Labour's new policies for asylum seekers

People who need care are ill, frail and one of the most vulnerable groups in society. How is it any different?

I think the policy as described is horrible, but then I don’t have any problem at all with immigration (in fact I think we need much more of it if our economy is ever to start growing). So this policy isn’t aimed at me. Will it stop me voting Labour? At the moment, no. The alternatives are even worse.

so pragmatically, my main objection to this policy is that I doubt it will change the votes of people for whom immigration is a big concern.

Anyone on this thread who previously did not support Labour - will this and the other current proposals make you likely to vote for them?

Do you honestly believe that everyone coming over on the boats is fleeing war torn countries? The pp comparing with her Dad is spot on except her Dad paid into the system all his life and still has to sell assets for his care. How many people do you think we can support for free before this country collapses?

So you’re against the jewellery idea in principle because you think it’s exactly the same as what your dad had to do, which you think was wrong? Ideally you would say neither situation should happen?

At present employment for asylum seekers is highly restricted: their claim must have been in process for a year and they can only work in shortage occupations - I don’t know what the official name for the list is.

You might think this would include jobs on the highly skilled visa list (and there might be some overlap) but generally the jobs are different. Eg my asylum seeking friend with excellent STEM qualifications came here urgently because of a political threat; in the usual way he could have got a skilled worker visa. But because his family applied for asylum, when he was able to apply for jobs and he got the list, the jobs were farm labourers, fishing, etc. His application for employment has been in process forever and if it is granted he will apply for anything. But British jobs in his field are unfilled; he had a successful career in his home country; and he cannot apply for them.

In almost all other Western countries people seeking asylum can apply for work after no more than 6 months.

Well said.

It's exactly this OP: "Again, we don't apply a "sentimentality" test when we require local people to divest assets to meet costs"

This pretty much sums up the state of the UK now.
These judges need to be accountable for the decisions 🙄

Can you explain the difference between using assets to fund care and using assets to fund accommodation?

Also, why the hyperfixation on jewellery?

Where did anyone say all that?

Just watched Good Morning the Brazilian man and who appealed not going back to Brazil because the prisons in Brazil were horrible. He had raped a 5 year old for hours. The judges here let him stay instead of sending him home to pay for this crimes. He had offended here now 🤮

we are completely finished

And all under the watchful eye and approval of the ECHR - those on the left should be delighted.

I agree with a lot of what has been proposed in that I don’t think asylum seekers should automatically get to stay indefinitely if/when their home countries become safe and I’ve said all along, they should be able to work and contribute to the economy while waiting for their claims to be processed because it’s absurd they aren’t currently allowed to, but I think taking jewellery away from people who already have next to nothing is abhorrent. I’m a Labour voter but I have no problem criticising them. There’s no need for it at all.

Your framing of this is very interesting. "Because you don't think people deserve to have them" is several degrees of spin away from "because the government incurs costs to support these people and if they are able they should contribute to those costs" which is a principle applied across the gamut of social and economic policy and has been at the heart of the Labour movement since its inception.

You are also hyper focusing in your rhetoric on individual items of jewellery of putative sentimental value rather than the broader question of assets - as framed by the words of the politician in question.

Again, we don't apply a "sentimentality" test when we require local people to divest assets to meet costs - whether it be for care, or to qualify for benefits, or to pay bills. You must be aware that the (largely but not completely flawed) idea that there is one (tougher) rule for local people and another for those who have just arrived is the source of enormous discontent and division in the country.

Dismissing the idea that those asylum seekers who have the ability to pay should make some contribution to those costs as racist/Nazi/disgusting (delete as appropriate) fuels that discontent.

Because many of the pro illegal immigrant lot dont have to live in close proximity to these hotels/HMOs. Like the Green Party deputy leader who welcomed refugees with open arms until she discovered they were being put in an army camp in her town.
Oh the irony 🤣🤣🥰

Imagine you are feeling a war torn country

France is not a war torn country.

What sort of message does that send?

Hopefully not to get on dangerous boats and risk their lives fleeing war torn France.

There has to be more consequences to deter these swathes of men. Most are not from war torn countries, most are economic migrants and it needs to stop.

OP - your first problem is you're reading and believing what's in The Guardian.

Your second problem is thinking that people coming to the UK from France are fleeing a war torn country. Literally none of them are fleeing a war torn country

They pay thousands to cross the channel on small boats. If they have the means to do that then they are not poor and we need to stop ignoring the fact that they pay to enter the country in the first place. If they can afford this and still hold on to their sentimental jewellery how much money do they actually have?

Firstly he was not wealthy, it was a small house and all assets have to go when you are moved into a care home. Secondly, yes, all his assets had to go to fund his care. Calling it being "stolen" in the case of immigrants and not in the case of my dad doesnt change the fact it was the same for both. You can try using semantics to make what happened to my father more reasonable and less painful but it wont wash I'm afraid.

Ruinously expensive, never proven & not a fraction of the space needed. That Rwanda scheme?

If we didn’t provide accommodation they would have to sell everything look, at those that fled Germany in WWII they sold everything for a new life.

See my original comment - this is an attempt to shift us further right from the side of Farage, this rhetoric achieves nothing else

Do you mean asylum seekers can work while waiting?

And how would you do that? You may not agree with them but calling them idiots is ridiculous.