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).

It’s called a silent war

The family reunification element and limited time?

I have ID
I have a passport and a driving licence

I was born here - I have plenty of official ID

I do not have to carry it with me either

I do not wish to have to show ID to anyone
I don’t want to have digital ID on my phone to do stuff that I can do now without it

I’m with you on digital ID scheme. Just deal with borders over that.

Anyone with half a brain would be against Digital ID

I don’t care if the illegal immigrants have to have it

but i see absolutely no reason as to why a British citizen who has a passport driving licence and probably other ID need to have compulsory iD.
I know who I am I don’t need to have compulsory iD and I can prove who I am without having Digital ID

it will start of as non compulsory and slowly be used for just about everything you want to do

So no Digital ID for me 😂
anyway I am voting reform and so are most of the people I know

I would like to vote for the conservatives I like Kemi but ….

These comments are just silly, frankly.

The people in many of the countries you have mentioned have always known that they are vulnerable due to their geographic location and political issues in their regions.

We know what is causing the current problem and, as I’ve stated in previous posts, there are obvious and pragmatic actions that the Government could take very easily to address this (without resorting to the kind of insane and unworkable nonsense spouted by the fanatics in Reform which are, frankly, laughable and would be given an E if proposed in a year 9 essay).

Why aren’t you engaging with responding about any of the sensible and pragmatic measures that I and others have suggested, which other countries have implemented, which are actually workable unlike the Reform fantasies? What’s the point in this kind of faux-apocalyptic rubbish if you’re not even interested in talking about solutions that are actually viable and would work, as they have elsewhere?

What a facile response. What do you think the purpose of ID cards is? Why do you think pretty much every other developed country has them and has done for many decades?

How exactly do you think this would be a problem for you? Why?

Agree. Big no from me too.

Because it is something i wont agree to
I have ID that I have paid for
that is sufficient

Im certainly not signing up for something I don’t agree with and don’t need

the labour government are already to authoritative to its own citizen so I wouldn’t trust them one bit

they need to get the illegal invaders sorted out first before forcing British Citizens to have to have compulsory ID

We know what is causing the current problem and, as I’ve stated in previous posts, there are obvious and pragmatic actions that the Government could take very easily to address this (without resorting to the kind of insane and unworkable nonsense spouted by the fanatics in Reform which are, frankly, laughable and would be given an E if proposed in a year 9 essay).

Could, yes, the Government could easily take action to address this. So why aren’t they. Could have, would have, should have isn’t taking action.

It is easy to punch down on the less educated people who are always the first to suffer, unfortunately they don’t have the correct wording to eloquently describe their feelings.

Instead of punching down, use your education to help them get through to the Government that “could” address the problem instead of dismissing them as people who suffer from a development delay worthy of an E grade.

I’d rather Australia’s system than patchy policies with a digital ID scheme.

It’s not pie in the sky, and no party will run on overturning it there. Even the left wouldn’t want to go back crossings and deaths at sea.

I don't think ID cards would be the answer. People here illegally will just have illegal ID whilst the rest of us will suffer the consequences.

Her proposals don’t properly address these issues:

1. they’re not sufficiently stringent regarding the criteria for family reunification to be considered (and even if it is, it must of course also be temporary and aligned to the time limit on the claim of the original asylum seekers to which their claim is attached so if the original claimant has to leave they all have to leave, negating any claims about how the original claimant can’t leave due to “family life” attachments here). The criteria need to be very strict and include evidence of several years of cultural integration, ongoing employment and having been self-supporting financially with no recourse to state aid for housing or income prior to being eligible for application to bring family members here, fluent language proficiency, character references from UK citizens who have known them for several years, full background checks on anyone they propose to bring before leave to do so is granted and evidence that they can house and financially support all of these family members with no taxpayer money even if these people fail to find work. If children or elderly they should also have to show sufficient funds to cover the additional family members’ schooling and healthcare costs. Her proposals most certainly do not impose such criteria, which are not at all unreasonable and are similar to those already implemented in Denmark and some other countries.

2. they include no detail for how people would be tracked and reviewed for the periodic reviews regarding whether to extend their claim or they should be returned, nor any details of enforcement mechanisms for this without which any legislative changes in this regard would be meaningless anyway;

3. they do not remove the right for anybody who arrives without prior approval ever to obtain permanent residency or citizenship of the UK at a later date - an essential deterrent to economic migrants posing as asylum seekers. Genuine asylum seekers would not be concerned about this, they’d just be grateful for the sanctuary for as long as it is required, with regular reviews;

4. they include no measures to address the UK’s huge problem with black market working which is a major draw and will not cease until we have ID cards and robust enforcement cracking down on any work taking place outside this;

5. they also fail to set out the necessary adaptions to where asylum seekers will be held during processing (it’s no good having limited time on granted claims if you still then have undocumented people here with no incentive to leave regardless of whether they are approved for a limited time or refused entirely, and us having no idea where they came from in order to return them, so as I said you also need a mechanism to deter anybody turning up without documents so that there is a proper disincentive to doing so).

It is the combination of these measures that would remove the incentive to come here without prior agreement, remove the incentive that economic migrants think that they can come for life pretending to be asylum seekers and then bring their entire family to join them despite not paying their own way, and remove the incentive for criminals to masquerade as asylum seekers by turning up without any paperwork.

Meanwhile, we should also follow Australia’s example and set a quota each year of an acceptable number that we will take, properly vetted and of our choosing from applicable countries, whom we can admit only once their claim has been approved and having thoroughly interviewed them in advance to ensure they understand that they’ll be immediately removed from general UK society to a processing centre for deportation if they break any of our laws. Their acceptance and understanding of our laws and social norms should be tested in advance. We can also ensure they have work set up to begin the day after they arrive in taxable roles where the UK needs employees, and that they arrive by normal means of travel, not dinghies. This way we can ensure we accept non-criminal people who are genuinely in need and genuinely want to contribute to and integrate into our society.

Many people don’t have ID. Driving licences aren’t universal and passports aren’t compulsory. These serve different purposes.

You have not answered the question about why you think having an ID card would pose a problem for you, given that this exists in almost every other developed country with no issue whatsoever. Why are you opposed to it, given it is well-established that it would cut black market working and tax evasion significantly as well as removing one of the major draws of illegal migration to the UK?

Yep
i think the illegals when being processed be given digital ID
but not for British citizens

I have sufficient ID all perfectly legal

if people don’t have sufficient ID then they are welcome to sign up for it by all means

I won’t be trusting this government not to make it compulsory for everything and anything you want to do

We do celebrations on all religious holidays and they all generally attend. There's a range of viewpoints amongst Muslim people just as there are a range of viewpoints amongst Christians.

You could change it by the UK stepping back from upholding human rights law. Which I would strongly oppose because human rights law affords us all a wide range of protections particularly applicable to women and children.

It would be the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But then it would be quite probable/possible that they would have illegal ID so a whole other messy situation for the rest of us...so no.

We can keep want we want and remove what we don't want

It’s not either/ or. I set this out in earlier posts I made specifically referring to the parts of the Australian system that could be implemented in the UK alongside other necessary measures: like ID.

This is ludicrous conspiracy theory fantasist territory.

I’m not aware of reports that the citizens of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea etc being “controlled” and repressed by their Governments just because they are issued with ID to prevent tax evasion etc.

That's not how the UNCHR works. Its a set list of agreed protections for safeguarding people adhered to by countries that observe it. You're either in or you aren't. Including protections around ensuring children have access to education, fair employment etc.

But for talk sake - you don't want people to have the right to claim asylum.

You realise that also means giving up your own right to seek asylum should we end up at war tomorrow? Which in the current climate is not massively unimaginable. People in the past have had to leave the UK due to crises before. Its a very short sighted strategy that leaves us vulnerable for future.

This is the false dichotomy that’s being set up by extremists on both sides but simply not true. You do not have to abandon human rights to implement the measures required to deal with this problem. Do you think people in Denmark have no human rights?

You seem not to wish to interact with me! Could you explain to me, where mine and my friends human rights ‘particularly applicable to women and children’ were during the late 90’s/early 00’s when our rapes, tortures, trafficking and murders were happening and being covered up by people whose only concern, just likes yours is, was cohesion and pandering to a culture who will never ever place the safety of women and girls, particularly white ones, above their own male centric ‘religion’.