Hotels emptying

[cornflakecrunchie]

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

And instead, private landlords will snap up houses, probably in areas already flooded with migrants, turn them into HMOs and make an absolute fortune out of the public purse. They must be rubbing their hands together with glee.

It’s sickening.

But transferring them into private rentals costs just as much, if not more, and they cause problems for local communities. It's not solving the problem, it's just politics to make it look like Starmer is doing something. In our seaside town, we suffered badly in the 90s when the authorities sent bus loads of "undesirables" from cities etc into the empty boarding houses/bed sits, many being newly released prisoners. The effect on the town was catastrophic with anti social behaviour, increase in thefts and drunkeness, and drugs, etc. Our town was just getting on top of it with several initiatives to renovate the run down properties (at huge expense as many were burned out or vandalised), and working people/families were starting to move in, but now we're seeing asylum seekers being imported into these streets and the anti social behaviour is on the rise again.

But the numbers arriving need to be drastically reduced- how is that achievable? Sounds a great idea to have processing centres in other countries. That hasn’t happened and I don’t think it will.

What's a free flat/house if it's not a benefit??

Where do you think they are being moved to, and who do you think is paying?

Refugees that I have met include one working as a psychiatrist in the NHS, a plumber, someone who runs the education programme at a local museum and historic building and a surveyor.

All doing pretty worthwhile and useful things.

I disagree. The people coming are those with the means to pay the traffickers, the get up and go to decide to leave and actually do it, the ones with the skills to make the contacts and arrangements. They're not uneducated street urchins.

Maybe they're not surgeons, but they absolutely are intelligent people who want to work hard for a better life and thereby contribute. The system prevents them from doing that for too long after arrival, but that's not their fault (and is improving).

France seems happy to keep them on camps.
So does Jordan, turkey, Pakistan, India, etc are we more superior than them?

They will never smash the gangs! They just think up stupid schemes like one for one!

Obviously, or they wouldn’t be making their way here!

Have you met young British people? There is a large sense of entitlement which seems to preclude them from wiping bums and picking produce. And, yes, that is a generalisation - but I have yet to meet a 20 something who would.

Have you ever read a first person account written by an asylum seeker? About their journey and the kinds of people who facilitate it and the trauma etc? It could help you feel less angry. There are some good books around.

Nope. Labour suspended that a while ago. The family have to now apply through the normal visa route, which means someone has to earning a good wage before they can come over.

They often don’t have the money, though. They have loans from the gang master and are paying it off for years. Surgeons and the like will be applying via legal routes, satisfying the required criteria.

These are real people. Many are professionals, have families etc, young kids who have grown up in hideous hotels. It’s harrowing to hear their stories.

We need to help them, whilst cracking down on the criminal element and deporting them and treating seriously any incidents.

I agree we should have an asylum scheme, but I think the current system which prioritises those who are physically able to travel across continents through lots of safe countries is bonkers.

People who have tens of thousands to pay smugglers are not the most vulnerable.

As they won’t be able to afford it, they will still be coming over in boats-it’ll never stop, unless Governments sort it out, and the French are in no hurry to do so.

You can't apply for asylum from overseas. There's no 'legal route'. A person has to be physically in the UK to claim.

That may be, but many people don't have the money to pay the traffickers for a whole family. That's one of the reasons one person is sent, but now the UK has suspended the easier family reunion route, it may put some off or take away the ability to come over as a family until someone is able to support them.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

Exactly. They can only claim asylum when they have arrived, not before. If they were refused and continued to stay, they would become illegal. But the majority of asylum seekers are accepted. They are fleeing from terrible situations.

They are coming from France.

Labour stopping families won’t and isn’t impacting numbers but will mean most applying will be men.

That’s not correct. There are a number of legal routes available to those from specific countries, such as Ukraine and Hong Kong. The U.K. also takes people identified by the UNHCR as the most vulnerable.

It is illegal to enter the country on a small boat. It would be impossible to open a legal route for any asylum seeker from anywhere who wants to come here, as the numbers would be unmanageable.

You mean the asylum seekers often mostly men suffer huge trauma due those trafficking them. More men.

It’s not safe for women to come alone because of the men trafficking them. But not only do the traffickers attack and assault them other asylum seekers do as well. The very asylum seeker men we are supposed to accept with wide open arms and wallets.

Hotels cost. Food costs. Medical costs.

Bring in the women legally from their countries. Leave the men to defend and fix their countries.