Starters idiotic 40k Immigration scheme

[Wellwhatnowbellaboo]

Wtf... maybe I'm not understanding this correctly. If you didn't get asylum you get given 40k IF YOU LEAVE? And if you don't? Do you still get to stay jn hotels etc.? I'm sick to the eyeballs of this weak government's lack of taking a strong stance. Every other European country is doing better than us. I'm not saying asylum should never happen - but we are bending over backwards while our own people are suffering. My DF mother paid taxes and worked all her life ... she has to sell her beloved small family home to pay for her care- but we'll give money and what else to illegals ? This country's decisions is making my blood boil. Point based immigration where we add to jobs that we struggle to find local talent I've got zero issue with - its fair. It's time we wake up - and uv you think IABU explain why plse ....

I'm sorry, did the UK colonise Albania?

Syria?

Afghanistan?

Turkiye?

Eritrea?

Iran?

Iraq?

Vietnam?

Brazil?

These are all countries with high rates of seeking asylum in the UK which were never British colonies.

And it's referred to as 'illegal' because it is. It is a criminal offence to enter the UK without an appropriate visa or to remain in the UK after an appropriate visa has expired.

Syria, Iran, Irak:
SykesPicot agreement
US-UK backed coup of Mossadegh
etc

It isn't. It's more like over 1% and is 20% of the entire budget for 'foreign aid'.

And is totalling billions a year and rising.

The total UK government budget for the financial year 2024-2025 was roughly £1.29 trillion.

That poster thinks if you say 'just a small bit of the budget' which it is, that it somehow doesn't matter that it costs billions.

If you give someone 10k and make them pinky promise not to come back….. what do you do if they do? Take the 10k back? How? You can’t. And people will know that. I’m not saying they’ll end up with another 10k. But it certainly won’t stop them coming back.

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention
The crossing over to the UK might be irregular, but then claiming asylum is not ‘illegal’.
There are very few ways to claim asylum prior to arrival in the UK.

This post would only make sense if your mother was being asked to sell her home to pay for an asylum seeker.

She isn’t, she’s being asked to use money that she has (in an asset) to pay for something for herself.

I really wish we could stop calling human beings “illegals” or “boat people.”

I also do believe that if your asylum hasn’t been granted and you don’t have a visa then you shouldn’t be paid £10k to leave, because the assumption should be that you’ll leave anyone as you have no legal right to be here.

There is just a far more civilised way to have this conversation without resorting to hyperbole (money and “what else”) and dehumanising people.

But it’s up to £40k and you are missing th e point we should force them to leave and give them nothing. It’s bad enough we have to pay to process bogus claims and send them back!

@SleeplessInWherever perhaps then we should call them criminals - people who have attempted to try and live in our country who have no legal right to be here. Could you compromise on calling them border criminals?

Of course it will draw more like flies, family i
of 4 come on holiday & dont leave. The asylum process can take 1 to 2 years, meanwhile the children get a free education, housed, health care plus an allowance, then if they fail go home with 40k

Only 0.5%of the GNI was for Foreign Aid in 2024, and is supposed to fall to 0.3% by 2027/28. 20-29% of the Foreign Aid is spent on refugees in the UK.

The UN recommends 0.7% Foreign Aid for developed nations.

Not British colonies. Ever.

Your post I initially responded to said people should focus on wealth inequality in the UK and not blame asylums seekers.

I said it's a huge issue across Europe and that other countries with reduced wealth inequality like Denmark had been taking harser measures and you said:

"Asylum seeking and the problems its creates is an issue across Europe: they are consequences of colonial exploitation. The former colonial powers should acknowledge their financial, moral, ethical obligations. They colonized and called themselves ‘expats’, the asylum seekers coming in return - often fleeing horrendous circumstances - are called ‘illegals’.

So I pointed out to you the high rates of asylum seekers in the UK who are not from formerly British colonies.

Not sure where you're going with this argument.

And what 'horrendous circumstances' are people from Albania, Brazil, Vietnam for instance 'fleeing'.

I can’t see our useless government being able to bake a tray of cupcakes, never mind implementing a sophisticated finger print system to stop them trying again and again and doubtless many will get away with it.

Like I said, they wave middle aged men through who claim to be 16.

anyway isn’t this Mahmoods idea? Not Starmers?

I’m the opposite

at least OPs mother actually contributed to the UK treasury

Provided we’re accurate about it, maybe.

Their method of arrival is illegal, but claiming asylum is not. So once they have arrived, their “legal right to be here” starts and ends with the asylum process.

Once they have stated that they’re wishing to claim asylum, they do have a right to be here. Until that process has been followed.

If that process confirms that they’re not granted asylum, then I’m with you - they should leave.

Is there a reason “asylum seekers” won’t do for you?

So if we pay them £40k to go where do they go to and how do they get there?

surely oaying them as cash lump sum doesn’t change any of your very valid points?

What’s your alternative plan then, OP?

And this is why the government have announced no more student visas from three countries where the ‘students’ just don’t go home. Most of the families living on support arrived with a visa and no intention of going home. They invested in getting here and paying them off to go home seems like a quick win.
I agree the message and the long term effects make this a terrible idea. But we do already have this scheme. It’s been going for years. It’s more like £3k to people who depart voluntarily.
The only thing that works is detention. Anything else is just tinkering. But people don’t like detention -especially for children (and ‘children’).
People who have lost their claim and should be removable aren’t able to be put on a plane for complex reasons. While they are here there are umpteen loopholes in benefits and housing policies which allow them to remain supported. Until they have been here so long they’re effectively unremovable. Then they get indefinite stay (and go home for a visit).

It's billions of pounds. Do you know how much money billions of pounds Is?

What point are you trying to make? because I don't understand.

Posters say it costs the UK significant amounts of money and you say not really, it's not a huge part of spending when as a percentage it isn't but a small percentage of trillions is billions.

The UK government itself acknowledges it is huge expenditure of tax payers money that is being wasted and taking steps to address and reduce it and you're sitting behind your computer saying 'no it isn't'.

I mean, what?

RN destroyers in the Channel, probably.

She did, and if she had no home, then I'd be perfectly happy for my taxes to pay in full for her housing and care now. However, she has a house that she has no further need of, and in much the same way as if she'd been moving house she'd have used the money in her old home to fund her new one, so she should use her house to fund her home and care now.
This isn't about the OPs mum losing out after a life time of paying in. She will get her care. This is about the OP expecting the tax payer to pay so she gets a windfall in the form of her mum's house. OP hasn't worked for that.

Nor have the people who are being given this incentive either though

You can split hair and try to deflect… in addition to ‘formal British colonies’ the UK was heavily involved otherwise, therefore Sykes Picot and overthrow of Mossadegh was mentioned.

For those querying identification a simple Google question told me:

Biometric Process: While the £40k is an incentive for voluntary return, it is intended to operate alongside existing biometric procedures. Failed asylum seekers will have already had their biometrics taken, and the scheme aims to ensure they do not return, using biometric data to track them if they do.

True. But I'm assuming you want them to leave the UK, which people believe to be of benefit to society. The OP inheriting her mother's house brings no benefit at all.

It’s not ‘wasted’ , ‘the West’ is obliged to pay Foreign Aid due to centuries of exploitation of other people.