people are entitled to.



Translation: I have no idea of the facts or complicated nuances surrounding this subject but I will make an uneducated guess into catagories of 'us' (good) and 'them' (bad) based on some stuff a bloke told me in the pub.