Will you sign up to the new refugee sponsorship scheme?

[JoyousOpalLemur]

The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is apparently announcing next week a new refugee sponsorship scheme.

It would allow households to privately sponsor refugees from conflict zones.

Applications open this autumn, with the aim of resettling more than 10,000 people.

It’s modelled on Canada’s scheme and the Homes for Ukraine programme.

Sponsors would commit to providing financial, emotional and practical support.

What do people think? I just can't help thinking that with the current pressures on housing, schools, GPs and local services, how this will actually work in practice? Has anyone been involved in the Ukraine sponsorship scheme and can share what it was really like day-to-day?

Curious to hear everyone’s views.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/home-secretary-announce-scheme-refugees-uk-lgdr8ff25

If the scheme ends up housing more women and children than men, I'm not sure that's a failure, though?

No, sorry. I put my immediate family first, followed by my nieces, nephews, etc. Not a stranger.

No, I wouldn't expect that level of documentation in most cases. But the UK is signed up to a global agreement to take refugees. So it needs to work on schemes to support them to integrate, like this. What are the alternatives? This scheme would aim to reduce the undocumented (as in identity not verifiable) asylum seekers arriving needing housing and slow slow processing, and to help refugees whose claims have been accepted to be integrated. These are both in the public interest, I believe. There's no question of forcing anyone to take in a refugee, male or otherwise.

If you believe refugees / asylum seekers should be housed in one big place, would you support that big place being next door to you?

Or do you only support it if it's next door to other people?

That is absolutely fine. This sort of scheme is designed for a small number of willing people to participate in, and nobody should feel under any pressure to take part or feel the need to apologize for not doing so.

I don't think one big place is ever ideal, near me or not!

This has been asked on this thread and it's interesting to note that not one of the 'I would happily do this but I don't have the room / my husband said no' posters have not answered it

This all makes sense.

But why if it's not ok for you, is it ok for the country to let in millions of men?

I live in London. Wouldn’t bother me as there are all sorts around here - mental hospitals, prisons, homeless shelters. I probably wouldn’t notice a few thousand more immigrants either way.

Anyway I’m not even pro asylum seekers, I think we should have a set limited amount and they should be people with family here who are willing to take them in or who have papers identifying them as safe or those who are under 18.

Im just saying that arguing people can’t be pro refugee because they won’t have said refugee in their house is stupid.

Im not really talking about it from the perspective of taking anyone in as such Im correcting this myth that once someone is a refugee it 'proves' they are verified and documented.

I work with asylum seekers, very few of them have any form of original documentation. Particular countries get refugeee status very quickly, sometimes within a year.

If I recall, Lineker's migrant lived in a separate building to him, and for about three weeks.

And he made a big deal about it on social media.

Me too. Perhaps I should take in some lovely “freedom fighters” from Gaza? I’m sure they’d establish a great network here.

So if you and others are now saying taking women is better why are people berated for pointing out that the current system which is predominantly for men isn’t safe enough?

But this scheme is not about the country letting in millions of men. It's about routes for people who aren't in small boats etc, which means a more balanced demographic including a higher proportion of women abc children. The UK meeting its legal obligation to admit refugees with approved claims means that it can also draw on the help of other European nations to stem the flow of these men in small boats. That's better for everyone.

This is quite a narrow scheme, to support people in the gap between being approved as refugees and finding their feet.

A lot of people on this thread seem to think it's about inviting more asylum seekers, men in small boats, and laying out the red carpet for them. It's not. It's about reducing their numbers.

A lot of people on this thread seem to think it's about inviting more asylum seekers, men in small boats, and laying out the red carpet for them. It's not. It's about reducing their numbers.

Like Starmer’s ‘one in, one out’ scheme?

I don't think anyone is berating you for that? I have just been explaining that people seem to be misunderstanding the scheme. It's part of an effort to build alternatives to the current system. It's not an endorsement of the current system.

Of course people have. Look at the threads on here.

I don’t want anyone to be used as a proxy vetting system which is currently what’s happening.

Even with this scheme on top how would you ensure men can’t still apply under international law by arriving here via boat or other?

I wonder how many the people who came up with this are taking into their homes?

Absolutely not and I dont think anyone should. People don't want more dangerous men being imported here.

Like that in the sense that it aims to restore cooperation with other international powers of refugees, yes.

You can have the chaos of ever increasing numbers of men in small boats, or you can attempt to build systems, based on models that have worked internationally, to grant or deny leave to remain before people get here. In that way the UK meets its international obligations, and other powers cooperate in stemming the tide of asylum seekers.

None of this works without efficient processing. But it's not working anyway. So why complain about an attempt to invite (only) willing people to help solve the problem?

Having taken in a Ukranian and it ending in disaster then absolutely no will never ever do anything like that again. I dont blame all Ukranians of course but this one caused me trouble that I cannot even legally discuss currently and he is gone a solid year from my property having been removed by police. Never again. Not for any nationality of person.

It will not be long before we see the first legal claim against the government, when one of the hosted immigrants commits some unspeakable crime against a host family member. The old duty of care, and all that.

You just know its a function of time.

Our electrical system, water system are both on the point of failing.
We have too many people here for the facilities available.

We don't have enough affordable housing. Supply and demand.

We could build on every inch of land we have. But the reason we're all so hot is because we're killing the environment that protects us. More people is not the answer.

So what of international law? Would you opt out, because men can still arrive and apply

Exactly, the man who attacked Stephen Ogilvie in Belfast was granted refugee status in 2023. No doubt he passed the Home Office's 'rigorous' checks that he was perfectly safe and likely to be make a valuable contribution to the UK.

Which is great for those who want to welcome refugees, presumably they would have gladly welcomed him. But not so great for unfortunate individuals like the vulnerable man who he attacked.