Thread: UK government splitting up families

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Milton mum and South Korean national fights deportation that could split family | This is Staffordshire

The new immigration rules in the UK are starting to bite, and foreign partners may be deported. Does this bother you? It bothers me that the UK government would consider splitting up families like this.

It bothers me too . Really unbelievable that something like this can happen.


But Ga cannot apply for the new settlement visa because out-of-work Craig needs to have earned at least £18,500 over a six-month period to act as his wife's sponsor for the application.


I would have thought that to get any kind of job at all in Stoke on Trent was no mean feat. To get one that pays over 18,500
over a 6 month period , must be nigh on impossible for the poor bloke.
What has gone wrong in the U.K. ?? Totally mindless new legislation that does nothing to stem the flow of immigrants from our East European friends but will break up a family in this way.
Very sad indeed , both for this family and the U.K. as a whole.

Maybe she could make some insulting remark about the Korean government then claim political asylum. Works for thousands of Somalis already settled in the U.K. on full benefits.

So the husband's looking for a job, so he can take care of his wife and kids. Then the government deports his wife. So he has to stay at home with the kids. So he can't work. So he goes on benefits...

Am I missing something here?

and yet ........


Latvian mother-of-ten demands bigger council house despite raking in £34,000 in benefits

Linda Kozlovska pays £100 a week rent for her three bedroom terraced home in Boston, Lincolnshire

She earns £10,000 a year more than the average British worker in benefits

Her children share bedrooms in their home and a mattress has been placed in the living room

Council says the family are 'vulnerable' but workmen say they are frequently called to fix damage at the property



By Paul Bentley

PUBLISHED:20:00 GMT, 20 September 2012| UPDATED: 23:12 GMT, 20 September 2012


Claiming: Linda Kozlovska, 31, pays a reported £100 a week rent to a private landlord for her three-bedroom terraced home in Boston, Lincolnshire


Neighbours reacted with outrage last night after an immigrant mother of ten who receives £34,000 a year in benefits demanded that the council gives her a larger home.

Latvian Linda Kozlovska, 31, arrived in Britain with three of her children in 2008 and moved into a council-maintained three-bedroom house.

Four years later, however, the single mother says she is unhappy living there – because she has had three more children and four others have moved over from Latvia.

‘I have ten children living here with me,’ she said. ‘I’m the only adult. I am on the council waiting list, but we’re still here.

‘They don’t have a big enough house. I want a bigger house. I don’t like it here. When we moved in it had bed bugs.’

Her neighbours are fuming. They say up to 18 people lived in the terraced home at one point, creating mess outside.

One claimed the property was, essentially, a ‘halfway house’ for Latvians when they first arrive in the country.

Another neighbour, Neil Blanchard, 39, said: ‘This kind of thing is beyond belief. If they want a bigger house they should have to earn it like everybody else.

‘It is not for the taxpayer to pick up the bill for a bigger house.’

But the council appears to be supporting her, with one councillor saying he is ‘sympathetic’ to her demands.

Miss Kozlovska, a self-employed cleaner, pays only £100 in rent a week to a private landlord for the house in Boston, Lincolnshire. The property is maintained for her by Boston borough council.

She claims working tax credits, child tax credits and child benefits. Every week, she receives £527 in child tax credit and working tax credit as well as £127 in child benefits. In total, she receives £34,000 a year from the state – far more than the average UK salary of just over £26,000 before tax.






More...
Nigerian benefit fraudster who claimed he earned just £700 a month as minicab driver owned £1million mansion in Africa
Benefit cheat asylum seeker from Sierra Leone stole more than £180,000 while holding down two jobs


The amount is also much higher than the £9.26 per child she would receive each month if she were still living in Latvia.

There, couples can claim up to £1,865 per baby, but payments dip after children reach 18 months.

Miss Kozlovska claimed she has ‘no choice but to move’ from the house because her children are crammed inside, with some having to sleep on mattresses in the living room.

‘I came to England to live – because we are from Latvia, which is in the EU, I could just come,’ she said.


Miss Kozlovska added that she was concerned the council ‘may be angry now and make me go back to Latvia’.


'I came to England to live – because we are from Latvia, which is in the EU, I could just come'

Linda Kozlovska

She lives in the house with Russandra, 16, Liene, 13, Julian, 12, Sandija, 11, Marko, ten, Janis, eight, Diana, seven, Rolands, four, and twins Edvard and Alan, three.

The three youngest children were born in Britain and the others have joined her from Latvia over the last four years.

Miss Kozlovska will not reveal how many men fathered her children. One of her neighbours, who asked not to be named, said: ‘There have been up to 18 people living there.

‘There have also been complaints about the rubbish which has been put outside the property. The council know about it.



General street view: Ms Kozlovska privately rents the house and all the maintenance is carried out by the landlord. A general view of the road is pictured. The average income for a UK taxpayer in 2008 was £24,769


‘It is almost like it is a halfway house for people arriving from Latvia, who then move on.’ A builder, who asked not to be named, said: ‘I often do jobs on the house.


'I am sympathetic to her needs. I am also sympathetic to the needs of ten children. It is not ideal that they are living in overcrowded accommodation'

Mike Gilbert, Boston council

‘The kids are everywhere. There is nothing wrong with the house. There was nothing wrong with it when she moved in, anyway.’

But Mike Gilbert, the councillor in charge of housing at Boston council, said: ‘I am sympathetic to her needs.

‘I am also sympathetic to the needs of ten children. It is not ideal that they are living in overcrowded accommodation.

‘On the other hand providing accommodation for a mother with ten children is a fairly big ask in most areas, let alone Boston where that isn’t readily available.’


Read more: Latvian mother-of-ten demands bigger council house despite raking in £34k benefits | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Originally Posted by taxexile

I could just come,’ she said.

You could also just go dear.

Originally Posted by benbaaa

The new immigration rules in the UK are starting to bite, and foreign partners may be deported. Does this bother you?

Not at all. The same happens here in Thailand, even if your married with kids. Breach the rules, your gone. Would anyone cry for me, other than the wife and kids, I doubt it.

^ Does that make it right?

When it comes to splitting up families not really, butI understand the rules here, and I accept them. Foreigners in other countries need to accept their host country's rules also. After all, as they say, we're only guests.

She'll be able to apply for FLR i presume thus giving her another 2 years, just not 'Indefinate leave to remain', much ado about nothing, with all these European family laws not a chance in hell she will be deported. I agree it's dumb that she can't get ILR but that's what happens when computers and not people make decisions thus everyones individual circumstances aren't assessed.

July 7 survivor faces deportation from Britain

A university lecturer injured in the 7/7 bombings faces being expelled from the UK even though he was born to British parents in a British colony.


By Andrew Gilligan7:30AM BST 02 Sep 2012

In the frightening days after 7/7, John Tulloch was the face of Britain’s resistance to terror: bloodied, dazed, clothes in shreds, his picture appeared on newspaper front pages around the world.

Sitting opposite a suicide bomber on a Circle Line train, he had been saved from death by his own luggage. He was visited in hospital by the Prince of Wales, who proclaimed him an example of the “resilience of the British people”.

Prof Tulloch, 70, who traces his ancestry here back to the 14th century, was born to British parents in a British colony.

He has a British wife, children and brother. He was raised and educated in Britain from the age of three, has substantial assets and property here and has lived or worked in the UK for most of his life, holding a series of posts at British universities. He even held a British passport.

But now, his passport has been confiscated and he faces expulsion from Britain in the latest bizarre twist in this country’s “Kafkaesque” immigration laws.

“I am totally gobsmacked by this,” said Prof Tulloch. “I’ve got a huge attachment to Britain. My family has served Britain for three generations. I’ve been banging my head against a wall trying to get this sorted out, but I’ve never before encountered so much frustration. It’s like Kafka.”


Prof Tulloch, who still suffers post-traumatic stress disorder, said the problems with his citizenship had worsened the “sense of uncertainty he had suffered since the bombing.

“7/7 is not hard to go back to,” he said. “I can talk about that. What’s hard to go back to is that I am about to be thrown out of the country.

“There I was, hailed as an example of British courage, British pluck and the British spirit, an iconic image of British resistance. I get blown up in the media as a British patriot, then I get kicked out.”

What makes Prof Tulloch’s plight so hurtful to him is that it is a direct consequence of his family’s very service to this country.

He was born to a British Army officer in pre-independence India. Unknown to him, this conferred a lesser form of British nationality known as a “British subject without citizenship”.

He was, he says, never told about this status and was issued with a British passport in the normal way.

“Neither I nor my parents ever received information from the Government that this was somehow an inferior passport,” he said. “In particular, the passport itself explicitly said that you could take out dual nationality without risking your British nationality.”

After a degree at Cambridge, postgraduate study at Sussex and a career in UK academia, Prof Tulloch took a job in Australia and was granted Australian citizenship.

Unlike with a full British citizen, and again unknown to him, this automatically cancelled both his British nationality and his right to live in Britain. When he applied to renew his British passport, it was confiscated.

He was able to return to the UK, where he has held a professorship of communications at Brunel and was head of the School of Journalism at Cardiff University, under a work permit and has spent the majority of his time in recent years in this country.

But as he moves into semi-retirement, he has now been told that he can no longer permanently remain here and can only visit for brief periods as a tourist. The Home Office has also told him that he cannot apply for naturalisation.

“It is getting to crisis point now,” he said. “When I came back from a trip to Vienna, two or three months ago, I got a really hard time at Heathrow. I am worried that if I leave again, I might not be let back in.”

There is no question of Prof Tulloch being a burden on the country. He owns a flat in Penarth, near Cardiff, and has tens of thousands of pounds in savings here. He has always been treated as British for taxation purposes, if not for immigration purposes.

His brother, who does have full British citizenship, is unwell and needs looking after. As even the immigration officer at Heathrow told him, he is exactly the kind of person the country should be welcoming.

But, to him, it is the insult to the generations of his forebears who served Britain that is most troubling. At his home, he shows us the pictures of his father, a major in the Gurkha Rifles who was fighting the Japanese in Burma at the time of his birth.

His grandfather was one of the Empire’s first foresters, his great-grandfather served in the Indian Civil Service, too. “I look back now, on the verge of being thrown out of residence in the UK, at something like 120 years of my family’s distinguished service to Britain in India,” Prof Tulloch said.

“This isn’t simply an insult to me, but to generations of my family, and beyond them to the thousands and thousands of people in India and other colonies who believed that they could call Britain home.”

In July, this newspaper exposed the extraordinary story of Lance Corporal Bale Baleiwai, the soldier British enough to risk his life for this country in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, but now facing deportation for a technicality that no civilian would be caught by.

Just as with L/Cpl Baleiwai, the Tulloch family’s service to the country might seem to qualify them for special treatment. In fact, it causes them to be treated worse than anyone else.

Indeed, as British immigration law stands, Prof Tulloch would almost certainly have more chance of staying here if he had been a perpetrator, rather than a victim, of terrorism.

Last year, Ismail Abdurahman, a Somali convicted of providing a safe house for the would-be 21/7 bomber, Hussain Osman, was excused deportation after serving his prison sentence on the grounds that his human rights would be at risk if he was returned to Somalia.

Abdurahman is one of at least 11 convicted foreign-born terrorists allowed to remain in the UK under such provisions.

A UK Border Authority spokesman said: “It is the responsibility of an individual to check that they will not lose a previously acquired nationality or citizenship on acquiring an additional one.”

However, Home Office sources said that it was still open to Prof Tulloch to apply for leave to remain in the country if he wished.

July 7 survivor faces deportation from Britain - Telegraph

Well, I am reminded of the Bolivian man with his cat :



Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat

An immigrant who was about to be deported from Britain has won a legal battle to remain in the country – partly because he and his girlfriend had bought a pet cat.

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent

9:45PM BST 17 Oct 2009

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.

Lawyers for the Home Secretary were aghast at the decision by James Devittie, an immigration judge, to allow the immigrant to stay in Britain. They lodged an appeal, but their case was again rejected.
The Bolivian's identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.

Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat - Telegraph


This being the case, Buriram Boy is probably correct in claiming ' much ado about nothing ' and that she won't be deported. Still, pretty contradictory cases.

Originally Posted by Bangyai

Originally Posted by taxexile

I could just come,’ she said.

You could also just go dear.

It appears that all she has done in her adult life is " just cumming "with 10 children to show for it.