Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Labour's new policies for asylum seekers

994 replies

frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 07:51

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Overthemhills · 17/11/2025 10:31

@EasternStandard

Asylum claim numbers pre 2002, or at any point in time pre-Brexit, has nothing to do with Brexit or UK returns policy. People coming and people going are two very distinct things to be simple about it.

The total numbers of people arriving claiming asylum doesn’t speak to the numbers we could or did remove under the Dublin Convention. I’m sure you know that the DC wasn’t a removal policy for “every” claimant.

So while there’s no correlation with who arrives here and which party is in power/how restrictive immigration policy is, the UK leaving the EU closed down some capabilities it previously had and so far has not made any new arrangements (well, aside from the one in one out still in it‘s infancy) .

Asylum claimants have always come here via various transport means and it’s at the UK borders (as it were) that either their claims can be “fast-tracked”, dealt with via the Third Country Unit (that was under the Dublin Convention), dealt with by a certification unit or processed in the way that most people will be aware of i.e. detained while claim is assessed, released with reporting restrictions (and possibly therefore “housed”).

The latter is supposed to be those with potentially genuine claims (who don’t automatically qualify for asylum e.g. under policies that automatically allowed grants of asylum (which are or were ;country and time specific) on arrival.

in fact is often people who are stuck in a backlog for consideration and probably on a longer list if their country of origin is either harder to return to because of safety or, more likely, negotiations between the UK and countries of origin in agreeing travel documentation.

Before 2002 most asylum claimants to the UK came from Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Serbia and Montenegro, Rwanda, and China. I remember a lot of claims from safe countries too - Albania for instance.

I don’t work in the HO any more so rely on the good old internet for anything in the last 9 years - the figures for the UK top asylum claimants are reportedly Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran.

The difference between what the countries of the top asylum claiming nationalities around 2002 relates of course to what was happening in those countries at that time.

But the international situations and those successfully arriving in the UK as opposed to being detained in Italy for instance, has nothing to do with the Dublin Convention unless those claimants claimed asylum in a European country prior to arriving in the UK - it was usually directly flights or travel by lorry at that time, so less demonstrable that the person had chosen to depart to the UK from a safe country (France). It has to be demonstrable where someone comes from as well as who they are (and whether they travelled through an EU country where the Dublin Convention might have applied) or they are going nowhere. We can’t make people stateless.

The implementation of the principle of “return to the country where one claimed asylum first” (the Dublin Convention) by any other signatory State is not something I can comment on - I don’t know why either Germany or Ireland does or doesn’t do whatever they could do. I haven’t worked for either government and I’m not an expert on the world’s asylum systems.

The UK also lost Eurodac with Brexit which was an effective method of ascertaining criminals entering and also in facilitating removals to third countries by successfully identifying that the individual had already made a “third country” claim (ie the country the person first claimed asylum in).

Behind all of the legal routes though are practical considerations, such as which countries accept returnees either on travel documentation from the UK and which countries don’t comply easily with UK requests for assistance with issuing Emergency Travel Documents or of those discovered to have criminal convictions (eg France won’t often accept such returnees).

We can’t return people without travel documentation - but we could return people to third countries if we had Eurodac hits without travel documentation, leaving it to Italy or Spain or whichever country they claimed in first (who might have better relations internationally with the claimant’s country of origin than the UK does) to process the claim and obtain travel documentation.

Some of what doesn’t get reported on (travel documents) is the biggest hold up of removals from the UK. Airlines won’t carry undocumented people.

Eurodac and the Dublin Convention was a tool in aiding removals, gone at the moment because of Brexit. I’m sure the UK will endeavour to modify the situation eventually.

HearMeOutt · 17/11/2025 10:31

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:22

That’s not your fault, English oppression has resulted in the people of your country being denied the right to their own culture and heritage. As an English person myself, I can only wholeheartedly apologise for everything my ancestors did to your amazing people, and I hope that you gain your independence soon. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

😂

oh stop it

LilyTheLD77 · 17/11/2025 10:32

frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 10:16

There is no requirement that you stop in the first safe country you step foot in.

Almost all the boat people are not coming from war torn countries.

They are coming from countries and cultures that have very different views on human rights however, particularly women's rights.

Why don't you invite some of them into your home and get to know them - after all that's what your wanting your country to do?

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 10:33

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:28

And how exactly do you know that those people aren’t British? Is it because they look a certain way? Is that it?

Disgusting.

Its not disgusting. I thought we had all grown up a bit and got beyond this name calling.

Rexinasaurus · 17/11/2025 10:33

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 09:37

To the contrary, I know that the United Nations, the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, MSF (aka Doctors without Borders), the Migration Observatory at Oxford University and numerous other sources have good research refuting this claim.

Still waiting.

Absolute Nonsense. That’s just not true I’m afraid. Can’t debate with someone who’s only sees what they want to see.

Tiramisutully · 17/11/2025 10:34

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:20

Yes, we are a global community and nobody in this day and age should be putting ‘British’ people first, do you have any idea how racist that is?

The fact of the matter is, borders should not exist. The only reason they do is so that greedy Gazillionaires can control the population by making us all hate each other when otherwise we would all be thriving together in a better world of love and tolerance. So no, putting anybody first from your own country is not a policy we should be entertaining.

Are you seriously trying to say that the British taxpayers money shouldn’t be spent on British people first? It’s not racist to want to spend British people’s money on British people. It’s so laughable that you think otherwise!!!

Thank goodness the views you espouse will never have the power to be enacted, because no one in their right mind would vote for a party that proposed what you seem to be proposing.

IstillloveKingThistle · 17/11/2025 10:35

HearMeOutt · 17/11/2025 08:17

Why is it racist to say our country is overpopulated to a disastrous degree and we cannot continue to take half a million people a year?

Hear hear

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:37

HearMeOutt · 17/11/2025 10:30

How many British people do you know that live in hotels? Don’t be so disingenuous

Love that your outrage isn’t asking what happened to the girls, but then that sums up what’s going on here

These things happen up and down the country on an hourly basis by white British people, so I don’t find it particularly interesting because it happened to have occurred at the hands of somebody from Eritrea. In case you didn’t know, you are more at danger from your husband and brother in law, than you are a poor refugee fleeing Albania. Would you be in favour of deporting your husband?

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 10:38

Overthemhills · 17/11/2025 10:31

@EasternStandard

Asylum claim numbers pre 2002, or at any point in time pre-Brexit, has nothing to do with Brexit or UK returns policy. People coming and people going are two very distinct things to be simple about it.

The total numbers of people arriving claiming asylum doesn’t speak to the numbers we could or did remove under the Dublin Convention. I’m sure you know that the DC wasn’t a removal policy for “every” claimant.

So while there’s no correlation with who arrives here and which party is in power/how restrictive immigration policy is, the UK leaving the EU closed down some capabilities it previously had and so far has not made any new arrangements (well, aside from the one in one out still in it‘s infancy) .

Asylum claimants have always come here via various transport means and it’s at the UK borders (as it were) that either their claims can be “fast-tracked”, dealt with via the Third Country Unit (that was under the Dublin Convention), dealt with by a certification unit or processed in the way that most people will be aware of i.e. detained while claim is assessed, released with reporting restrictions (and possibly therefore “housed”).

The latter is supposed to be those with potentially genuine claims (who don’t automatically qualify for asylum e.g. under policies that automatically allowed grants of asylum (which are or were ;country and time specific) on arrival.

in fact is often people who are stuck in a backlog for consideration and probably on a longer list if their country of origin is either harder to return to because of safety or, more likely, negotiations between the UK and countries of origin in agreeing travel documentation.

Before 2002 most asylum claimants to the UK came from Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Serbia and Montenegro, Rwanda, and China. I remember a lot of claims from safe countries too - Albania for instance.

I don’t work in the HO any more so rely on the good old internet for anything in the last 9 years - the figures for the UK top asylum claimants are reportedly Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran.

The difference between what the countries of the top asylum claiming nationalities around 2002 relates of course to what was happening in those countries at that time.

But the international situations and those successfully arriving in the UK as opposed to being detained in Italy for instance, has nothing to do with the Dublin Convention unless those claimants claimed asylum in a European country prior to arriving in the UK - it was usually directly flights or travel by lorry at that time, so less demonstrable that the person had chosen to depart to the UK from a safe country (France). It has to be demonstrable where someone comes from as well as who they are (and whether they travelled through an EU country where the Dublin Convention might have applied) or they are going nowhere. We can’t make people stateless.

The implementation of the principle of “return to the country where one claimed asylum first” (the Dublin Convention) by any other signatory State is not something I can comment on - I don’t know why either Germany or Ireland does or doesn’t do whatever they could do. I haven’t worked for either government and I’m not an expert on the world’s asylum systems.

The UK also lost Eurodac with Brexit which was an effective method of ascertaining criminals entering and also in facilitating removals to third countries by successfully identifying that the individual had already made a “third country” claim (ie the country the person first claimed asylum in).

Behind all of the legal routes though are practical considerations, such as which countries accept returnees either on travel documentation from the UK and which countries don’t comply easily with UK requests for assistance with issuing Emergency Travel Documents or of those discovered to have criminal convictions (eg France won’t often accept such returnees).

We can’t return people without travel documentation - but we could return people to third countries if we had Eurodac hits without travel documentation, leaving it to Italy or Spain or whichever country they claimed in first (who might have better relations internationally with the claimant’s country of origin than the UK does) to process the claim and obtain travel documentation.

Some of what doesn’t get reported on (travel documents) is the biggest hold up of removals from the UK. Airlines won’t carry undocumented people.

Eurodac and the Dublin Convention was a tool in aiding removals, gone at the moment because of Brexit. I’m sure the UK will endeavour to modify the situation eventually.

This is a lot but your line on ‘you don’t know why Germany and ROI don’t use it’ is your clue. It’s not a mechanism to remove a large number of people. It is not a deterrent anywhere.

There’s strict criteria to a return and the person needs to be accepted.

No country uses the DA to resolve the migration issue.

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:39

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 10:33

Its not disgusting. I thought we had all grown up a bit and got beyond this name calling.

Name calling is all the white working class understood and it overwhelmingly helped keep them in line. Until recently that is, now the shameless can’t even muster enough shame when they are called racist or xenophobic.

Dollymylove · 17/11/2025 10:39

Teanbiscuits33 · 17/11/2025 09:29

According to the world and his dog France should just take every last one of them. No need to flee there 🤣

France has enough of their own. The UK can’t keep making it someone else’s problem. I agree it needs to be more controlled but that’s everyone’s simple solution ‘stay in France’ 🤣🤣 it’s not realistic.

Perhaps the UK would do well to set a yearly limit of how many we are willing to accept.

Edited

France doesnt give out the tax payer funded goodies like we do.
Give them a tent like they do with British homeless men

Rexinasaurus · 17/11/2025 10:39

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:37

These things happen up and down the country on an hourly basis by white British people, so I don’t find it particularly interesting because it happened to have occurred at the hands of somebody from Eritrea. In case you didn’t know, you are more at danger from your husband and brother in law, than you are a poor refugee fleeing Albania. Would you be in favour of deporting your husband?

So you don’t understand proportionality either. Makes sense.

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 10:42

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:39

Name calling is all the white working class understood and it overwhelmingly helped keep them in line. Until recently that is, now the shameless can’t even muster enough shame when they are called racist or xenophobic.

Now now. No need for snobbery

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 10:44

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:37

These things happen up and down the country on an hourly basis by white British people, so I don’t find it particularly interesting because it happened to have occurred at the hands of somebody from Eritrea. In case you didn’t know, you are more at danger from your husband and brother in law, than you are a poor refugee fleeing Albania. Would you be in favour of deporting your husband?

We need to deal with our own.
We don't need to import more.

Iocanepowder · 17/11/2025 10:44

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:28

And how exactly do you know that those people aren’t British? Is it because they look a certain way? Is that it?

Disgusting.

Sorry, are you asking me how i know the men from the hotel who had to be arrested weren’t British?

-They were in the news
-Local police reports
-Local witnesses

LlamaNoDrama · 17/11/2025 10:47

I'd give up anything if it meant my children (or I if it was just me) could be safe. I suspect anyone who genuinely needs to be here would do the same. A cheap phone can easily be bought later if you need to stay in touch with anyone. What's the point in a family heirloom necklace if you're dead?

Tiramisutully · 17/11/2025 10:48

Iocanepowder · 17/11/2025 10:44

Sorry, are you asking me how i know the men from the hotel who had to be arrested weren’t British?

-They were in the news
-Local police reports
-Local witnesses

When reports sasay ‘Eritrean Man’ it’s a little bit of a clue that they aren’t British.

Swiftasthewind · 17/11/2025 10:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Teanbiscuits33 · 17/11/2025 10:51

Dollymylove · 17/11/2025 10:39

France doesnt give out the tax payer funded goodies like we do.
Give them a tent like they do with British homeless men

Homeless British people are offered housing and often either refuse it on the grounds it is not good enough for them, or they are kicked out of any accommodation they are provided with due to anti social behaviour or drug problems.

A relative of mine just made himself homeless on the basis he didn’t want to stay in perfectly serviceable accommodation offered to him after a relationship breakdown because it didn’t meet his exacting standards, and he’s now sofa surfing blaming the LA for not finding somewhere better. People often make themselves intentionally homeless and then make out it’s other people’s fault.

Out of curiousity, how do you think sticking these men in tents is going to stop them apparently committing swathes of violent and sexual crime that people keep banging on about? I mean, it’s almost as if being in disadvantaged positions doesn’t make criminal behaviour more likely, and I don’t see how tents vs hotels would reduce crime or make the community feel any safer.

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 10:51

TheDreamCrusher · 17/11/2025 10:30

One night last week I read the news that a 20-something Egyptian asylum seeker dragged a woman into woodland and raped her. The next morning I got up and pulled up the news and 3 20-something asylum seekers had dragged a woman onto Bournemouth beach and gang raped her.

That night, Labours victims minister and Jeremy Corbyn’s sidekick massively diluted these crimes by illegal immigrants and that made me realise that I will have to hold my nose and vote for Reform if I want this to stop.

Labour won’t stop them.

Edited

The crimes absolutely do need to be minimised and those soundly convicted should be deported.

But this should be part of a comprehensive package of improvements to the asylum system. Processing applications quickly would be an important start. Allowing applications from outside the UK would be another - some on this thread don’t seem to understand that you must be in the country already in order to apply. One way or another that necessitates a lie.

Similar employment conditions to the US, Canada and most EU countries would help keep asylum seekers gainfully occupied. I wouldn’t mind if asylum seekers were dispersed to areas of national need to work as long as they were fairly paid and could live decently, with help provided to integrate into the community. If I were in that position I would welcome the trade off, compared to what I have seen about asylum hotels and the so called food many provide.

The UK has lower population density than Turkey, the Netherlands and Belgium. Germany has 85% the density and takes on the order of twice the refugees. We have room. We do need the economic growth to sustain them.

Excluding Greater London, the population density of the UK is lower than Germany and greater than Switzerland.

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 10:55

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 10:51

The crimes absolutely do need to be minimised and those soundly convicted should be deported.

But this should be part of a comprehensive package of improvements to the asylum system. Processing applications quickly would be an important start. Allowing applications from outside the UK would be another - some on this thread don’t seem to understand that you must be in the country already in order to apply. One way or another that necessitates a lie.

Similar employment conditions to the US, Canada and most EU countries would help keep asylum seekers gainfully occupied. I wouldn’t mind if asylum seekers were dispersed to areas of national need to work as long as they were fairly paid and could live decently, with help provided to integrate into the community. If I were in that position I would welcome the trade off, compared to what I have seen about asylum hotels and the so called food many provide.

The UK has lower population density than Turkey, the Netherlands and Belgium. Germany has 85% the density and takes on the order of twice the refugees. We have room. We do need the economic growth to sustain them.

Excluding Greater London, the population density of the UK is lower than Germany and greater than Switzerland.

The population density must be different between Scotland, Wales and England. Where is England in that table?

Is it the highest in Europe or close to?

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 17/11/2025 10:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I think you're over egging the pudding now.

Iocanepowder · 17/11/2025 10:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

What are you on? Seriously.

As an example, the news and police reports confirmed one of the men arrived on a small boat and was from Iran. And was living an asylum hotel. What about that are you reading ‘he might be British’.

DebbiesKitchen · 17/11/2025 11:01

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 11:03

LlamaNoDrama · 17/11/2025 10:47

I'd give up anything if it meant my children (or I if it was just me) could be safe. I suspect anyone who genuinely needs to be here would do the same. A cheap phone can easily be bought later if you need to stay in touch with anyone. What's the point in a family heirloom necklace if you're dead?

Why are you acting like the uk isn’t safe?😂

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread