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).

How cringeworthy. I've seen some people with signs "Refugees Welcome", but that's a whole other level of nonsense.

Quite right they will be criticised when they are seen holding a baby up by its one arm with no life jacket. What on earth is a baby doing in there with all those men. I asked on here if that photo was legitimate and I was told it was.

Appropriate choice of attire. Embarrassing doesn't even cover it.

Bingo.

That was such an upsetting picture.
Further down there was a toddler, already soaking wet. They were leaving France, fgs!

I don't think there is anything baffling about it. The Internet has enabled the world to see how other people live. Do you think they don't have internet in Syria or Somalia? Furthermore, word of mouth from other immigrants about how in the UK they'll give you a cheap council house and pay you to have children and there's a whole raft of other benefits the government will give to you for free. Even if you don't get them initially, once you've scored your ILR and then full citizenship, you can plug into also sorts of things funded by those mugs, the British taxpayer, like free medical care on the NHS. They probably get jackshit from the country they are coming from...

I remember reading a story on the BBC about two brothers that had done the crossing - one drowned - because their father needed an operation they couldn't afford.

It's all about the money. But when did the UK become a Charity?

It is a myth that asylum seekers are never housed in "middle class areas". Simply not the truth.

I think decisions about where to house people should be made according to a range of different criteria, including (but not limited to) cost efficiency, local infrastructure, existing pressure on local services etc. I don't think the class background of local residents should really be a deciding factor.

The more interesting question is why there is a suggestion to house them in middle class areas.

Is this actually just a dressed up welfare concern? That putting them in "middle class" areas rather than "councilly" Britain First areas might be safer for them?

Normally the same people who screech trans women are women

i live in a very popular liberal leftwing city
parts of it are rough but ok
but in recent years certain areas that were always fairly mixed are now dumping grounds for asylum seekers

lots of HMO and all the men do is hang outside the leisure centre intimidating women who walk past

Middle class areas are less likely to vote Labour.
Not everywhere, but many will not.

The PM will not care if they are in non Labour voting areas. They won’t affect the outcome of a General election.

Anyone who arrives on a boat should be sent back immediately, but how can that even be achieved?

Is the USA experiencing an influx of ME people? Where did you read that and aren’t they simply migrants. Why do you think people migrating to countries founded on immigration (USA, NZ, Australia etc.) must be a coordinated effort?

A hotel near where I live, in a leafy Cheshire suburb, is one of those earmarked to close. It’s hard finding out information about the nationalities who were housed there, how many were housed there (estimated 50+ but not official) how much it has cost taxpayers and where they’re planning on sending them.

I wonder that as it’s mostly young single men that are the issue, we should consider ways of admitting families and women, rather than young men by themselves, who are much better behaved when they have female family members around.
And no, I haven’t fully thought through how it would work , and neither do I have data backing up my assertions here. I also think the rules around the right to work are an issue too.

Why are you assuming all migrants are poor and moving for council housed. A lot of those middle eastern / north african immigrants in the countries mentioned will navigate the exact same immigration system as Brits, Irish and Norwegians.

People are always insisting that wealthy people support asylum seekers because they “don’t live anywhere near them” so this shares the load.

We should process them off shore ( where I don’t know and don’t really care as long as it’s not in the uk)

the moment they land they are fingerprinted etc and then moved to a secure place till they can be moved to an off shore processing place

make it clear they will never get a British passport even if they qualify as an asylum seeker they will never become a British citizen / passport holder and no family allowed to join them

change accessing any sort of benefits and social housing linked to having a passport which they will never get ( see rule 1)

do lots of social media adverts let them know this is what will happen no appeals

and I wouldn’t use a hot country to process then I would look for the coldest nastiest island I could find 😂

just make it as unattractive and uncomfortable as possible

Not quite on topic but shows how resources will be even more strained and the stats not reflecting the causes.

Labour have made it much harder for women and children.

But possibly expert at not paying their way

No, he has a duty to house them as cheaply as possible to minimise recourse to public funds.

Disused military camps or similar are ideal. And those should be closed camps, no access to British public while their claims are processed.

Because it’s deliberate policy, part of the UN Migration Pact. I believe Theresa May signed the UK up to it, they would just rather people shut up about it.

FYI by “middle class areas” he means areas that are still majority white.

Class discussions are always stupid I’m unsure what class I’m in personally I earn minimum wage but am partial to the m and s bakery which I’ve been informed makes me middle class.

If he did genuinely start housing migrants in more expensive areas it would cost the tax payer even more than it currently does and many would be asking why they get to live in expensive areas for free when ordinary Brits could never afford to live there.

This would make sense if they were being sent to rich Labour and Green areas, but I'm not sure the people who "support asylum seekers because they “don’t live anywhere near them”" tend to be found in the Tory heartlands. If that's where they're all being sent, it smacks much more of punishing people who vote for the opposition rather than trying to send them where they'll be welcomed.

But as he clearly understands that having a huge asylum camp on your doorstep is a very bad thing, it does beg the question why doesn't he just do something to stop them altogether, so none of us have to suffer. However much they earn, and whoever they vote for.