Hotels emptying

[cornflakecrunchie]

..of asylum seekers..
On the news. Are we supposed to be impressed? They are just being shuffled elsewhere, aren't they?

The man who did the attack was British. Or do you have a problem because he was a black British man? I think you do. Oh dear.

The hero on the train is an Arab, probably Muslim. You know, that religion people like to slag off, saying their ways are different to our own and that women are not safe from.

It's the generalisation and demonising of whole groups of people that gets my goat, it truly does.

Seems a lot of people think that. I don't think it's acceptable. The children affected may well be the children of legal immigrants. Children who are growing up in this country SHOULD come first in terms of THEIR human right not to be attacked.

But seemingly that's not where we are as a country.

can you explain in which way you understand people to be able to legally enter the uk for the purposes of claiming asylum currently please?

The UK Government's first and foremost duty is to protect UK citizens. There are lots of sad things happening to many people across the world, but it's not our responsibility.

The old ‘sovereign state’ line. You’ll be telling us we need to ‘take our county back’ soon.

They've not protected us in years.
We'd have a working NHS for starters if they actually gave a toss.

It's not difficult. There will be good and bad people here legally. We have enough problems with child rape in this country as it is FFS.

Why on earth would we allow lots of illegal immigrants to come in from countries that think women don't deserve human rights. We don't have to let them in if they're illegal immigrants, we're choosing to, and these men commit sexual offences at a much higher rate than men who are legally here (be they legal immigrants or not). We are actively choosing to import men with no right to be here who have a higher risk of committing rape.

Why are people so concerned about men from war torn countries but not the thousands of children who've already been raped and tortured in the UK? With such a big problem already why are we importing high risk demographics?

We are a sovereign state, if we want to cut foreign aid we can

Well, legally speaking, it is our responsibility to give refuge to those who qualify. And many would argue that there are moral responsibilities too, given the way in which we have contributed in the past to some of the circumstances that are now causing people to migrate.

But we are not the only country carrying this responsibility in any case. Only a very small number of the world's refugees end up in the UK.

And we'd have secured the border and stopped the boats if they gave a toss.

The response of the privileged, “Sorry you’re dying but it’s not happening to me so I don’t actually give a shit”.

You do know you are 6 times more likely to be sexually abused by a partner or family member than you are a stranger. Should the government ban marriage to protect UK citizens?

Yes...

Be mad at the council and government decision to sell off and privatise both those sectors instead of innocent people who also have a need for those services?! It's a capacity issues because we have privatised what should be public services, not a foreign person fleeing horrors (dressed up by the media to be a giant benefits scam)

Inter alia.

The RNLI is a charity, which means, in case you’ve not cottoned on, it does not receive ANY state funding, but runs on donations. And I still pay my monthly direct debit to RNLI as I’m not an empty of compassion t*at who celebrates people drowning.

Isn't it amazing that I can identify which newspaper a person reads by their use of a single word?

There are vanishingly few legal routes unless you come from Ukraine or Hong Kong.

If they have been removed once and returned of course they should be removed again

So much misunderstanding on this thread - it has all been said before and again here but:
Asylum seekers are not illegal, they are pending their claim being processed.

The rights to claim asylum are under the UNCHR but also confirmed by U.K. case law , R v Uxbridge.

75% are still being granted within an ever tightened system.

We did promise Afghans who fought with us/translated for us safety - only some got here on the resettlement route in the absolute shitshow and aftermath of the fall of Kabul.

Main nations seeking asylum are from Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia.

Traffickers and smugglers take passports to help ensure payment, often in loan form, pressure any family in the home country, maintain control.

One Big reason for the wait is the huge backlog allowed to build up under the Tories.

The spend in asylum seekers is around 0.4% of total government budget - less than their percentage spend on expenses.

The percentage spend of the RNLI saving people from small boats - not that it is even relevant to their remit is 1.2% - and this might be offset a bit by the big increase in donations when people complain about this issue - heartwarming.

The main money out of this itself goes to fat cat hotel owners not the asylum seekers, as there’s the backlog and a mess made forcing more accommodation to be needed, and ‘business’ people, often Tory friends saw an opening.

The government is in charge of immigration so even if there were no asylum seekers your local council would not be housing any more homeless - which is a more complex topic.

Think where you would feel most comfortable to reset up an entire life if fleeing the U.K. - would you stay in France when you speak the language in Australia? When you have relatives in Greece?

And no they’re not all just fit for care - many have other and high level qualifications that just need conversion to U.K. approved - the BMA for example is currently helping around 2,000 refugees convert medical qualifications.

Asylum seekers often ultimately bring net benefits to the U.K. including economically when allowed to work - the determination to get across the world in a precarious and dangerous way implies they will focus and succeed.

Despite all the above actually I would think basic decency means you don’t want to harm a particular section of humans under any circumstances- but would prefer to handle issues humanely. This is the society we all live in right now - let’s be a decent one for all our sakes.

The government should arrest and charge citizens who break the law.

And also not import masses of unchecked foreign ones.

Data from Norway, Sweden and Denmark is clear.

Or maybe if people stopped posting bullshit on social media demonising asylum seekers then they would be seen as less of a threat

How many would you happily welcome into your home?

How many would you happily see drown in the channel?

This thread is full of sorts of people who were protesting to stop Jews coming into the country in the 1930s. The same old arguments were used there as are used now. It’s all about dehumanising people, blaming them for things that are nothing to do with them, “othering” them, usuing pejorative langague, accusing them of just wanting to get their hands on your money.

100 years on, same old shit

Weren't labour opening up new legal routes? Do we know anything more about this?