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?

Illegally and without paying tax while claiming benefits, yes

There was no judgement where a chicken nugget preference was used to prevent deportation. In fact a judge explicitly said chicken nuggets should not form part of evidence against removal.

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/a-useful-political-scapegoat-how-human-rights-play-out-in-the-uk

There are loads of constructive debates to be had!

Just a few from me:

• when helping an asylum seekers here costs 45 times more than helping closer to source (£25,000 p.a. vs $600 ish), is it morally defensible to divert funding from the many to the view just because of proximity? (Asylum costs and aid come from the same budget)
• is a broken asylum system squandering public appetite for any type of immigration, leaving us even more screwed when it comes to addressing our public finance and demographic problems?
• is it democratically legitimate that the state's legal obligations in some cases exceed our duties to our own citizens in need?
• treating genuinely asylum-seekers generously is good, but attracts abusers, making it less likely that any given asylum seeker is genuine. How to set the incentives right to ensure our help goes to those who need it?

Those are just questions from someone who's basically pro-immigration. Other peoples' views are valid too. Dismissing topics as undebatable because disagreement equals bigotry is corrosive to civic life.

Apols meant to quote another post

No they haven’t.

If we choose to be such mugs that we attract them like flies to honey, that’s very much on us and France are the unwilling vector. If anything they’re a victim of our suicidal empathy.

My mother is in a home. Her house which she struggled to pay the mortgage on-took a second job-has been used to pay her care home fees. The money raised from this has almost gone.

They took her asset to pay for her care and she cleaned houses until she was 74. I am angry at this but see the logic.

So, yes take all assets-every single one from every single illegal chancer. Is there any reason not to do so?

If there is a reason not to do this, should that reason apply to my mum as well and if not, why not?

They have time to grab their money to pay to cross the channel though.

We have no need for low skilled uneducated men, who can’t speak English. We’ve already got low skilled and uneducated people, currently not working, who we can use for unskilled positions. We just need the lefties on Starmer’s back benches to allow a benefit overhaul/reform. Plus AI is on the march currently and will all but get rid of middle type admin jobs, which will of course push up unemployment. I think many people underestimate the effect AI is going to have in the future. Trying to access immigrant heirlooms will have little or no effect, because the immigration lawyers will be all over that. Absolutely fed up of these crumbs that Labour are putting out there to try and appease the growing call for action re immigration. Their current attempts are verging on pathetic.

But at 8.17 am you said the figure was 500,000 per year. My post was a response to yours. Whatever one thinks of the true figure, it is quite a bit less than what mistakenly stated as fact.

I am not singling you out. I have already addressed similar assertions and am coming to a much more egregious one.

We need to have a national discussion about this. There are valid concerns and there is room for debate.

But it can only be productive if it is grounded in fact. Politicians with a personal agenda are tell very bold lies tapping into people’s worst fears and prejudices. To call that unhelpful is a massive understatement.

How on earth can you lay this at Corbyn's door? Unless I missed him being PM.

That’s the total immigration figure (on the low end actually) which this forms part of. And is the worst part, IMO. The others have followed legal channels for the most part.

I am not the PP to whom you asked this question but I will make a point.

All those organisations you have listed have a vested interest in this disgrace, every single one of them has an agenda.

So. stop trying to make yourself look like a second rate academic by demanding "sources" and instead ask why you are so gullible.

That might suit you better and be a more fruitful use of your time.

Because he has rabble roused for years now, making out this is some bizarre choice between ‘asylum seekers and evil billionaires’ and is the human embodiment of that stupid ‘stolen cookie’ image. He tells the public they can have everything for free ‘if the political will is there’ and uses this as a Trojan horse for his sinister foreign policy. Zack Polanski is doing the same. They con artists.

Ok but they really won’t have these assets. People aren’t turning up with much more than clothes and a life jacket.

Labour are spinning on this one for the public, it’s a pointless distraction.

Sorry, think it´s a pointless task. Ending up with crates of used phones and small items of jewellery worth very little isn´t going anywhere.

And why can we not seize their assets. My late Father paid £££ for his own care and I was told to sell his house which of course I did.

Why on earth do we allow these mainly young men to keep their own goods. They also seem to grab their money whilst running out the door but not a passport of in fact any sort of ID at all. Funny that.

I happen to be an academic and not a second rate one.

I notice you have not provided any sources either. Funny, that. So at present we have some unsourced name callers vs Oxford University and at least one Nobel laureate. Not a difficult decision for me.

I’m all for stopping the boats, but piercing boats whilst in the water is never going to work. It would be classed as inhumane, and the UK would be tore to pieces by the ECHR as well as all other civilised countries when there are dozens of bodies being washed up on the beaches through drowning. But we should have some agreement with France that the boats are slashed before they even leave their shores. More policing of the coast of France would help massively, even if 50/50 France and UK.

People often throw phones away before arrival as it can lead to traffickers. They are advised to do so by them.

Then what? Labour think taking a necklace is doing what exactly, what else is there to take

"But Jeremy Corbyn" 🙄

Makes a change from the posters obsessed with trying to lay all the cause and effect of asylum seekers and migration at the door of the present government, I suppose.

I just don’t think they’ll have anything you can take.

What assets are you envisaging?

But how has that influenced policy? Did the Tories amend immigration policy due to Corbyn's influence? Has Starmer?

I am no Corbyn fan, or Polanski fan for that matter, but what you are posting is a bit out there tbh.

Ok. So the chicken nugget debacle may not have been the right choice to reference my point. But the facts remain, the ehrc is continually being used to prevent policies being implemented. Rwanda? The current one-in-one-out Labour policy? All stymied by the ehrc.

I agree OP. It’s despicable how they are trying to out-far right the far right Reform Party. It’s scapegoating a tiny fraction of immigrants for the damage done by successive governments to the economy and defunding of the UK’s public services. I am furious that the general public have fallen for this line of nonsense.