Questions have been asked why is it that previous migrants to the UK had integrated so well, whereas the more recent ones seem to have an issue.
I think welfare benefits have a lot to do with this.
I have heard many immigrants who arrived before the 1990s who, because they were not entitled to any benefits, had to work and indeed worked very hard.
They learned the language, took on any work, bought homes and integrated, because they were here to stay. Some changed their names. Most changed the way they dressed, just so to fit in.
Such changes were insignificant sacrifices in return for free education, free healthcare, and if they continued to contribute to National Insurance (NI), these migrants will have a comfortable retirement drawing a perpetual pension which today is just under £160 a week (£159.55 to be precise, or about SGD282).
All this changed some time ago -- I cannot be sure when -- which allows new migrants to draw the same benefits despite not having paid any NI. Yes. You get something for nothing.
Without the need to strive for a living, it was so easy to just sit back, get lazy and get very bored.
There is no incentive to integrate. The more a claimant is unable to function in the UK, the more resources are being thrown at them, such as interpretation services when they go to the hospital.
When the news first emerged, I guessed that the taxpayer must have been funding the lifestyle of this young man. How else was he able to fly here and fly there at will when he was unemployed?
I will not be surprised if his parents continue to draw benefits despite not living in this country. All you need is someone at your address to return documents to the necessary government departments and LIE that you are still resident in the country.
We cannot be sure if this is the case.
However it has emerged that this jihadist could have been funded by a student loan despite not being a student any more.
Why did his university not alert the student loan company?
Two hypotheses:
#1 British universities are renowned for hating to have to 'police' the immigration status of students. They are actually required by law to submit details about whether students registered for courses actually do attend classes in order to eliminate bogus students. They don't, because they are not the 'border police'.
#2 The university funding is dependent on numbers. If they report a dropout, the university loses the money. The administration might have delayed reporting this until the money is given to the university and they can take their time to return it. Meanwhile the student loan company (a separate entity) will assume that the loan is legitimate and hands out the money. Nobody cares whether the money will be returned as the rules are if they fail to pay within a certain period, the loan is written off. It might be that dropouts would have to repay much earlier. I cannot be sure. Again, it is not the university's problem.
All in, my tax is being used to fund these jihadists in Britain and there is nothing I can do about it.
