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?

They pay thousands to cross the channel on small boats. If they have the means to do that then they are not poor and we need to stop ignoring the fact that they pay to enter the country in the first place. If they can afford this and still hold on to their sentimental jewellery how much money do they actually have?

OP - your first problem is you're reading and believing what's in The Guardian.

Your second problem is thinking that people coming to the UK from France are fleeing a war torn country. Literally none of them are fleeing a war torn country

Imagine you are feeling a war torn country

France is not a war torn country.

What sort of message does that send?

Hopefully not to get on dangerous boats and risk their lives fleeing war torn France.

There has to be more consequences to deter these swathes of men. Most are not from war torn countries, most are economic migrants and it needs to stop.

Because many of the pro illegal immigrant lot dont have to live in close proximity to these hotels/HMOs. Like the Green Party deputy leader who welcomed refugees with open arms until she discovered they were being put in an army camp in her town.
Oh the irony 🤣🤣🥰

Your framing of this is very interesting. "Because you don't think people deserve to have them" is several degrees of spin away from "because the government incurs costs to support these people and if they are able they should contribute to those costs" which is a principle applied across the gamut of social and economic policy and has been at the heart of the Labour movement since its inception.

You are also hyper focusing in your rhetoric on individual items of jewellery of putative sentimental value rather than the broader question of assets - as framed by the words of the politician in question.

Again, we don't apply a "sentimentality" test when we require local people to divest assets to meet costs - whether it be for care, or to qualify for benefits, or to pay bills. You must be aware that the (largely but not completely flawed) idea that there is one (tougher) rule for local people and another for those who have just arrived is the source of enormous discontent and division in the country.

Dismissing the idea that those asylum seekers who have the ability to pay should make some contribution to those costs as racist/Nazi/disgusting (delete as appropriate) fuels that discontent.

I agree with a lot of what has been proposed in that I don’t think asylum seekers should automatically get to stay indefinitely if/when their home countries become safe and I’ve said all along, they should be able to work and contribute to the economy while waiting for their claims to be processed because it’s absurd they aren’t currently allowed to, but I think taking jewellery away from people who already have next to nothing is abhorrent. I’m a Labour voter but I have no problem criticising them. There’s no need for it at all.

And all under the watchful eye and approval of the ECHR - those on the left should be delighted.

Just watched Good Morning the Brazilian man and who appealed not going back to Brazil because the prisons in Brazil were horrible. He had raped a 5 year old for hours. The judges here let him stay instead of sending him home to pay for this crimes. He had offended here now 🤮

we are completely finished

Where did anyone say all that?

Can you explain the difference between using assets to fund care and using assets to fund accommodation?

Also, why the hyperfixation on jewellery?

This pretty much sums up the state of the UK now.
These judges need to be accountable for the decisions 🙄

Well said.

It's exactly this OP: "Again, we don't apply a "sentimentality" test when we require local people to divest assets to meet costs"

Because we’re stealing the very few things these people have. They’re fleeing war torn countries.

At present employment for asylum seekers is highly restricted: their claim must have been in process for a year and they can only work in shortage occupations - I don’t know what the official name for the list is.

You might think this would include jobs on the highly skilled visa list (and there might be some overlap) but generally the jobs are different. Eg my asylum seeking friend with excellent STEM qualifications came here urgently because of a political threat; in the usual way he could have got a skilled worker visa. But because his family applied for asylum, when he was able to apply for jobs and he got the list, the jobs were farm labourers, fishing, etc. His application for employment has been in process forever and if it is granted he will apply for anything. But British jobs in his field are unfilled; he had a successful career in his home country; and he cannot apply for them.

In almost all other Western countries people seeking asylum can apply for work after no more than 6 months.

So you’re against the jewellery idea in principle because you think it’s exactly the same as what your dad had to do, which you think was wrong? Ideally you would say neither situation should happen?

Do you honestly believe that everyone coming over on the boats is fleeing war torn countries? The pp comparing with her Dad is spot on except her Dad paid into the system all his life and still has to sell assets for his care. How many people do you think we can support for free before this country collapses?

I think the policy as described is horrible, but then I don’t have any problem at all with immigration (in fact I think we need much more of it if our economy is ever to start growing). So this policy isn’t aimed at me. Will it stop me voting Labour? At the moment, no. The alternatives are even worse.

so pragmatically, my main objection to this policy is that I doubt it will change the votes of people for whom immigration is a big concern.

Anyone on this thread who previously did not support Labour - will this and the other current proposals make you likely to vote for them?

People who need care are ill, frail and one of the most vulnerable groups in society. How is it any different?

I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction, and not thought through properly.

However, they are arriving illegally and many of them have deliberately “lost” their passports. They have also paid huge sums of money to traffickers to get here, despite starting off from the continent, via many safe Countries.

It has been proven, time and again, that many have criminal records, a lot of them have caused trouble in the areas in which they were accommodated and the cost of accommodating them is unsustainable.

I don’t have a problem with legal immigration, but I think that our Government makes that way too hard.

If they made some changes to their legal immigration policies, then I would have no problem with all illegal immigrants being held securely until their claims are processed, but many people think that they shouldn’t be detained - even though they have arrived here against our laws.

Which, when you think about it, isn’t a good start for people hoping to remain here legally - when will they start to respect our laws?

Omg.

Can anyone defending a more relaxed immigration policy comment on this?

How is that enforced? Are people prevented from buying in certain areas? If you’re Danish and your selling your house and moving out of the area, and the highest offer you have is from an immigrant, are you forced to reject it if the Danish population in the area is dropping too low?

We’ve had 7 million immigrants since the Millennium and our economy is shite, so your answer to that is ‘far more immigration’ despite the fact we are now the most populated country in Europe bar the Netherlands?

At this point it's worth quoting from the article and what was actually said:

Norris defended the confiscation of valuables from refugees, telling Sky News: “At the moment, the British public pay billions of pounds a year so that those seeking asylum, or those who have already failed in their applications, can be supported in their accommodation and their living.

“It is right if those people have money in the bank, people have assets like cars, like e-bikes, they should be contributing. No, we’re not going to be taking people’s heirlooms off them at the border. But … people have cars. People have e-bikes. Those are assets they should contribute to the cost of benefits.”

Asked if jewellery without sentimental value could be taken, Norris said people should wait for Mahmood to set out the plans to the House of Commons on Monday afternoon.

Pressed on whether the likes of wedding rings could be included, Norris said: “In the instance you’re talking about, no, of course not. If someone comes over with a bag full of gold rings, well, that’s different to what I said about the heirloom.”

The country operates a fairly clear principle of those who have assets contributing to their own costs. Can you explain why someone who (may have) had an extraordinarily difficult time abroad should be treated differently from someone who may have had an extraordinarily difficult time in the UK?

If you can do so without using hackneyed phrases like "war-torn" that would be even better. Not all asylum seekers arrive here with nothing, and neither have they all fled war.

If you OP end up needing care, for instance, or your income vanishes and you have to sign on, or this happens to any relative of yours, you will have to give up your assets. The state won't fund you. They stripped my Grandma down to less than 6k before she died, after a lifetime of work by herself, left a single mum when my grandfather died very young.
Nobody cared if they had sentimental value. Her home and little garden had great sentimental value, but it all went.