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

Do you really think this will
reduce the pressure from the boats?

It will only add another channel to the endless loopholes of migration, I’m afraid.

that is a very similar experience to what my brother and his wife had. It was horrendous.

I don't really understand your point about the proxy vetting system.

I haven't seen people claiming the current system is fine on this thread, but I haven't read every post. It's not fine. It needs to change. This would be part of that change.

How do you stop people from arriving in small boats and claiming asylum? By restoring the Dublin Agreement which we lost with Brexit. The Dublin Agreement meant people could be returned to the first safe country they entered. We didn't need to process their claims. That's why these numbers have soared since Brexit, and I agree with you it is a problem for everyone involved.

So how do we get back there, post Brexit? We need to put in place plans to take our quota of refugees whom we have screened abroad. It's a good idea to have schemes like this to help them integrate if possible. And taking in our share of refugees under systems we control is the route to agreeing a return to the safe country system. That's why I would support this scheme, not because I want to see more of the same

Only with international cooperation, which certainly made a huge difference before Brexit

This is great.....all those who have been protesting , and urging the country to "welcome refugees" can finally put their money where their mouth is.....

Agree. You could end up with a pirate from Somalia or a teacher from Ukraine.

Neither of whom I’d fancy frankly.

Agree. You’ve only to look at Ireland. It’s unrecognisable. A really sad situation. Hordes of African men in small towns. Nonsensical.

Only with international cooperation, which certainly made a huge difference before Brexit

What are you talking about?
Also, like it or not, Brexit happened, so why bring up something that’s not relevant anymore.

I don’t understand your post.

No this is misinformation. The DA does not do this, it’s only for limited people and the receiving country has to say yes. If your version were correct then Spain, Italy and Greece would have all migrants as first safe country of entry .

You need to look at numbers moving in to other countries including ROI, France and Germany.

We also had men arrive in lorries in high numbers pre Brexit.

So that excuse aside how would you curtail men applying for asylum under international law?

Haha of course they won't! It's all virtue signalling

The Home Office doesn't and doesn't claim to check that people are safe. There will always be risks attached to receiving refugees. It's up to individuals to decide how comfortable they are with these risks, in a scheme like this, and as the thread suggests for many that would be the age-old and fairly reliable filter of "women and children only".

So if the scheme ends up serving more women and children than men? It's an imperfect world and that's certainly an outcome I could deal with

So if men are the issue you’ll need to opt out of international law to stop their arrival. Or do an Australian scheme. Are you happy with either?

It doesn't reduce the numbers coming illegally in boats. If there are males from Sudan, Eritrea, Egypt etc who don't get included in these safe routes, why wouldn't they just carry on coming on boats?

There are things that would reduce the boats, like reduce the pull factors. But Labour and Mahmood won't do it because they are globalists who put their ideology first.

So if the scheme ends up serving more women and children than men?

So how exactly have you reduced the boats? The men who don't get into this scheme will just come by boat. Business as usual.

Good to hear that the HO doesn't check that people it allows into the country are safe. Of course it's not possible to check that. So why take the risk?

Its not a perfect system, but the numbers have absolutely soared since Brexit. Most Irish asylum seekers are now arriving via the UK - that's the porous border. Yes, people arrived in lorries. Technologies to prevent that have improved. But all of these things entail international cooperation which means agreeing to take refugees. Finding optimum ways to manage that is the solution.

Or we can keep going as we were until recently and let the numbers of asylum seekers keep swelling.

There's no way to stop any men from applying. Obviously, there are many men at genuine risk if they return to their countries of origin. They need refuge. But there are ways to limit successful claims from those who have passed through safe countries, and there are ways to achieve a more balanced population of refugees, and to work to integrate them. It's easy to throw out cries to stop the small boats and send them all back, but politics is the art of the possible. This looks like a sensible policy, and it's not in any way reliant on unwilling mumsnetters housing refugees.

So what are you wanting? Can you be specific. If a man arrives here under international law and applies for asylum who do you think should house him instead of us?

close applications. We can’t keep taking in people who live in badly run, Dangerous places. Too many places are badly run and dangerous.

guess what’s happening? The uk is becoming badly run and dangerous. Weird, huh?

eat enough potato, look like a potato.

Schemes for the international cooperation needed to stop the boats require Britain to take refugees

The rest of the world is not going to invest time, money and energy in making Britain a unique refugee free zone. Why would they?

You can bemoan that problem or try to do something about it. This scheme is the sort of measure you need to do something about it.

You can incentivise young men to take small boats, house them together unintegrated, leave them in limbo unable to work for years, or look for solutions to an international problem, cooperating with other international powers. And if there are people and institutions willing to help refugees, who in the right circumstances can contribute to our society, harnessing their voluntary efforts is very sensible.

Obviously, there are many men at genuine risk if they return to their countries of origin. They need refuge.

There are many millions of people who would fit this definition. Is there an upper limit to the numbers you think the UK should accommodate? Mahmood's policy doesn't seem to have a cap in terms of numbers.

I think this policy will go down like a lead balloon with the sensible ordinary people of this country.

I don’t think I would. However I would LOVE IT if there was a similar paid scheme for giving a safe, secret home to a woman freeing domestic violence, how good would that be - he’d never be able to find her, she’d have a safe room and some peace and quiet, and maybe people could give mum and child rooms too x

But you haven’t resolved the issue. You haven’t said where men will be housed. Who is taking them if not us?

Well that's all very nice, but how have you stopped the boats? The men who don't get included in this scheme will just carry on arriving by boat.

Expect Mahmood's ill thought-out scheme to come a cropper when the numbers of arrivals by boats fails to go down.

0.5% of the world's displaced people are ever resettled. The UK granted resettlement to less than 5000 people last year, but most were Afghan and that scheme is now closed. The numbers admitted under continuing schemes were about 500.

(These aren't the numbers for asylum seekers granted refugee status. They are for people accepted from abroad).

The UK is clearly not in any danger of being overwhelmed by the numbers it agrees to accept with external processing. I'm sure there will be a quota on this scheme.

Nobody is asking the UK to take on all the world's refugees. Other countries take far more. But the inefficiency and reduction in internationally agreed controls since Brexit have made it a more attractive target for asylum seekers, including those unlikely to be at risk in their home countries

You don't solve these problems by ignoring them or refusing to engage with them. The UK needs to develop a sensible policy in this area, and this project looks like a sensible strand.

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.

The intention might be to reduce the boat numbers, but it won’t work, because it does not address and reduce the pull factors
for the opportunistic economic boat arrivals.

It will only increase the overall numbers.