To ask if you think the prime minister has a democratic duty to house asylum seekers in middle class areas

[CurdinHenry]

By which I mean, would most voters support this as opposed to a change in policy to refuse in greater numbers? I honestly can't tell what "the majority" actually wants. I would prefer fewer having seen how things went in Germany thanks to the Merkel wave but I am willing to believe I'm a backwards old boomer and a majority would be more welcoming.

They (UK governments) tend to say they have no choice due to the echr but this isn't true. There are a lot of operational choices they could make (eg sometimes when people are denied entry at the border they are actually allowed into the country for a few days and instructed to report back to the airport when it's time for the removal flight).

There was an excellent thread about this, but it filled up.

I guess this one will give people another chance if they missed out

But just suggesting that you have a look for that

It featured quite an outbreak of common sense!

I’d prefer fewer asylum seekers in the UK but yes, I think it’s only right that their are spread over all socioeconomic areas, so that the champagne socialists who vote for more immigrants actually have to live with the consequences of what they vote for - positive or negative.

The UK have many options within ECHR - they could take a look at Danish policies to start with.

I would prefer fewer and I don’t think that migrants should be spread around the country on military bases. I live in a middle class area and we have loads of migrants, the ones that stand around together near the bus station, no females or children just young men.

Maybe the whole thing is the workings of those who want an ultimate socialist state. To create a true socialist state you need to create agitation in the lower and middle classes driven by lowering life styles that ultimately end up in revolution against the wealthy. The whole thing is a self imposed denigration of western life styles. Refugees are being used by those on the left to create Marxist change.

Discuss

Conditions)
Marxism states that a revolution cannot just be wished into existence; the economic system must be physically ripe for it. 1, 2]

• The Needed Input: Extreme class conflict, deep economic crises, and a situation where the capitalist infrastructure can no longer sustain societal growth. 1, 2]
• What Hinders It:
• Capitalist Adaptation: Capitalism stabilizes itself through reforms (like the welfare state, labor laws, and minimum wage) that soften economic misery and prevent absolute poverty.
• The Globalized Economy: Imperialism and global trade allow wealthy nations to outsource their worst exploitation to developing countries, keeping local working conditions tolerable enough to suppress outrage. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

1. The Psychological Input (Subjective Conditions)

Even if the economy is failing, workers must actively realize they are being exploited and choose to fight back. 1, 2]

• The Needed Input: Class consciousness, meaning the working class recognizes itself as a united front with a shared political goal to seize control of production. 1, 2]

Referring to it as “middle class areas” is just political point scoring. We should be housing asylum seekers where it’s most economically efficient to do so, which is a fine line between somewhere with affordable accommodation and somewhere with sufficient services that money isn’t wasted ferrying people to and from things like schools, doctors, community centres etc in taxis, and people can be adequately supported. But having a specific aim of increasing the asylum bill by buying up expensive land and housing in affluent areas just to be able to say “middle class people should also have to live next door to asylum seekers” is facile.

Are you actually suggesting you think the majority of the public want more illegal immigrants and you’re out of step wanting fewer? If that’s right can you explain why you think that? Reform were topping the polls for over a year.

Fwiw I’m in the south east in a pretty leafy rural area and we’ve had a hotel full of small boat immigrants for 3 years. The school and nursery had men trying to break in, farmers had increased thefts and break ins, the church got taken over by some who the Home Office kicked out of the hotel, I had men taking photos of my kids and me, the park was trashed, girls were getting followed off the school bus, the GP receptionist was being threatened. It’s been shit. No one cares least of all the MP. There’s nothing for the men to do, they’re bored out of their minds, they know they’re not welcome but that the locals are sitting ducks.

So it’s not a new thing that the government in dumping very large groups of these men in all sorts of different types of areas not just inner city ones.

Maybe we need a referendum on immigration … oh wait!

Of course. It is middle class do-gooders who keep voting for stupid numbers of migrants, whilst sneering at the lower classes who object because they feel the impact. High time that everyone shared the consequences. If it is a positive thing, as claimed, there will be no problem.

Yesterday's thread covered all aspects of this, for the most part in a sensible way with both views defended.

I'm very much against any more illegal immigrants and or asylum seekers of any sort from anywhere coming here.

The PM sees knows it is a bad thing otherwise he wouldn't be saying we have to take our fair share-suggesting it's a burden- he'd be saying that he wanted everyone to benefit.

By "Middle Class Areas" the government means "White Areas."

One of the middle class leafy suburbs near us has a hotel used for refugees. They're a mixture of nationalities and ages, including some families, very keen to volunteer for things like food bank so they can put back into the population.
There has been no crime increase, no sets of "single men hanging about" etc.

They were moved there from a working class area due to the racist violence and abuse they were suffering there.

At the end of the day it's a matter of cost. If we are going to house asylum seekers while their claims are processed I would prefer it to be in secure premises (surplus military bases are ideal) and processing be as rapid as possible - days rather than months. The majority of asylum claims are denied and should be followed with swift deportation to country of origin or, if that is not possible, to a 3rd party country who is willing to take them until deportation to country of origin is possible.

Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status should be dispersed around Europe - everyone needs to bear the burden.

How lovely that these superior beings have chosen to live amongst us and that they are now protected from the white working class.

They have the democratic duty to stop them from arriving and start mass deportation, using a holding centre while they run mh assessments and as much background information as possible.

We’ve had more than enough arrests where the person has a string of convictions done very serious in other places in Europe.

i can think of 3 immediately in Ireland where the arrested person has previous convictions for rape in Europe.

No more re-housing, when is it going to stop? There’s rumours of a similar event to Morocco for mid August, 50,000 dash.

Europe has allowed mass immigration badly for too long. They’ve rejected the save Europe act that has over 600,000 signatures. They’re not interested.

Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status should be dispersed around Europe - everyone needs to bear the burden.
It happening in every European country. The dailymail prints it, in Ireland the media is silent although bus loads of single men are being transported up and down the country, same as the majority of other European countries, except Poland and Hungary. Denmark is pushing back as it’s unrecognisable.

The Ireland situation is interesting. Why are the government staying silent on it do you think?

I just don't understand why we keep doing it. I'd take a really hard line and not take any single men at all. I don't see the point of all the downsides of Brexit and we are still taking the bad things (uncontrolled borders and those stupid bottle top tethers). The fact that it keeps happening when it seems so stupid makes me think I must be out of step because if I had the power to decide we would be emptying all those guys out toute de suite.

@CurdinHenry no you are not out of step, loads of people feel like you.

I suspect you are living in an area that doesn't support your views, though. Some areas are just bonkers and class and colour have nothing to do with it.

And I hate the bloody bottle tops as well 😂

To keep the peace. It’s a two tiered system, similarly to the UK. When a white man commits a crime his name, photo, etc are reported, when it’s an issue caused by the new immigrants it’s a random mental health tragedy, no description.
Knife crime, sexual assaults, intimidation has gone through the roof, if you notice you’re a racist.

I live in a very diverse community, my neighbours who were once seeking asylum aren’t afraid of being called racists, they can see we’re not taking in good people, many are running from prosecution. Many have opioid addiction, it’s all hush hush.

We’ve once of the worst pair of government oppositions in a cosy coalition running the country.
National debt has increased near tenfold.

It's not as simple as 'middle class areas' though is it? What about London for a start - who would even know who is an immigrant and who isn't?

Also, Clacton has virtually no immigrants - legal or illegal - but they vote for Farage. What's that about then?

It's simply not true that Reform voters are the ones most likely to be affected by illegal immigration. Loads of Reform voters who, in their day to day lives - barely clap eyes on any form of immigrant, let alone an illegal one. They just watch GB News and that's enough for them.

There is a perpetual conflation on these type of threads between immigrants and asylum seekers. This country actively needs immigration we don’t have enough doctors, nurses, social care staff and many other skilled occupations. These immigrants- of whatever nationality or race - pay taxes, that contribute to social benefits such as pensions, schools etc. Asylum seekers are seeking asylum; refuge from war, persecution etc. I’ve met asylum seekers from Syria who underwent horrific torture, rape etc. and who are now contributing to this country by working and being part if our community. Don’t lump everyone together. And please accept that some people are genuinely fleeing appalling situations, and we as an advanced nation have a duty to offer refuge, as we have done for hundreds of years. Look up Belgian refugees in WW1.

I've read that a few times on these threads before, asylum seekers/refugees working in food banks.
It must be very strange to claim asylum somewhere and yet work distributing food to the needy. They must wonder why food banks are necessary.

The country needs to train more professionals rather than poaching them from less well-off countries, though. That leaves those countries with a shortage, and they had less money in the first place to train their medics.

Yes, I agree with this.

I am fed up with all the people on MN who call anyone who objects to the boats being called racist when they have no interaction with the people who arrive here illegally.