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?

I think @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack is right. It's a depressing thread.

Yes the rapes and murders.

Yes, there's a whole industry of activist lawyers, charities etc who will move heaven and earth to defend the rights of rapists and murderers to stay in the UK.

But if Labour don't sort this out, they're toast.

Oh, blah. Whatever we said unless ‘OPEN BORDERS NOW’ would be deemed as ‘depressing’. I’ve seen a lot of your posts and you never ever ever address the serious issues we have with these ‘asylum seekers’. You sidestep anything difficult and just call everyone bigoted.

Thousand of undocumented young men coming into the UK unchecked…,now that is ‘depressing’.

She has said she will improve legal routes for migrants to come, and she is keeping a path for refugees to come, their status will however be reviewed, which I think is necessary with the current chaos.

If it doesn't work and men come because women and children can't? Men are already coming in high numbers. Her plan should hopefully do something about this.

What do you think should be done?

Yes. This woefully naive assumption that everyone arriving is just so grateful to be here and can’t wait to integrate and work is laughable.

FWIW, I wouldn't actually support open borders but feel free to pretend that this is what I think. I don't really care if you choose to misrepresent me. It doesn't matter.

As it happens, I very rarely use the word "bigoted". I find it too vague to have much real meaning. I do call out racism when I see it, and I know that bothers some people.

I have no idea what serious or difficult issues you think I'm trying to sidestep. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I’m not sure why people applaud someone who is settled having their status removed when two minutes ago a similar policy was deemed racist by Starmer. The hypocrisy is incredible.

On shutting down family reunification there are plenty of men in the world who are ready to take the risk regardless.

Let’s see. If it doesn’t work I expect the electorate will demand something else that does. Labour can’t rely on this is ‘culture wars’ as they did at the last GE.

Unfortunately, people get upset about other people who they consider to be given unfair advantages to themselves, their family or their friends.

The Home Secretary has cited this as one of the reasons for reform of the asylum system.

It cannot be fair that if you are a man that turns up illegally on our shores and claims asylum, that you are given free accommodation, whether in an HMO, disused barracks or hotels. However, if a UK single male ends up homeless for whatever reason, they are bottom of the pile for obtaining accommodation and are expected to pitch a tent somewhere.

Or UK citizens who get married to non-UK citizens who then have to jump through hoops to bring their partners to live in the UK but those granted asylum and leave to remain have a much easier route to bring not only partners and children to the UK but also extended family members.

It is situations like these which is stoking uneasy tensions between established groups of society in the UK.

We supposedly pride ourselves on this being a fair society. We know that it isn't really, but we need to still pretend it is. And one way to do this is to not give settled asylum seekers more rights than Joe Bloggs down the road in relation to housing and family reunification.

It is depressing, the scapegoats of both immigrants and disabled being blamed for the state of a smoking ruin of an economy by the very arsonists that burned it down. Things are just going to get alot worse.

See the thing is we have heard before that laws were going to be changed but it still made no difference because it turned out to still be unenforceable under human rights law and we still were not able to remove people who had no right to be here. Sadly I think the bulk of this is all rhetoric and I feel very cynical that any meaningful change will be seen.

She won't restrict anything. Just more gaslighting and utter bs.

That was a terrible mistake by Starmer. I don't think Shabana ever believed that policy was racist though. If you read the book Get In about last year's election, she comes across as much tougher & smarter than him. The last page would be hilarious if it were novel not real life- 'There was still much the PM did not understand about politics...'

Moreover, I accept family reunification will not end the flow of men coming. But it will surely be some deterrent.

Why are you opposed to removing it? Surely you don't think keeping it would help stop the flow?

When their 'boat' sinks, do they have any redress from their tour operators ?

It cannot be fair that if you are a man that turns up illegally on our shores and claims asylum, that you are given free accommodation, whether in an HMO, disused barracks or hotels. However, if a UK single male ends up homeless for whatever reason, they are bottom of the pile for obtaining accommodation and are expected to pitch a tent somewhere.

Myth. Many asylum seekers are also homeless.

Or UK citizens who get married to non-UK citizens who then have to jump through hoops to bring their partners to live in the UK but those granted asylum and leave to remain have a much easier route to bring not only partners and children to the UK but also extended family members.

Myth. The same income requirements apply to all family visas. In fact partners of British citizens can fast track to naturalisation, something not available to the partners of settled refugees.

Poland seem to doing very well, not allowing any illegal immigrants in

In our town they have actually gone beserk! I cannot believe they actually got off their arses finally! Very thankful but honestly what took so long. Shops getting raided and closed left right and centre.

It's the idea that I should be totally oppressed due to being a woman that worries me in terms of letting in men from cultures that treat women as second class citizens (or worse). We already have parts of the country populated by people perpetuating the deeply sexist cultures of their (or their parents'/grandparents') countries of origin. We should have clamped down on that years ago. Asylum seekers are a red herring here, we've let people in legally who want to remove women's rights.

It's a pretty similar situation re. homophobia. It's precisely those people who, in large enough numbers (bearing in mind the high birth rate to these cultures!), will destroy the hard won rights of gay people and women.

As for the UK being at war - I'd rather take my chances and stay with my loved ones than run away to some country where I'm considered lesser and in danger for being female. If I had to flee I would obviously choose a country that is at least vaguely similar culturally - why don't the asylum seekers coming here do that?

Homeless but somehow able to pay thousands to smugglers to get here?

How about you read back what you just wrote?
and then ask yourself, how did they end up in a death trap in the middle of the sea with nothing but the clothes on their backs?

Whilst I agree immigrants are not to blame for the state of the economy, that's not the main reason I see that people are against immigration. It's more to do with overcrowding, community cohesion, antisocial behaviour, incompatible cultures, etc.

Right out of Farage's mouth 😅