So who is going to be brave enough to ask whether Shabana Mahmood's proposed reforms are right/sensible/racist?

[Papyrophile]

Is Shabana Mahmood right or wrong to restrict asylum seeker's rights? In general?

Accommodation only if destitute.

We are meant to a civilised country and I would not want anyone to be at risk on the streets, whatever their status.

And migration brings in more income that it costs. I live in a Uni city that relies on the money from foreign students, particularly Chinese

I’ve never seen a single person suggest halting immigration from China or Japan.

Are you a journalist. You 'specifically' want to ask for our responses to her proposals. What are your opinions? Do you have a piece to write up?

This, absolutely. Farage will cause so much damage. Current government has to reassure people they don't have to take the risk of Reform.

Really? I am well aware however this thread doesn’t seem to be. Most migrants bring in more income than they take out and have no recourse to public funds - and work harder than the fat unemployed with flags.

This is a thread about asylum policy. That does cost more.

Well this thread lumps all migration together but why is china and japan okay?

That’s because ‘migrants’ also lumps int he hundreds of thousands of hard working, high earning, educated, civilised immigrants we have from Hong Kong and similar. If you broke it down by country of origin it would look VERY different

this thread is linking all types of migration together.

It does we actually spend more per asylum person than any other G7 country.

To your edit, no some of your posts have but the policy changes are on asylum.

No, not a journalist and never have been, @Ihatetomatoes. Just a former student of political science with an interest in why the Home Office is so very difficult to run well. I'm retired, and a One Nation style Tory for disclosure. And I started the thread because it was all over the papers yesterday and there was nothing on MN.

I know that. Not sure others are quite so sure and think all migration (and asylum seeking) is via boats across the channel.

First of all, I think it has to be made very clear that none of the new measures are applied retroactively. Fair enough if rules going forward are toughened up, what I can't abide is goalposts being moved once someone has already made a life here. Second, tinkering with the ECHR rules is completely unnecessary. I heard a report on Denmark this morning stating that they were able to restrict asylum access without resorting to ECHR amendments. That whole ECHR debate is a very slippery slope and something that could have really bad consequences in the wrong (fascist) hands. Denmark is held up as an example here, so I suspect that she is only mentioning the ECHR to gain points with would-be Reform voters (which is utterly futile anyway).

A few posts on here about the work situation changing. That will be a big factor if so.

It’s your posts that mix them up. It’s easy to be sure, this is about asylum.

We do control our borders and we do pick and choose who to let in on the whole. Again, boat crossings are just one part of the story.

I suggest you google 'Yellow peril'.
Once upon a time East Asian people were demonised, we were told that their way of life undermines Western civilisation, that their values were barbaric and nothing like ours.

Sound familiar?

Send them back where?

How simple and shows lack of understanding. By the way, we used to be able to before Brexit. Damn, the UK shot itself in it's foot is so many ways with brexit and the idiots believed Farage when said UK can take control. It's almost comical.

‘Sending people back’ really was limited pre Brexit. I think people do need to understand the agreement better.