Just when you think this government can't get any worse - now they are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

[daimbarsatemydogsbone]

I didn't vote for this shower. The problem with people arriving (if they make it) in small boats needs addressing but AIBU that sending them on a one way trip to Rwanda isn't the answer?

You think people should eat food that makes them ill and live in mouldy, unsafe overcrowded accommodation because they dared to come to this country?

I’m sorry you’ve completely overplayed your hand here. No one would be this disgusting in public on purpose. Good run though!

No I don't think that they should have to eat awful food but this is the case but ooh some of the population already here are struggling and reliant on food banks

What about burning down accommodation, is this acceptable

[quote lollipoprainbow]@Alexandra2001 if they are complaining about the poor food and accommodation they're hardly the poor humble and desperate people that you are all falling for are they ??? [/quote]
But are they? or are you the one falling for the right wing presses' portrayal of them?

So we have "they are all young men" yet the Vietnamese suffocated to death in a lorry were mainly women, the drowned baby, the kurdish women drowned in the channel...

I presume you have the figures of the % who complain and why they are complaining?

Personally, considering how much Patel and Johnson are telling us all how much they cost us, i would expect value for taxpayers money and decent conditions or are you happy that some people are profiteering from unsafe food and poor quality housing?

@woodhill

No I don't think that they should have to eat awful food but this is the case but ooh some of the population already here are struggling and reliant on food banks

What about burning down accommodation, is this acceptable

Napier Barracks, which the Red Cross said should be closed down... their report stated:

The report identifies many specific concerns about life for asylum seekers in the barracks including one person making 11 requests for medical assistance before some was given and another waiting in pain for 20 days before being seen by a doctor. Almost half – 44% – said they felt unsafe at the barracks, while some received death threats and were racially and verbally abused by rightwing protestors

The report finds that some food was served raw leading to food poisoning

Thank you

If people in the UK are reliant on foodbanks and are going hungry, thats the fault of the UK Govt, not a few '000 migrants.

Sunaks spring statement is going to put an additional 1.3m into absolute poverty, he is doing that instead of taxing oil companies, something even Thatcher did to raise extra money.

"The (Red Cross) report identifies many specific concerns about life for asylum seekers in the barracks including one person making 11 requests for medical assistance before some was given and another waiting in pain for 20 days before being seen by a doctor"

Just like too many UK citizens then ... still, I suppose it's a good introduction to "typical British life"

Well quite. Waiting in pain for weeks to see a doctor is entirely normal these days.

@lameasahorseamea how nice for you. I've just spent 8 hours in a&e before giving up and going home. I'm not critically ill but my leg hurts like fuck and I cant actually walk.

[quote Porcupineintherough]@lameasahorseamea how nice for you. I've just spent 8 hours in a&e before giving up and going home. I'm not critically ill but my leg hurts like fuck and I cant actually walk.[/quote]
Yes NHS is absolutely shite BUT its probably a lot better than would otherwise be if it wasn't for immigrant workers, many of whom were asylum seekers... like the Syrian Dr who treated my Mum after her stroke.

...and before you say "ah but they use nhs services" no they don't really because like most young people, they aren't old and frail.

@Alexandra2001 I dont disagree but we are debating whether it is reasonable for an asylum seeker to have to wait weeks in pain before seeing a doctor. And whilst it isnt acceptable it is certainly normal - and not necessarily indicative of second rate treatment.

I can see a Dr on the same day if it is urgent

Genuinely very pleased for you, lameasahorse - if only it was the same for most

I think a lot of people on here, need to know the difference between genuine asylum seekers and just economic migrants, I’m sorry but which ever you look at it, it can’t be acceptable for people to just land here on boats, ( security, health, economic risk )

@Unphased People just landing here on boats is something that this government could reduce a lot more (and a lot more cheaply) by setting up safe routes and resettlement schemes to the UK. That would be the fabled “controlling our borders” that this government promised to do, as resettlement schemes could have set numbers and allow the spread of asylum seekers around the country, rather than overwhelming Kent. Why are people who voted for this government letting them get away with breaking this promise?

By shutting down all safe routes into the UK, this government is doing nothing to stop uncontrolled and dangerous boat crossings - which also line the pockets of the people traffickers.

Are people aware that, apart from UNHCR resettlement schemes which only take a very small number, and family reunion schemes which again take a small number, there are NO safe, legal routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK?

If you really want your brain melting, have a look at this, from the Government:

“There are no safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum. The immigration rules make no provision for any person to come (or apply to come) to the UK for the purpose of making an asylum claim.
While there is no provision in the rules for permitting a person to come to the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum, Home Office policy is explicit that no claim for asylum in the UK will be considered unless made by a person who is already in the UK.”

www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2021-01/Amnesty%20International%20UK%20-%20Safe%20and%20Legal%20Routes%20Briefing_0.pdf

I mean, it’s 🤡.

You can’t claim asylum outside the UK. You can’t come to the UK to claim asylum. But you can only claim asylum in the UK.

BewareTheLibrarians
We are already one off the mostly densely populated countries in Europe, how many more do you want us to have?
The genuine asylum seekers will have papers etc, it’s the ones that have nothing after burn or destroying proof of nationality or age,
It’s all well and good going down the family route, but it’s amazing how many members of one family there is

@Unphased I’m quite confused by your answer, especially where you ask “how many more do you want us to have?” Where on earth did you see that in my post, or did you just assume?

Did you read the part where I said safe routes can control numbers, ie reduce them if the government want? Because I didn’t say anywhere that I want us to have more. The government is forcing boat crossings therefore uncontrolled, higher numbers.

Also, no, genuine asylum seekers don’t “always” have papers. They might not have passports or ID in their own country. And if they do, the people traffickers often steal their documents to make sure they’re paid. They don’t give them back, not being the most moral bunch.

As for your last point, it might ease your panic to look at how many family reunion cases go through. It’s not as much as you seem to fear.

@Unphased

I think a lot of people on here, need to know the difference between genuine asylum seekers and just economic migrants, I’m sorry but which ever you look at it, it can’t be acceptable for people to just land here on boats, ( security, health, economic risk )

And you can easily tell the difference by….?

The genuine asylum seekers will have papers etc

I’m interested to know what you think life is like if you are in a position where you need to claim asylum in another country.

lameasahorse
There you are again, presuming every migrant is fleeing a war torn area, not just an economic migrant

Merrymouse
Let’s get them all out to Rwanda, where they can all apply for asylum, then decisions can be made backed up by any evidence, freeing up are hotels and bedsits at the cost of 4 million a day and rising

@Unphased If you think they’re just economic migrants, then why are over 70% of asylum claims accepted (and more on appeal)? Are you saying the government are doing a shit job of that too? Better vote in a new one then!

I take it you’ve missed all the analysis that shows sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is going to be more expensive than the current situation? That Priti Patel had to override her parliamentary secretary as the Rwanda plan wasn’t cost efficient?

Plus the fact that so much money has to be spent on accommodation because the government takes too long too assess asylum claims? They should be completed in 6 months, but cases are now waiting over 18 months. That’s your money being wasted because of government inefficiency.

BewareTheLibrarians
If they didn’t come, no money would be wasted on them, it could be used for more good in this country,

At some point are people going to realise that:

• the amount of dangerous crossings is because of the government and their refusal to set up safe routes and resettlement schemes? They’re choosing not to control the number of people arriving in boats. Why?

• People feeling like some places in Kent are being “overwhelmed” by asylum seekers is because of the government and their refusal to set up safe routes?

• Money being “wasted” on housing asylum seekers is because of the government and their inability to process asylum claims on time?

• the shortage of housing, gps, community services, refuges and the rise in food banks, child poverty is all because of the government and their commitment to austerity?

Demonising a group of people in a shit situation (asylum seekers) does nothing to fix any of that.

Or is it just easier to pick on people who don’t look like you?