Caring Britain

[pdq1]

http://www.telegraph....officials-admit.html#

Why should we object to this?

[tonyav]

I thought bigamy is illegal.

[Wharton]

If I had my way monogamy would be illegal.

[VHG]

>>>>Caring Britain

Gullible Britain

In huge debt Britain

[naomi24]

Caring Britain? No! Stupid Britain! If people come here with more than one wife, they should be responsible for them - that's why we should object to this. Personally, I don't believe that anyone who hasn't been here for some years should receive benefits. If they can't keep themselves and their families, we shouldn't allow them to come.

[marval]

I agree with naomi, well put.

[Sheenamf]

Well said Naomi

[DaisyNonna]

I do not understand the legal ramifications. A man comes to this country. Are his wife and children automatically allowed in? One man, one wife, his and her children.

[ladybirder]

One man and 10 wives if that's what he's got and he married them abroad, plus all the children of these marriages. I think that's right and I'm sure I'll be corrected if it's not.

[Brenden]

I always thought they could only take multiple wives if they could support them. And I agree with Naomi 100%

[emmie]

because it's illegal. welcome to Britain..

[emmie]

5 years here before you can claim any benefits at all.

[Zeuhl]

That seems like a sensible idea em

but what would happen if someone immigrated here, got a job, house etc, then after three years suffered an accident?

When they are discharged from hospital (assuming your system would allow them access to health care rather than just leaving them lying injured on the street) but unfit for work, would you

a) step over them as they live and beg for food on the pavement?

b) have the ambulance crew stretcher them straight onto a plane back to where they came from?

c) have an expensive tribunal system to separate the 'deserving' cases from the rest; who would then be destined for a) or b)

Or have you thought through a different solution?

[naomi24]

Afternoon Zehul, that’s a different scenario altogether. Of course someone in that situation should be cared for. There’s no comparison.

[Baldric]

Damn right we should object to it!

[B00]

I sometimes think it would be far easier and cost less just to open bank vaults for some people and say "there, help yourselves". After all, this is what we're effectively doing anyway, but sugar coating it with paperwork.

[WELSHYORKIE]

Totally agree with you, Naomi. (The drawback to having multplie wives is multiple MILs!! - sorry, forgot this is news)

[youngmafbog]

Zhul, would you be happy then if we just let everyone in and paid them benefits? Do you not have any line that should be drawn?

[Zeuhl]

<just let everyone in and paid them benefits>

maf

as far as I know, that is a long, long way from the current situation.

IMO the criteria for entry should be based on a clearly defined estimation of whether someone will make a positive contribution to our society. and entry for family and dependents also strictly defined and limited.

As you might have noticed, my post was a response to the idea of <5 years here before you can claim any benefits at all>

And i was suggesting that once people have been admitted, an arbitrary restriction on access to benefits was unworkable.