Asylum seekers costing taxpayers £6mil a day

[HoraceCharlie]

Firstly- I appreciate this may be an unpopular posting.

I will say I DO agree with people seeking asylum if they genuinely need it- war etc.

But am I in the wrong they should be expected to DO something when they are here?

Provide them with adequate shelter, 3 meals a day, warmth and electricity and vouchers for clothing based on need. Include nappies and formula for babies.

Give free childcare to the children and they have to work on voluntary basis for a set period before they can apply to officially stay

thoughts?

Most asylum seekers that I know are desperate to contribute to society. But the rules make it extremely difficult for them even to do voluntary work

Absolutely.

Just to add. In the UK, they can apply after 12 months for permission to work. But it's rarely granted and very difficult to get.
Interestingly, I believe, many EU countries allow permission to work after 9 months.
The USA allows permission after 6 months

Whilst it's a well intentioned idea, Op. My cynical head says that it would be open to a lot of abuse and exploitation of vulnerable people.

What would stop nefarious businesses saying "You have to work here 50 hours per week voluntarily and if you dont, I'll say you're refusing to do the voluntary work"

In my my mind, it's a similar idea when people say those who are claiming job seekers should work voluntarily for thier benefits.

Have you ever met an asylum seeker? Spoken to one? Listened to their story?

As of October last year only 4% of claims from 2021 had been completed. Perhaps if we actually process applications in a timely manner we wouldnt need to spend so much money.

It wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't some government backhander deliberately keeping people in limbo so they could funnel tax payer cash to one of their cronies to provide 'care' for these asylum seekers.

Good, I'm glad my tax is going towards something useful.
A friend who was an asylum seeker was ecstatic when she was finally able to work - it's not possible for such a long time due to our government's rules. She spent so long desperate to get a job to move out to private rented accommodation with her daughter. She was threatened with deportation so many times, luckily the community came together to support her in her (thankfully successful) appeals, as she wouldn't have survived (it was a warzone).

Some of them do speak English which is why they come here and not go to France or Germany. Some also have a family member - whoever distant - here.

I remember when the Germans where saying "yes please to refugees". British journalists were interviewing people and all the educated ones with skills we have a shortage of e.g. doctors were determined to live in Germany. They all spoke fluent English as well.

While I'm here, can I point out that under the United Nations Convention on Refugees, there is NO obligation for asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country they reach. That is trotted out so often on these threads. Think about it - if that were the rule, then the countries bordering conflict zones would be forced to take 100% of refugees, whilst other countries would have no obligation at all. Any idiot can (I hope) see how wrong that would be.

Exactly this.

Also, the reason it’s costing so much is that successive Home Secretaries have refused to address the issue of what to actually do with asylum seekers when they get here, instead focusing on ‘stopping the boats’ etc. So instead of putting in place adequate provision and systems to look after people, they are either left in dreadful conditions with at often no basics like beds, limited food and water at times, or they are out into hotels at enormous expense.

A whistleblower from the Civil Service has been talking about the conditions the bulk of people are being held in, including children, and it’s disgraceful. Plus the staff in the centres are mostly not appropriately trained, and have been evidencing hostile, racist attitudes. It’s a sh*t show quite frankly.

Can you really not conceive that someone might flee a country even though it has some nice pretty touristy bits? If you oppose the government in an oppressive regime (and many tourist destinations are in countries like this) you may well need to flee to save your own life. And since we have no legal way for people to claim asylum (outside of very specific schemes such as Ukraine and Hong Kong) then you're going to have to do it 'illegally'.

France takes many more asylum seekers than we do. We have to pull out weight on the international stage or we look weak, insular and inept - hardly a great image for Great Britain, is it?

Process the claims faster, provide safe routes for entry and stop wasting huge sums of illegal resettlement camps in Rwanda and Treasury wheezes to convince retirees and parents of young children to pay even more tax.

Of course, none of that wins votes amongst the meatheads who hate foreigners so this government won't do any of it. It will just stoke up racist rhetoric and spaff money on nonsense instead, all the while people like you will blame "lefty lawyers", "remaniacs" "the blob" and whatever else the client media tells you to blame.

@Throwncrumbs many countries on the African continent are tourist destinations. Many of those also have downright evil laws concerning people who are gay. Take a deep breath, look up the word 'empathy' and think about why those people might want to leave. This is getting worse in African countries, not better.

Very possibly.

The government doesn't want to "sort it out" though. The votes of those of a Farage /, UKIP / Reform mindset are the voters they're depending on.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/25/inside-story-of-manston-detention-centre

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/26/borders-watchdog-left-speechless-by-failings-at-migrants-centre-in-kent

We shouldn't have this many asylum seekers. This is a situation entirely of the governments making. This are people being held in the "arrival hall". Why are they there? Only because the government is not capable of processing them. Get them processed, then they wont be asylum seekers.

@HoraceCharlie I dont think you understand whats causing the problem

Asylum seekers ARE taxpayers. How dare you post such inflammatory nonsense?

Old people cost this country hundreds of millions. SO WHAT?

I am only glad there weren't more people like you spouting such crass selfishness when my grandfather came to England in 1938 as an asylum seeker from Germany, otherwise I would never have existed!

This. The End. There’s a word for forcing people to work for no pay

As long as you don't piss off the government, or one of your family members who they know you are related to doesn't.

I do wonder why these threads keep popping up over and over again, and usually at a time when the government has major amounts of egg on its face (Boris, anyone?).

And you can guarantee private companies with tory connections will be raking it in off the back of the 6million a day bill, I'd take the 6million a day bit with a pinch of salt because that sort of figures are used to get the racist element going.

Yes, because in tourist destination countries everyone sits around on beaches and in cafes and bars having a lovely time, don't they?
SMH!

Did you know that the government policy is to move people who are housed in hotels every 3 months as well? So work, either paid or voluntary would be almost impossible.

Asylum seekers are not allowed to work and they have no access to public funds. They have a small weekly stipend to live on (£45/wk p person), they have basic accommodation. If they are put in b+b accommodation they have £8 a week to buy personal items. They are not allowed to "contribute" or work unless they are given refugee status. It can take years and several appeals to get refugee status and access to the right to work or claim benefits.

So government policy is deliberately excluding asylum seekers from participating in society to discourage them. This is a choice. The people who risk their lives to come to the UK generally want to have useful lives and not live in shitty hotels for years.

Mmmhhmmm. Dubai is a tourist destination. Deadly dangerous for LGBTQI people. China is a tourist destination. Pretty deadly for the minority Uigurs who have been put in concentration camps. Parts of Africa are beautiful and popular with tourists, but have the death penalty for being homosexual. Being a tourist destination in no way means a country is safe for all of its inhabitants.

^This.

'tourist destinations' where being gay, not covering your head, being Christian or the wrong sort of Muslim will land you in prison or worse - just because stupid people continue to go on holiday to places with terrible human rights records doesn't make them safe

This government has slowed down the process of seeking asylum and getting a decision by YEARS - due to incompetence and underfunding the system isn't the fault of people trying to avoid death and imprisonment - most people would LOVE to work and pay their way - legally they can't

They aren’t allowed to work. We need to let them do so. And process their claims, so that those in genuine need of protection - the majority -can get out of the ridiculous expensive hotels, work, and rebuild their lives. The fault for this shambles lies with the government, who are using asylum seekers - the most vulnerable in society - as a distraction from their own failings.