Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits
If the following Sunday Telegraph report is true, I'm surprised no Brit in this forum brought up this subject because it does appear the costs will be borne by British taxpayers:
Quote:
Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT 04/02/2008
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.
The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.
The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.
New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."
Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.
The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.
The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.
Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.
Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.
A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".
While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.
In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.
"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."
Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".
"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.
"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."
Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.
I vowed to keep my opinions to myself on this issue, and I will honor that vow.
I can't help but observe, however, that it is the British government who are giving it all away, without any apparent duress or coercion -- at least to my knowledge.
As I said in the other thread, when you make your own bed . . .
This is UK Immigration law. Someone trying to apply for entry clearance (a visa) for more than one wife or husband will not even get past the first hurdle.
Anyone applying for entry clearance has strict controls put upon them. The article above is scaremongering in that the scenario it depicts could not actually happen.
This is UK Immigration law. Someone trying to apply for entry clearance (a visa) for more than one wife or husband will not even get past the first hurdle.
Anyone applying for entry clearance has strict controls put upon them. The article above is scaremongering in that the scenario it depicts could not actually happen.
Are you saying that the four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - involved in the year-long review culminating in a controversial decision condemned by the Tories, wasted their time and British taxpayers' money because the scenario at issue is an impossibility?
Or are you saying that The Sunday Telegraph fabricated the news story and made up the quotes from government officials?
I agree with G&P that the article is scaremongering as, dare I say it, are you Myron.
This "Muslim bashing" for want of a better phrase, is getting pretty tired. If you're going to put forward an issue like this then why can't it be done even handedly?
Polygamy is a worldwide phenomenon. Yet if we are to believe the article somehow polygamy is only practiced by Muslims? And then because of that we are supposed to be up in arms because... Britain might not be Christian anymore?
Countries change culturally and demographically. Laws change to reflect that e.g. if there were only people of Anglo-Saxon descent in the UK, would Britain need a Race Relations Act? Probably not. But we have because the culture of the UK changed and the law changed to reflect that.
I mean I thought this was an interesting news article in USA Today about polygamy, regarding the conviction for polygamist in the US. You can read the full article here but here's an extract...
Jonathan Turley for USA Today wrote:
Religion defines the issue
The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.
However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."
Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.
Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.
Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School.
This is what I call balance.
As opposed to the article in the right-wing leaning newspaper.
The issue is not polygamy. If I understand correctly, the law will discriminate against native-born Brits, even including Muslims. Given that bigamy is illegal in Britain and that the law will legitimize with welfare benefits polygamous marriages that are legal in the country of marriage, native-born Brits cannot be ineligible to receive welfare benefits for more than one wife but a polygamist immigrant to the UK from a country where polygamy is legal may receive UK welfare benefits for each one of his wives, paid for by the taxes of the Brits ineligible for the same benefits.
And I'm "Muslim-bashing" by posting a news story from a respected newspaper? That is truly rich. Here's Muslim-bashing for you:
The Colonel wrote:
"As horrid as it sounds from someone of my rank, and a politics graduate, I believe Britain needs military governance for at least ten years (starting now)."
The Colonel wrote:
The military does need to intervene more in politics to prevent an Islamic takeover. There are 1.8 million muslims here and 80% want Sharia Law.
Solution? Bring in the army to restore order.
And where was your self-righteous indignation during the last month when the following vile Christian-bashing slurs were being posted?
The Colonel wrote:
I have, and will, be bigotted towards religion.
The Colonel wrote:
Religion should not be respected nor tolerated for its bad reasons.
It must be destroyed.
drew wrote:
I hate Christians and Christianity.
The Colonel wrote:
God raped Mary, she did not consent to intercourse,
Mary gave birth to a bastard child,
The Colonel wrote:
I think "Xmas" is a fantastic way to describe the season.
CROSS OUT CHRIST!
Happy Xmas all you "christians".
The Colonel wrote:
Oh yes, the bible.
Some freak with long hair that popped out of a virgin bitch in a barn full of donkey shit and hung about with 12 men and a prostitute.
You weren't whinging indignantly then, were you?
So kindly excuse me if I am underwhelmed by your hypocritical pontifications.
Dont get me wrong Im as shocked as you are. But they are Tory newspapers... After a bit of research (what I do for FF eh !) it seems the current benefit (in the US it would be termed "welfare") rules date back to 1987. In the Mail of 4th Feb a DWP spokesman said:
Quote:
"We recently reviewed the rules regarding benefit payments to customers in a polygamous marriage, which conclude that the rules in place since 1987 provide the necessary safeguards to ensure there is no financial advantage for claimants in a valid polygamous marriage."
The DWP want their fat ugly arse kicked from here to Timbuktoo for even having the suggestion that polygamous marriages can be paid for from taxpayers money in their rule book. wtf (to use the vernacular)
However thats not my area. Perhaps we have someone who works for the DWP who can comment?
My point is this: Bigamy is and always has been illegal in Britain.
The fact is a person cannot marry polygamously or have more than one legally recognised married partner in this country.
And as far as my first post on this subject goes, Im speaking from the standpoint of UK Immigration law only. Nobody can gain entry clearance for a second marriage partner to be allowed into this country. Full stop.
My name is G&P. I have been your marriage guidance counsellor for this evening. I thank you.
I vowed to keep my opinions to myself on this issue, but after being accused of "Muslim-bashing," I have been compelled to spell out what my objections would be if I were a British taxpayer.
I would not be pointing fingers at Muslim immigrants who are polygamous. As far as I'm concerned, that's their own private business. But their own private business would quickly become my business when I have to subsidize all their wives with my taxes, and especially so given that I would be ineligible for the additional benefits I would be subsidizing for each one of the polygamist immigrant's wives.
If I were a British taxpayer, I would be pointing fingers at the British government for discriminating against British citizens in favor of foreign-born immigrants and adding insult to injury by making native-born British citizens pay with their taxes for the discriminatory treatment at the hands of their own government.
If I were a British taxpayer, I would be pointing fingers at the British government for discriminating against British citizens in favor of foreign-born immigrants and adding insult to injury by making native-born British citizens pay with their taxes for the discriminatory treatment at the hands of their own government.
If I am not mistaken, it looks like myron has come around to my way of thinking!
If I were a British taxpayer, I would be pointing fingers at the British government for discriminating against British citizens in favor of foreign-born immigrants and adding insult to injury by making native-born British citizens pay with their taxes for the discriminatory treatment at the hands of their own government.
I totally agree with you. Im livid.
However not all British citizens are native born. They can become citizens after 5 years of legal residence, along with various other requirements. The hard part is getting into Britain in the first place.
As immigrants who became naturalized American citizens 35 years ago (five years after emigrating to the United States), no one in my family would ever imagine demanding any preferential treatment over any American citizen or any immigrant, much less preferential treatment based on customs of the country we left behind that are illegal in the United States.
And if preferential treatment were made available by the American government, our dignity and our principles would prevent anyone in my family from accepting the benefits of such patent injustice.
If anything, I would seriously question the judgement of the government of my adopted country for discriminating against its citizens, both native-born and naturalized, in favor of immigrants and at added cost to citizens.
The issue is not polygamy. If I understand correctly, the law will discriminate against native-born Brits, even including Muslims. Given that bigamy is illegal in Britain and that the law will legitimize with welfare benefits polygamous marriages that are legal in the country of marriage, native-born Brits cannot be ineligible to receive welfare benefits for more than one wife but a polygamist immigrant to the UK from a country where polygamy is legal may receive UK welfare benefits for each one of his wives, paid for by the taxes of the Brits ineligible for the same benefits.
And I'm "Muslim-bashing" by posting a news story from a respected newspaper? That is truly rich. Here's Muslim-bashing for you:
The Colonel wrote:
"As horrid as it sounds from someone of my rank, and a politics graduate, I believe Britain needs military governance for at least ten years (starting now)."
...
Uhm... I'm the one who mentioned 'Muslim Bashing' Myron - which I stand by - but I am certainly NOT The Colonel!
If there is one thing I do know about is the political affiliations on newspapers in the UK having lived here for four decades. So when I say The Telegraph stable of papers is 'right-wing leaning' you can take that as read.
Why I stand by the "Muslim Bashing" statement is this particular paragraph from the newspaper story...
Quote:
Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.
The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.
There are no recorded figures regarding polygamy in Britain, yet the paper can make the bold claim that it'll "chiefly benefit Muslim men the most"? WTF?
As I've said polygamy is fervent throughout the world yet no mention of Mormons from the US in Britain who may practice polygamy; or people from Africa, Israel etc. who may also practice polygamy in Britain. No, the usual "Muslim" suspects are pedaled out. For a "well respected" newspaper that kind of reporting simply isn't good enough and I feel, it's playing to their already intended audience.
There are a zillion inequities in the UK benefits and tax system. I mean this story would worry me much more than any foreign born UK citizen gaining extra benefits due to having 12 wives...
The issue is not polygamy. If I understand correctly, the law will discriminate against native-born Brits, even including Muslims. Given that bigamy is illegal in Britain and that the law will legitimize with welfare benefits polygamous marriages that are legal in the country of marriage, native-born Brits cannot be ineligible to receive welfare benefits for more than one wife but a polygamist immigrant to the UK from a country where polygamy is legal may receive UK welfare benefits for each one of his wives, paid for by the taxes of the Brits ineligible for the same benefits.
And I'm "Muslim-bashing" by posting a news story from a respected newspaper? That is truly rich. Here's Muslim-bashing for you:
The Colonel wrote:
"As horrid as it sounds from someone of my rank, and a politics graduate, I believe Britain needs military governance for at least ten years (starting now)."
The Colonel wrote:
The military does need to intervene more in politics to prevent an Islamic takeover. There are 1.8 million muslims here and 80% want Sharia Law.
Solution? Bring in the army to restore order.
And where was your self-righteous indignation during the last month when the following vile Christian-bashing slurs were being posted?
The Colonel wrote:
I have, and will, be bigotted towards religion.
The Colonel wrote:
Religion should not be respected nor tolerated for its bad reasons.
It must be destroyed.
drew wrote:
I hate Christians and Christianity.
The Colonel wrote:
God raped Mary, she did not consent to intercourse,
Mary gave birth to a bastard child,
The Colonel wrote:
I think "Xmas" is a fantastic way to describe the season.
CROSS OUT CHRIST!
Happy Xmas all you "christians".
The Colonel wrote:
Oh yes, the bible.
Some freak with long hair that popped out of a virgin bitch in a barn full of donkey shit and hung about with 12 men and a prostitute.
You weren't whinging indignantly then, were you?
So kindly excuse me if I am underwhelmed by your hypocritical pontifications.
It's all mythology. Bigotry + Mythology = Nothing.
The two cancel each other out.
You cannot be bigoted to mythology because it doesn't exist.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
After a bit of research (what I do for FF eh !) it seems the current benefit (in the US it would be termed "welfare") rules date back to 1987. In the Mail of 4th Feb a DWP spokesman said:
