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

Not in a million years would I have a stranger in the house . Particularly a man .

We already get 100k asylum seekers each year so the numbers would have to fall a lot before we encouraged more then.

A lot of Russian bots would be liking that one!

X is a cesspit. I'm surprised that the HO has comments on. People don't have to like these schemes or participate in them. But if they have better ideas for supporting refugees, given that Britain has to admit them, it would be interesting to hear them.

Admit refugees but leave them isolated to discourage social cohesion? Take the emotion out of it, and think.

I know several people
who had very positive experiences hosting Ukrainians.

I admire them for doing it, but couldn’t do it myself.

What does that have to do with my question? If Putin (male) sends his (male) army to invade the UK, would you want your children to leave and go somewhere safe? Would you hope that somebody somewhere would take care of them until they could come home? Do you think the evacuation programs of WW2 were wrong?

Well a lot of people had negative experiences with their evacuee children so, er, clearly they should have been housed in one large central orphanage, or no, that wouldn't be fair on the neighbours? Maybe a mega military barracks? Only they were in use of course so ...

I guess there are no easy solutions that work perfectly for everyone every time.

Yes, agree. I listened to a phone in on LBC today. They are generally very progressive and do anything they can to put through liberal left callers. This time there were hardly any. Over 90% of the callers thought the scheme was a stitch up and not the way to get the boat crossings down.

It just adds another avenue for asylum seekers to enter our overstretched country.

It's not an avenue for asylum seekers at all.

Did the callers have any suggestions as to how to get the numbers of small boats (with asylum seekers) down?

Did they think eliminating small boats meant never again receiving refugees?

It’s refugees plus asylum seekers. Nothing you’ve posted will get the numbers crossing down. Men are still able to apply via international law.

A lot of Russian bots would be liking that one!
Where? What do you mean?

The ‘cesspit’ you mention is the platform the HO used to announce the scheme, in this case. Please comment.

Please also drop the patronising tone, thanks.

These people are in desperate need. Fleeing the most horrific places... Apparently. I'm sure they'd be grateful for even a little fold down sofa in your livingroom? No? Didn't think so.

Reduce the pull factors. Shut down the criminal gangs business model by clamping down on the businesses that employ illegals. Offshore processing. Follow the Australian model. If there was a will to do it, it would be done. But there are too many vested interests.

There are certainly things that should be done there. This scheme doesn't prevent that. It's about refugees. Refugees are people who have already been granted the right to remain.

Yes, I think that is correct. We can take some refugees, but we cannot take an indefinite number. of the 100k in 2025, 41k came on small boats. We need a solution to managing the number of people we take, then we can be generous with the ones we do take in.

We can bit it would mean opting out of international treaties or setting up Aus style system. So it depends on whether people would vote for that.

As with Ukrainian refugees, the state is going to require certain standards in any scheme like this. Lots of refugees and asylum seekers are indeed grateful for a spot on someone's couch, but that's not something you could offer through a state-sponsored scheme.

It is also, quite simply, asking far more of a host to give up a section of living space than a spare bedroom, in most small homes. People have the right to set boundaries on their giving.

This scheme does nothing to reduce the scale of entry of illegal asylum seekers into our country. All it does is set up an additional scheme for people who have been granted LTR to come here. So those people are in addition to the illegal entrants.

Labour are on a loser with this one. Its just gaslighting and people are already onto it.

I mean that X is full of Russian bots. Since they aim to cause division, it's not hard to imagine them liking posts about civil war I the UK. For this reason, I'm surprised the Home Office uses the platform and leaves comments open.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/09/x-suspends-accounts-massive-scale-manipulation-attempts-russia

Correct. It’s just a scheme that’s in addition to what we have already.

We will always be taking refugees. The question is whether we also control the influx of asylum seekers. Because of the international effort needed to control the influx of asylum seekers, we cannot do this without accepting a quota of refugees.

Politics has to deal with realities. If we are taking refugees, we need schemes to integrate them. This is one such scheme. It is a good idea as part of a wider strategy.

How are you going to control the influx of asylum seekers, pls be specific

Yes, so actually MORE people entering the country who need accommodation, food, clothing, healthcare, education, dental services, mental health services etc etc.

Would people vote for an Australian style system? I think the appetite for that is growing.

We've discussed lots of ways on this thread, and I have answered this question a few times already

Yes and they’ve all fallen apart under scrutiny. You don’t have a way to limit men traveling and arriving under international law.

The only two ways is to opt out of the law or do an Aus style system. Are you up for either?

Or they may be just the same as those coming in illegally, low wage and low skill. I doubt they will be properly vetted as records don't exist in a lot of Middle East or African countries.