Labour's new policies for asylum seekers

[frommyheadtomyfeet]

Are rumoured to follow Denmark's, which include the seizure of valuables from people arriving here to pay their accommodation costs.

Is anyone else disgusted by this?! How will it work, they can take people's jewellery, phones etc., and leave them with nothing? What sort of message does that send?

How would a "hard stop" be put on illegal migration?

What about the asylum seekers who aren't entering illegally?

We're actually heading that way.... but it's at the lefts insistence

Ah yes the diverse 11th century the time period where raping and pillaging was seen a jolly afternoon activity for Vikings in the UK. Fortunately that is frowned upon for current immigrants.

Some on this thread are truly bonkers! Excusing crime due to feeling depressed? WTF??

Trouble is that the HS wont get this past her backbenchers who have people in their area who want more and more migration. That is a dangerous postion to be in. There are what 4 MP's who were elected on one issue Gaza. How on earth did that happen?

Labour will be politically unable to bearing in mind their MPs and the party membership. And Keir Starmer spent his legal career as a human rights lawyer getting migrants into this country. He will be unable to conceptualise what he needs to do. Unfortunately for us all.

Ooh I'm depressed so I raped a young girl.
Bullshit

Sure. Build on all the green spaces. Breathing's for wimps.

We have legislation to protect the Welsh language resulting in most official letters and signs being bilingual.

Those who believe this is a good thing (many in my part of Wales- less so in the major cities) believe in teaching in the medium of Welsh.

For some reason they think it acceptable that native-born Welsh can't speak Welsh (choice) but think that English immigrants are destroying Welsh culture.

I don't much care but I laugh at the assertion that Wales (the poorest nation in GB with rubbish scores in education and health) are just waiting with open arms to receive thousands of poor refugees from other countries.

We can't take everyone. Shame Rwanda was binned as that seems to be the only solution and I bet something similar will end up being used.

Its an unbelievablely crass post, isn't it. That's why I dont think a woman is writing it.

They would be safe. Isn't that the point of asylum? Those who are genuine would be welcome, looked after and allowed to stay. If they have money they would be expected to pay for their keep.

Those who are not genuinely fleeing danger might not be so keen.

Is that racist in your book?

Would you prefer to allow anyone who would like to live here to come? Anyone? No limits on numbers? No requirement to contribute? Bring extended family here because they could have a better standard of living here than in Albania or wherever.

Is it racist to have borders or rules on who is allowed to live here?

The accusation of racism to anyone who asks questions about immigration is one of the reasons for reform's success. It should be possible to have a socialist humanitarian view while still believing that the country shouldn't have unlimited, unrestricted immigration.

Its a really common saying. Why dont you understand it?

Asylum applicants would need to pass the current intake interview and possibly further screening mechanisms in order to work. They could certainly be required to hold passports, which would be a step in the right direction.

The other issue is that without papers no one really knows where these men have come from, whether they are here to cause trouble or have medival views of women that are unthinkable in the UK.

They are fleeing for the lives (from France!!). When being interviewed they all want to come to the UK. They see free handouts, free everything and lawyers with their heads in the trough ready to help them.

What I think is clear is that they will almost definitely not be net contributors to the UK. They will have more children, they are likely to be in low paid work and claim benefits (having not paid anything in!). They are truly homeless and with the odd child that seems to be coming over will be knocking at the LA door asking to be housed. As they are homeless they go to the top of the queue.

Why are they told to throw their ID away? What have they got to hide?

What I came in to say, these are not women and children facing war, if they were last time I checked there is no war in France? But they leave plenty of other safe countries to get to the UK?

I think they need to prove where they are from and show evidence that they are genuine refugees. Otherwise they should be deported. If they have the wherewithall to arrange passage across the EU and then illegal boats then they should be able to prove where they are from.

Of course we can't take everyone. But saying that isn't a magic incantation that will summon a workable solution.

Rwanda didn't seem remotely likely to work given that a couple of hundred people at most would be sent there. Maybe Labour should have let it continue and show it failed but that would have cost £££

For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT in favour of unlimited migration or open borders. I am in favour of realistic policies that have a chance of working and of politicians who are brave enough to stop pretending there is a simple quick solution to boats, asylum and inward migration (which are three different issues). And yes, in favour of policies that would overall reduce migration.

So they can pretend they are fleeing a war zone

Agree (a lot!)

I assume the poster was talking about this guy who try that excuse and there really is nothing to discuss bar better tracking of people like him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43498151

Can we all agree that people without ID can be sent back?

Of course we can't take everyone. But saying that isn't a magic incantation that will summon a workable solution.

Rwanda didn't seem remotely likely to work given that a couple of hundred people at most would be sent there. Maybe Labour should have let it continue and show it failed but that would have cost £££

For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT in favour of unlimited migration or open borders. I am in favour of realistic policies that have a chance of working and of politicians who are brave enough to stop pretending there is a simple quick solution to boats, asylum and inward migration (which are three different issues). And yes, in favour of policies that would overall reduce migration.

You didn’t answer on not being allowed to settle and being used as a flow of cheap labour. Is that what you’re after?

Plus I thought asylum claimants often fled without documents / passports due to personal risk, are you now saying that’s not the case?