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).

Yeah I’d be interested to know that stats on the current hotels. Are they less frequently in “middle class” areas? There was a migrant hotel a 5 min drive from the small middle class Berkshire village I live in. You couldn’t have one in the village unless you’re proposing spending a lot more money actually building a new facility - there isn’t a hotel or a nearby unused military base etc.

And like your experience, we had no issues from the hotel, we actually used to live nearer to it in the nearby (also middle class) town it was in, and it never caused me any problems. Wouldn’t bother me if it was reopened.

Although I don’t think that faffing about with the location of the hotels is going to solve any of the actual issues. Whether you’re pro totally open borders, or think all immigrants and asylum seekers should be stopped completely or are anywhere in between, “I’ll move the hotels” is not remotely a solution. It’s a distraction that gets everyone het up bickering amongst themselves. There shouldn’t be people in hotels, or military bases, for god knows how long.

I’m what some people might describe as a bleeding heart lefty and even I think we need to be accepting less of these young male illegal economic migrants. I will strongly defend the need for immigration, and I work in a very international industry that has been negatively affected by government making it harder for skilled and highly educated immigrants and their families to move here
for the sake of scoring points and looking ‘tough on immigration’. But IMO it’s completely naive to imagine that importing large numbers of single jobless males from highly patriarchal countries, who are not really requiring asylum (and in fact are coming here from a safe country i.e France), is going to be safe.

Am I wrong in thinking that the duty of the State and the PM is the safety and security of its citizens. Letting in unvetted people and releasing dangerous criminals before their sentence is up, does neither.

Agreed @Nomoreicecream

I think if most sensible and empathic women opened their homes to an asylum seeking male and kicked their nasty anti-immgrant, right wing husbands out onto the street, there wouldn't be any need for housing them in massive HMO's or hostels.

Are there any prominent Green councillors/activists who could help organise a campaign to raise awareness on this matter?

The middle classes are the ones who appear to be most welcoming to migrants, so yes, they should absolutely be housed in their areas. Spread the happiness 😊🤗😁

Haha Henley & Thame might have been Lib Dem last election but it’s been Tory since day dot before then. They even elected Johnson in his pre-mayor days. It’s really not what you’d call a Lib Dem area.

Recollections may vary.

However the anti working class attitude loud and clear.

It must be difficult but not impossible to do a DBS check if they volunteer

To answer the original question, yes asylum seekers should be distributed fairly ( but who is to work that out 🤔) across whole country, rural, urban, rich and poor areas. To place the majority of asylum seekers in poor urban areas, where resources are already stretched is going to cause massive problems.
It's no good certain sectors of society having sympathy providing the challenges caused are placed elsewhere. Everybody can come up with reasons why their area is a particular exception but it isn't fair to place the biggest proportion in. the areas of highest social deprivation.

It’s limited by current laws that we’re signed up to. So if the electorate want change they need to give mandate to opt out via votes.

Labour won’t do it as it’s not within their remit.

Good idea.
That could solve the problem of all these sexually frustrated undocumented young men (who are so full of testosterone that they have to sexually assault and rape our women/girls/children) and give them a purpose in life.

How about you contact the Green Party and find out how you can set up such a system ?

Yes, one of my colleagues was insistent that refugees worked for a local food bank.
We did question it.
It turned out not to be true.

I don't think bringing other areas down is a great choice.

As a ‘middle class do gooder’ (literally my job is working with people with LD and Im
resoundingly middle class by any metric that can be applied), I can’t recall a time where I’ve even once been asked to vote for or against ‘stupid numbers of migrants’.

How would legal routes help the male economic migrants with no skills to offer as they wouldn't be accepted.

I think the government should house its actual citizens in a home, regardless of location before illegally entered undocumented people. Us the money left iver to create mental health services and hospitals to reduce homelessness in the first.place. once this is done and people arent dying of malnutrition and cold, then start offering free housing to non citizens in need.

What's the problem? Diversity is a strength.

Where I live land, property and accommodation are very very expensive, ridiculously so. That makes it quite 'middle class' except for the small amount of historic social housing. Purchasing land or buildings or rooms for immigrants here would be economically irresponsible for the local council or national government, it would cost five times what it would cost elsewhere. Nothing to do with NIMBYism, just economics.

What beggars belief is that to travel abroad I have to - quite rightly - show my passport, do fingerprint/eyeball checks, pass through Immigration - answer questions about length of stay in some places.

And yet, men about whom we know nothing are allowed to roam free. Even when something is known - previous rapes or other criminal activity - they are still housed and not thrown out in their ear.

Furthermore, the “we do not know where they come from” line. Surely you just do a phone check - and find that they’ve been speaking to their mother in Somalia or wherever. There just seems no will do do anything.

😆

Have you ever voted Reform?

@museumum in city near me the council proudly trumpeted they had purchased and done up homes for asylum seekers. Only in a really desirable street of £1m+ Georgian houses!!

of course not

Ours definitely did. I volunteered too, so I saw them. They walked 3 miles there and three miles back as the money they got wouldn't run to bus fares.

They did the heavy shifting and work packing parcels, never dealt with members of the public so didn't need a dbs.