2 ms·
There's already a lot of rights that countries can (and do) use to limit this, but for whatever reason the UK chose not to. We could have stopped/limited migrat
by mcintyre1994 9y ago
There's already a lot of rights that countries can (and do) use to limit this, but for whatever reason the UK chose not to. We could have stopped/limited migration from the new EU members (for up to 7 years after they join), but chose not to. We could prosecute benefit fraud/welfare tourism, but choose not to. We could return EU migrants who don't work and can't support themselves, but choose not to.
I have no idea what the motive for not taking any of these actions is, but whatever it is it'd probably apply to any other delay or transition you could come up with - unless it was forced on the UK I guess.
- DanBC 9y ago> We could prosecute benefit fraud/welfare tourism, but choose not to. We absolutely do. You need to look at "no recourse to public funds" (something that causes significant harm). See also many of the Windrush generation being refused benefits, or forced to repay benefits: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/22/government-aware-for-years-that-hostile-environment-hurt-windrush-generation https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/22/government-a... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/dwp-sent-windrush-pensioner-33000-bill-for-disability-benefits https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/dwp-sent-win... The current benefits regime is brutal to everyone, and there's extra brutality for migrants.
- pjc50 9y agoI agree, it's an extremely limited system. I'd like to add an important fact which is that EU nationals do not get the NRPF limitation. http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information/Pages/eea-nationals.aspx http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information/Pages/eea-national...