Work mates wife,new to country,can she sign on?

[sheothebudworths]

No, she can't sign on cos she's not allowed to get unemployment benefit for the first two years she is married and settled in the UK.

She wouldn't be eligible for IS/JSA in any case (with children - or some way through her pregnancy* - at least).



*Will try and find out how far along that is...or if they'd still claim for WTC before then anyway.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

If they've just got married then NO she can't have access to any benefit at all as she'll be on a two year spouse visa. Once she gets an Idefinite Leave to Remain, every n any benifit is potentially hers!

That's not how I understand it. I had to prove I could support my wife in this country. After her two years 'trial' she does not become english or carry an english passport, she just gets the right to work and live here.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Tbh, I'm amazed that there's so much vitriol about this.

If a British person married a citizen of another country, went to live in that other country, would they automatically assume that they would have any kind of entitlement to support from the state?

If I married an American and lived in America, or a Bengali and lived in Bangladesh, or a Guatamalan and lived in Guatamala, or a Chinese (and I almost did that) and lived in China, then it wouldn't have crossed my mind that as a foreign national I *should* or *could* expect that foreign state to pay me any kind of benefits if I wasn't working. Maybe in the long term, after I had worked and contributed something to the system, fair enough, but to walk through the door and put my hand out? No.

Why is it considered illiberal to assume that a foreign national shouldn't expect (or even remotely consider) that another state's taxpayers should support them financially, unless they've been made refugees or whatever?

I certainly wouldn't expect to turf up in another country and expect to be supported by their taxpayers (well, I might have some expectations regarding other EU countries, because there's a quid pro quo system in place), so why is it so outrageous to point out that it's perhaps unreasonable on the behalf of a non-EU foreign national who isn't working and hasn't worked and hasn't paid into the system to ask about benefits? There's no quid pro quo system with non-EU countries, so why on earth would someone think they *might* be entitled?

 

[sheothebudworths]

even if u're a non Eu foreigner? I dunno.

Well - even if you have a 'No recourse to public funds' visa (which I assume you wouldn't have if you were from the EU?).

 

[rennie]

That's not how I understand it. I had to prove I could support my wife in this country. After her two years 'trial' she does not become english or carry an english passport, she just gets the right to work and live here.

exactly! But a year after she gets her indefinite leave to remain, if she's been living here all the time, she can apply for a British passport.

 

[rennie]

Well - even if you have a 'No recourse to public funds' visa (which I assume you wouldn't have if you were from the EU?).

Aha! I didn't know this. thanks for telling me... I'm sorted now so it wouldn't make a difference to me but it's good to know.

 

[sheothebudworths]

Tbh, I'm amazed that there's so much vitriol about this.

If a British person married a citizen of another country, went to live in that other country, would they automatically assume that they would have any kind of entitlement to support from the state?

If I married an American and lived in America, or a Bengali and lived in Bangladesh, or a Guatamalan and lived in Guatamala, or a Chinese (and I almost did that) and lived in China, then it wouldn't have crossed my mind that as a foreign national I *should* or *could* expect that foreign state to pay me any kind of benefits if I wasn't working. Maybe in the long term, after I had worked and contributed something to the system, fair enough, but to walk through the door and put my hand out? No.

Why is it considered illiberal to assume that a foreign national shouldn't expect (or even remotely consider) that another state's taxpayers should support them financially, unless they've been made refugees or whatever?

I certainly wouldn't expect to turf up in another country and expect to be supported by their taxpayers (well, I might have some expectations regarding other EU countries, because there's a quid pro quo system in place), so why is it so outrageous to point out that it's perhaps unreasonable on the behalf of a non-EU foreign national who isn't working and hasn't worked and hasn't paid into the system to ask about benefits? There's no quid pro quo system with non-EU countries, so why on earth would someone think they *might* be entitled?

Whether you agree with it or not, they (as a couple) *are* entitled it seems.

 

[In Bloom]

Why is it considered illiberal to assume that a foreign national shouldn't expect (or even remotely consider) that another state's taxpayers should support them financially, unless they've been made refugees or whatever?

Must be nice enough to be so well off that claiming benefits is a matter of choice despite being out of work.

 

[knopf]

even if u're a non Eu foreigner? I dunno.

Her first job is to get a National Insurance number. If she's entitled to work, she's entitled to an NI number, and if she has an NI number, she can sign on for NI credits.

The stuff below is about applying for an NI number, which would be her first step: -

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/ni_number.asp#apply

Although, as we've seen, there's other benefits payable to them as a couple, regardless of her NI status.

 

[rennie]

Don't even get me started about how hard it was to get a NI number.

 

[editor]

What's really frustrating is that the government's websites explaining what benefits people are entitled to are often so confusing that people turn to the well-outdated guide on this site.

I get loads of emails from people who haven't got a clue what they're entitled to, nor how to go about claiming what they're due.

 

[knopf]

Don't even get me started about how hard it was to get a NI number.

All to do with cutting down fraud, sir. (Or madam ).

 

[LDR]

Don't even get me started about how hard it was to get a NI number.

I had the same problem. I also couldn't open a bank account in London. I ended up in Cambridge where I had no problems.

 

[editor]

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/ni_number.asp#apply

And that one's so bad it can't even spell 'National Insurance' or ' security'!!

 

[rennie]

All to do with cutting down fraud, sir. (Or madam ).

Mrs! It's not the actual interview that was hard but trying to contact the center n getting a busy tone hour after hour, day after day...they never EVER bother to answer the phone.

 

[sheothebudworths]

From the link I gave earlier - which is info that is a year old btw, so the only thing to try and find out is if that rule has been changed since then...(it's from an Immigration BB rather than a direct, official source - and I'm assuming the man knows what he's talking about, which I know we're not supposed to do, but anyway.... )....

The Tax Credits, which need to be claimed jointly by a couple living together, given that your husband is not a person subject to immigration control, you are relying upon regulation 3(2) of The Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003, which reads (deleting the bits not relevant to you, to make it more readable) :-

Quote:
Where one member of a married couple ....... is a person subject to immigration control, and the other member is not ...... -

(a) the calculation of the amount of tax credit under the Act, the Child Tax Credit Regulations and the Working Tax Credit Regulations (including any second adult element or other element in respect of, or determined by reference to, that person),

(b) the method of making (or proceeding with) a joint claim by the couple, and

(c) the method of payment of the tax credit,

shall ....... be determined in the same way as if that person were not subject to such control.


In other words, that joint claim shall be determined as if neither of you are subject to immigration control.

When those regulations were first made, back in 2003, I got my MP to ask a Parliamentary Written question to the Immigration Minister, namely :-

Quote:
Mr. Simon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a claim under the terms of Regulation 3(2) of The Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003, No. 653, by a couple including a person who is subject to immigration control will not be considered to be a breach of any restriction contained in a visa. [104441]

Beverley Hughes: The provisions of Regulation 3(2) of The Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003 will be fully taken into account when any changes are made to the list of public funds given at paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules. In line with this regulation, receipt of tax credits by a couple, including one member who is a person subject to immigration control, will not be regarded as a breach of any condition of leave to enter or remain.


(Source : Hansard : 27 Mar 2003 : Column 345W)

So there you have it, a joint claim by a couple able to make a claim to Tax Credits because of regulation 3(2) "will not be regarded as a breach of any condition of leave to enter or remain".

So absolutely no need for you to worry about that Tax Credits claim affecting your ILR application.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Whether you agree with it or not, they (as a couple) *are* entitled it seems.

Erm, working tax credits (for a couple, i.e. based on his earnings as a British citizen and ability to support a family) and child benefit are a bit different to the original question, which was whether she could sign on (i.e. JSA).

 

[sheothebudworths]

TCTM02106 - Entitlement: Immigration rules
The treatment of family members
The Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003, Reg. 3(2) and (3)
Provided one member of a couple is not subject to immigration control, or is covered by one of the exceptions to the general exclusion, or is benefiting from the transitional rules, the couple is entitled to CTC or WTC (or both) as though:

neither of them were subject to immigration control (as if the other partner were not subject to immigration control); or
both of them were covered by the exception or transitional rule that applies to the other partner.
Entitlement to CTC and WTC is not limited according to the immigration status of any children or young people for whom the claimant is, or claimants are, responsible.

From the Inland Revenue Website


Remember he would have to claim Child Benefit himself...they may also be entitled to some housing benefit (again if their joint income is low enough).

 

[sheothebudworths]

Erm, working tax credits (for a couple, i.e. based on his earnings as a British citizen and ability to support a family) and child benefit are a bit different to the original question, which was whether she could sign on (i.e. JSA).

Not really - as I said ages ago - WTC and CTC effectively replaced JSA/IS for the unemployed partner of someone who is working some time ago.

Different name, but pretty much the same argument against from your viewpoint I would've thought.

 

[sheothebudworths]

For example - we claim JSA jointly (both out of work), but they 'family element' of it which used to be paid under the umbrella of IS/JSA/UB, amounts to no more or less than before, but is now paid seperately (as CTC) by the Inland Revenue (and if one of us were to find work - that would apply to WTC too, whereas before, one of us would just have continued claiming JSA/UB).

So don't see how you can argue that under the old system it would be 'unreasonable' to expect help, without equally arguing the same under the new one.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Must be nice enough to be so well off that claiming benefits is a matter of choice despite being out of work.

Erm, I only wish I was well off enough to choose not to claim benefits (but thanks to an accident followed by medical negligence, I haven't had any other choice). The benefits system is so f'ed up that it can't cope with the people that actually are entitled. I've been trying to sort out my claim for Income Support since February, am currently being pursued for rent arrears because stopping my Income Support meant my housing benefit and council tax benefit were suspended... because I've no money (thanks to a f'ed up overstretched under-resourced benefits system that's trying to put the squeeze on *everyone* even those with a legal entitlement to benefits) I'm currently 'misusing' my cheque book and guarantee card in order to buy groceries, and being hammered for bank charges because I'm 'so well off' as you put it. Thanks for the sarcasm, it helps enormously.

But back to the actual point: I was engaged a few years ago to a Chinese guy, and although we planned to settle in Beijing, I looked into all the immigration stuff, and the rules clearly state that if a British citizen marries a foreign national and they *choose* to live in the UK the British citizen ought to be able to support their non-national spouse without recourse to public funds. It's simple.

So, if the couple referred to in the OP have 'broken the rules' by getting married and *choosing* to live here even though they can't afford to without recourse to public funds, then technically they've probably made some kind of fraudulent declaration on the visa application form. It's their own look out. Why should the British taxpayer bail out a Bangladeshi (or any other national for that matter?) If I married a Bengali man and lived in Bangladesh, then I'm sure my husband would have to be able to support me without recourse to public funds. If you can prove to me otherwise, then I'll eat humble pie. If you can find information over the 'web that confirms a British citizen married to a Bengali citizen, living in Bangladesh, would have recourse to Bengali public funds, then fair enough, if there's a reciprocal agreement, this Bengali woman should be entitled to support from the British taxpayer.

In actuality, if I'd married and had a child with my ex in China and I wasn't working, then he would have had to support me. Simple. I wouldn't have gone down to the local jobcentre in Beijing and said: erm, excuse me, I know I'm not Chinese, and I know I've only worked a little bit, and haven't probably contributed enough to the system, but I'm not working now, so please give me some money, because I live here. It doesn't work like that.

I'm not saying that anyone coming into this country should be treated any differently than I would be treated in other countries.

I find it really bizarre that people are willing to accept that a British national wouldn't be able to turf up in a random country anywhere across the globe and *wouldn't* be entitled to recourse to public funds from that country (except EU), yet it's perceived as somehow inhumane and right-wing to believe that foreign nationals similarly shouldn't expect to turf up in this country and think they have a right to be supported by the British taxpayer. Why is that?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

...So don't see how you can argue that under the old system it would be 'unreasonable' to expect help, without equally arguing the same under the new one.

|The difference being that any money *he* receives arises from his entitlement as a British citizen v. her not being able to sign on and have recourse to public funds in her own right, because she is not entitled.

Remember, the original question was: can *she* sign on?

 

[sheothebudworths]

|The difference being that any money *he* receives arises from his entitlement as a British citizen v. her not being able to sign on and have recourse to public funds in her own right, because she is not entitled.

*They* receive WTC and/or CTC jointly.

No partner of someone working can sign on anymore, irrespective of whether they are both British citizens/have the correct imm. status, or not iyswim.




<sticks frazzled brain back together >

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

exactly! But a year after she gets her indefinite leave to remain, if she's been living here all the time, she can apply for a British passport.

True, but that would fuck up a lot of later life options for me and my family so I don't want to go down that route personaly.

All I meant was that it was not automatic.

 

[sheothebudworths]

So to answer the OP - as it stands - they can claim exactly the same benefits that they'd be entitled to claim if she was british or had no restrictions on her visa!



<falls over>

 

[RaverDrew]

I've no problem with her recieving benefits as long as she makes herself available for work.

I think it's just a little cheeky to arrive into a new country and expect to recieve help from the state, but at the same time not willing to do anything to support yourself, when you are perfectly capable of doing so.

 

[sheothebudworths]

I've no problem with her recieving benefits as long as she makes herself available for work.

I think it's just a little cheeky to arrive into a new country and expect to recieve help from the state, but at the same time not willing to do anything to support yourself, when you are perfectly capable of doing so.

...but which all applies equally to uk citizens too in your opinion I assume (which is where we differ... )?

 

[xes]

Is this a troll or something ?

Certainly not a troll.

All I can say is to all the sillyness on this thread. WTF,I was happy with the answers i got,and I passed them on to my mate who was also happy. Then you all started fighting. I only posted this cos I asked my mate what she was doing for cash,other than what he gives her. and he asked me if I knew if she could sign on or not. Nothing sinister behind my motives for posting this thread. And a big fat to the "ooh he's trolling" crew.

I haven't read the rest of the thread,just read the first page and some ofthe second. presume it doesn't get much better.

as you were.

 

[RaverDrew]

...but which all applies equally to uk citizens too in your opinion I assume (which is where we differ... )?

Certainly

You can at least pretend you're available for work, it ain't that tricky.

 

[rennie]

True, but that would fuck up a lot of later life options for me and my family so I don't want to go down that route personaly.

All I meant was that it was not automatic.

I don't know about your personal circumstances but like u I was just stating the options available.