Apparently we have to educate the children of illegal immigrants at £5000 per pupil, per year. Of course the liberal / left say it is an investment in the future, does that mean they are planning an amnesty then?
As a comparison, what is the cost for a legal immigrant and for someone who was born here?
UK ministers considered barring children of illegal immigrants from schools
The Guardian, a national UK newspaper, has received a leaked email trail from UK civil servants which seems to show that UK ministers considered the possibility of preventing the children of illegal immigrants from attending free UK state schools to prevent 'education tourism'. It seems that any such plans were quickly dropped but ministers are now considering asking schools to check on the immigration status of both pupils and their parents as part of the admissions process.
An Oxford University study suggests that there are approximately 120,000 schoolchildren in UK schools who are in the country illegally.
The emails between civil servants in the UK's Department for Education (DfE) seem to show that a group of ministers had considered barring the children of illegal immigrants from the education system as part of the Coalition government's efforts to eliminate the 'pull factors' which draw some migrants to the UK.
However, the emails also seem to show that, if the ministers did consider such a move, they rejected it pretty quickly, perhaps because civil servants advised that to do so would breach Article 26 of the UN Convention of Human Rights.
If we had gun boats, they wouldn't be here in the first place.
It works for the Australians. Unfortunately even though they fly over numerous safe countries air space and land in the safe country of choice, i.e. the UK where the streets are paved with gold, we still can't send them back.
People are starting to notice that they can't get the school they want and when they hear numerous foreign languages being spoken by people wearing foreign clothes, is it any wonder they are annoyed.
I think the question was about where the figure of five thousand pounds comes from. That said, isn't better to have educated immigrant children than non-educated ones, regardless if their parents are here legally or not?
It works for the Australians. Unfortunately even though they fly over numerous safe countries air space and land in the safe country of choice, i.e. the UK where the streets are paved with gold, we still can't send them back..
Aren't you confusing illegal immigrants with asylum seekers?
People are starting to notice that they can't get the school they want and when they hear numerous foreign languages being spoken by people wearing foreign clothes, is it any wonder they are annoyed.
It works for the Australians. Unfortunately even though they fly over numerous safe countries air space and land in the safe country of choice, i.e. the UK where the streets are paved with gold, we still can't send them back.
People are starting to notice that they can't get the school they want and when they hear numerous foreign languages being spoken by people wearing foreign clothes, is it any wonder they are annoyed.
Aah....the old discomfort felt by Farage whilst on a train. The same foreign languages that he doesn't let his wife and children speak outside of the home. I suggest that if someone doesn't like to hear foreign languages, they shouldn't go on holiday either.
In my children's former primary school, there were at least a dozen or so children who didn't speak English all the time at home, but they spoke better English, at school, than many of their British born classmates.
I really can't see what is wrong with foreign clothes, everything that I am wearing today is foreign.
I think the question was about where the figure of five thousand pounds comes from. That said, isn't better to have educated immigrant children than non-educated ones, regardless if their parents are here legally or not?
It's better not to have them here in the first place.
It's better not to have them here in the first place.
Doesn't answer the question though, does it.
They are here and whilst they are isn't it better that their children are in school, rather than wandering the streets all day, maybe getting into some mischief.
I think the question was about where the figure of five thousand pounds comes from. That said, isn't better to have educated immigrant children than non-educated ones, regardless if their parents are here legally or not?
How about we just deport them instead and save ourselves a huge heap of cash? The whole point is to make life impossible for illegal immigrants in the UK. £5,000 is the average cost of educating one child per year according to some basic research I did online.
Aah....the old discomfort felt by Farage whilst on a train. The same foreign languages that he doesn't let his wife and children speak outside of the home. I suggest that if someone doesn't like to hear foreign languages, they shouldn't go on holiday either.
In my children's former primary school, there were at least a dozen or so children who didn't speak English all the time at home, but they spoke better English, at school, than many of their British born classmates.
I really can't see what is wrong with foreign clothes, everything that I am wearing today is foreign.
If I decided too emigrate, don't get too exited it's just a hypothetical scenario, I would research my destination country's history, traditions, customs etc. and learn their language enough to get by without help before I left the UK. If I married and had children I would give them native names not English ones.
A great British tradition is queuing and one thing they can not stand is a queue jumper.
I think the question was about where the figure of five thousand pounds comes from. That said, isn't better to have educated immigrant children than non-educated ones, regardless if their parents are here legally or not?
The amount schools spend on each of their pupils can vary by as much as £31,000 and depends on where in England they are situated, new data reveals.
For the first time, the government has published figures on how much each school in England spent in 2009-10, and on what. Ministers decided to release the figures to encourage headteachers to use their funds more efficiently and subject them to more scrutiny.
The statistics, published alongside school league table data , show that the average secondary school spent more than £5,200 per pupil last year, while the average primary paid out £4,284.
£5000 seems a reasonable figure, multiplied by number of people plus dependants not entitled to be in this country. Maybe if Boris gets his amnesty we should send him the bill.
The data also shows:
• The local authority where schools spend the most on average is Hackney in east London. The average total expenditure of Hackney's schools is £8,528.50. The local authority where schools spend on average the least is Knowsley, Merseyside. The average total expenditure of its schools is £4,310.05.
Looks like Education in Dianne Abbott's multicultural constituency is not exactly starved of cash.
£5000 seems a reasonable figure, multiplied by number of people plus dependants not entitled to be in this country. Maybe if Boris gets his amnesty we should send him the bill.
Looks like Education in Dianne Abbott's multicultural constituency is not exactly starved of cash.
It makes you wonder why she sent her own child to a foreign fee paying school to be educated doesn't it
Aren't you confusing illegal immigrants with asylum seekers?
I like the idea of "foreign clothes"!
I know the law has a legal status for asylum seekers, but until they are granted refuge status, if they entered the country illegally, they are still illegal immigrants in my view. Genuine refugees would make themselves known to the authorities and claim asylum immediately at the border. That is why their claim is less likely to succeed the longer they leave it.
In my children's former primary school, there were at least a dozen or so children who didn't speak English all the time at home, but they spoke better English, at school, than many of their British born classmates.
I don't agree with the generalization - it might be true in some cases.
The children more capable can do some extra languages.
The ones not, cannot.
I think being automatically multilingual puts them at a disadvantage (group).
Do we have, or indeed need, a White history month?
I am not sure if you read all my post or not i wasnt disagreeing with Black History month or wanting a white history month.....the point i was making and will make it clearer is it is discrimination to not allow someone who is white to hire a hall in Black History month unless no one of that ethnic background wants to hire it......you are treated differently because of your race.....and also my point was it would never be allowed to happen if it were the other way around.......i did state in my original text i have nothing against black history month.....so that isnt the argument i was making....
I know the law has a legal status for asylum seekers, but until they are granted refuge status, if they entered the country illegally, they are still illegal immigrants in my view. Genuine refugees would make themselves known to the authorities and claim asylum immediately at the border. That is why their claim is less likely to succeed the longer they leave it.
Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are two different things, though it is possible (but undesirable, as you say) for an illegal immigrant to claim asylum later and thus become an asylum seeker.
If your white you have equal rights to hire a hall in Waltham Forest for 11months.....if your Black its 12months....surely everyone should have the right to hire the hall all year round? If it isnt its discrimination....surely it works both ways? Everyone pays their council tax and should be equal in the council or should their be a bias?
If your white you have equal rights to hire a hall in Waltham Forest for 11months.....if your Black its 12months....surely everyone should have the right to hire the hall all year round? If it isnt its discrimination....surely it works both ways? Everyone pays their council tax and should be equal in the council or should their be a bias?
I meant that "White History month" happens 11 months of the year!
I meant that "White History month" happens 11 months of the year!
I don't know what happens in Waltham Forest.
White history month happens 11 months of the year? I am sorry i dont understand your point and i will say again i am not against Black History month....i am against it if it means based on your race you are treated differently from someone else.....pure and simple....and dont have the same rights to hire a hall just because your white as opposed to Black.....and i would have just the same amount of opposition if it were the other way around........It seems though to this council in particular or at least was that they base how you qualify to hire a hall based on the colour of your skin.....and that is discrimination....The discrimination rules HAVE to be the same for everyone.....
Comments
As a comparison, what is the cost for a legal immigrant and for someone who was born here?
Thats irrelevant if they are here legally we have accepted responsibility for them , if they are illegals then why should we pay for them
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2013-04-03/uk-ministers-considered-barring-children-of-illegal-immigrants-from-schools
So 120,000 x £5000 is £600,000,000 per year.
It works for the Australians. Unfortunately even though they fly over numerous safe countries air space and land in the safe country of choice, i.e. the UK where the streets are paved with gold, we still can't send them back.
People are starting to notice that they can't get the school they want and when they hear numerous foreign languages being spoken by people wearing foreign clothes, is it any wonder they are annoyed.
I'd add a Big Grin smiley, but the thought of the above is too sad even for that.
I think the question was about where the figure of five thousand pounds comes from. That said, isn't better to have educated immigrant children than non-educated ones, regardless if their parents are here legally or not?
I like the idea of "foreign clothes"!
Aah....the old discomfort felt by Farage whilst on a train. The same foreign languages that he doesn't let his wife and children speak outside of the home. I suggest that if someone doesn't like to hear foreign languages, they shouldn't go on holiday either.
In my children's former primary school, there were at least a dozen or so children who didn't speak English all the time at home, but they spoke better English, at school, than many of their British born classmates.
I really can't see what is wrong with foreign clothes, everything that I am wearing today is foreign.
It's better not to have them here in the first place.
Doesn't answer the question though, does it.
They are here and whilst they are isn't it better that their children are in school, rather than wandering the streets all day, maybe getting into some mischief.
How about we just deport them instead and save ourselves a huge heap of cash? The whole point is to make life impossible for illegal immigrants in the UK. £5,000 is the average cost of educating one child per year according to some basic research I did online.
If I decided too emigrate, don't get too exited it's just a hypothetical scenario, I would research my destination country's history, traditions, customs etc. and learn their language enough to get by without help before I left the UK. If I married and had children I would give them native names not English ones.
A great British tradition is queuing and one thing they can not stand is a queue jumper.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jan/12/school-expenditure-varies-widely
£5000 seems a reasonable figure, multiplied by number of people plus dependants not entitled to be in this country. Maybe if Boris gets his amnesty we should send him the bill.
Looks like Education in Dianne Abbott's multicultural constituency is not exactly starved of cash.
It makes you wonder why she sent her own child to a foreign fee paying school to be educated doesn't it
I know the law has a legal status for asylum seekers, but until they are granted refuge status, if they entered the country illegally, they are still illegal immigrants in my view. Genuine refugees would make themselves known to the authorities and claim asylum immediately at the border. That is why their claim is less likely to succeed the longer they leave it.
I don't agree with the generalization - it might be true in some cases.
The children more capable can do some extra languages.
The ones not, cannot.
I think being automatically multilingual puts them at a disadvantage (group).
There would be outrage if a White History month was proposed. Political correctness would not allow it to happen.
It happens 11 months of the year anyway.
I am not sure if you read all my post or not i wasnt disagreeing with Black History month or wanting a white history month.....the point i was making and will make it clearer is it is discrimination to not allow someone who is white to hire a hall in Black History month unless no one of that ethnic background wants to hire it......you are treated differently because of your race.....and also my point was it would never be allowed to happen if it were the other way around.......i did state in my original text i have nothing against black history month.....so that isnt the argument i was making....
Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are two different things, though it is possible (but undesirable, as you say) for an illegal immigrant to claim asylum later and thus become an asylum seeker.
how does it happen 11 months of the year?
If your white you have equal rights to hire a hall in Waltham Forest for 11months.....if your Black its 12months....surely everyone should have the right to hire the hall all year round? If it isnt its discrimination....surely it works both ways? Everyone pays their council tax and should be equal in the council or should their be a bias?
I meant that "White History month" happens 11 months of the year!
I don't know what happens in Waltham Forest.
The day that we prevent any child in the UK from receiving education, whether they belong to immigrants or not, is a sad sad day.
White history month happens 11 months of the year? I am sorry i dont understand your point and i will say again i am not against Black History month....i am against it if it means based on your race you are treated differently from someone else.....pure and simple....and dont have the same rights to hire a hall just because your white as opposed to Black.....and i would have just the same amount of opposition if it were the other way around........It seems though to this council in particular or at least was that they base how you qualify to hire a hall based on the colour of your skin.....and that is discrimination....The discrimination rules HAVE to be the same for everyone.....