Advanced search

Withdrawing the £36 a week from families with children, whose asylum applications have been rejected is a challenge to our humanity

(258 Posts)
Figmentofmyimagination Sun 02-Aug-15 10:56:14

We should feel ashamed.

overthemill Sun 02-Aug-15 10:56:37


hesterton Sun 02-Aug-15 10:56:57

Do you have a link?

Figmentofmyimagination Sun 02-Aug-15 10:57:27

It's headline news today.

Samcro Sun 02-Aug-15 11:03:02

benefits are being cut all over the place

SweetCharlotteRose Sun 02-Aug-15 11:06:03

Why should we all feel ashamed? I haven't made the decision personally. We actually get very little input into these decisions!

As an aside though where is all this extra money supposed to come from?

gatewalker Sun 02-Aug-15 11:07:04

I agree; it is a challenge to our humanity ... and the more this happens, the more polarised we are becoming, and the greater need for compassion on all sides.

Rollermum Sun 02-Aug-15 11:09:09

I agree. These are not huge numbers. They will be destitute and children (not that it matters, but some if whom will have been born here) will suffer.

How we treat those with nothing does reflect on society as a whole.

tisfortitus Sun 02-Aug-15 11:11:14

It just shifts the support elsewhere within the system . Local authorities have a legal duty to support destitute children in their area, regardless of their immigration status. They are likely to receive more money per week than asylum sipport from local authorities.

Samcro Sun 02-Aug-15 11:12:29

so do you feel the same shame when benefits are removed from the sick and disabled?

suzanneyeswecan Sun 02-Aug-15 11:13:31

But do we want to encourage the whole of the bottom billion to seek refuge in the first world?

PtolemysNeedle Sun 02-Aug-15 11:20:58

So what happens to people whose asylum claims are rejected? Are they given help to go home or are they just left to do what they want?

GiddyOnZackHunt Sun 02-Aug-15 11:30:30

Ptolomy it varies. There is an appeals process that can be gone through. I don't know what the current situation is wrt to benefits at that point. In theory once the appeals process is exhausted the asylum seeker can be removed, usually this is at public expense. The asylum seeker may choose to 'disappear' and become an illegal immigrant. The government may decide that while they have no claim for political asylum, conscience dictates that sending someone back to certain countries is unacceptable and they may get exception leave to remain.

ghostyslovesheep Sun 02-Aug-15 11:35:36

once people have exhausted all appeals they are here illegally and have to present themselves for deportation or go underground - they can be removed (as far as I understand it)

Cloggal Sun 02-Aug-15 11:36:33


PtolemysNeedle Sun 02-Aug-15 11:39:56

Thanks Giddy, I'm shamed to say I knwi very little about it. But that sounds like absolute bollocks (I'm not disbelieving you - I mean the system).

If good conscious means it would be unacceptable to send people back to certain countries, then surely they deserve to get asylum? We shouldn't need an appeals process, claims should be handled fairly and accurately in the first place. And if they're not, then it's no wonder that so many of them end up as illegal immigrants that 'disappear'.

Seriously, how can people blame individuals who just want a half decent life for themlsves and their families when a supposedly civilised first world nation can't even process claims and deal with people properly?

cabbagesouppirate Sun 02-Aug-15 11:40:47

Nope. If their asylum applications have been rejected they were probably not genuine migrants. I wonder how many in the UK didn't claim asylum in Italy or France? They are economic migrants. Better not to encourage them. The UK cannot afford to give its own people benefits (so why should it fund economic migrants?).

ghostyslovesheep Sun 02-Aug-15 11:43:03

yes just like all the people who ARE granted asylum hmm

The attitude and language increasing used by my country folk worries me at the moment

ghostyslovesheep Sun 02-Aug-15 11:44:19

The UK cannot afford to give its own people benefits

we can - the current Government chooses not to - big difference

Newbrummie Sun 02-Aug-15 11:46:11

It's own people ?
Do you honestly think they would give the british more if these people got less, come on

Viviennemary Sun 02-Aug-15 11:46:31

Why should they get a single penny. None of us could roll up in a foreign country and demand money. We wouldn't even get past border control and would probably be thrown in prison anthen deported. This asylum nonsense has gone on for far too long. The real people in need are the ones trapped in those war zones not those opportunists we see at Calais.

NickiFury Sun 02-Aug-15 11:46:55

This government are doing everything they can to avoid looking after their own citizens so I am not sure why anyone is shocked by this. Are you ashamed for huge increase in children living in poverty in this country due to cuts also?

NickiFury Sun 02-Aug-15 11:48:40

And agree it's not that it can't be afforded, they don't want to for anyone no matter how deserving.

GiddyOnZackHunt Sun 02-Aug-15 11:48:46

Ptolomy there's a strict definition of what asylum is under the Geneva Convention. Basically it is persecution by the state on the grounds of your political views and a few other reasons. So fleeing from Isis wouldn't count because they aren't a state persecuting citizens. But would you send someone back to face them?

ghostyslovesheep Sun 02-Aug-15 11:48:55

I am Nicki I'm not sure you can only ashamed of one thing at a time

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now