AIBU to think the PM is ignoring the asylum issue?

[BusyDog]

I’m firmly working class, and I don’t believe that what we need is to spread the asylum seekers around more. The reason I’m annoyed is not because I don’t want them housed by the middle class, but because I think it’s completely ignoring the problem. I think we need secure detention centres whilst the country either approves the application or sends them off home. These will be safe, food provided, clothes, play areas for the children. The accommodation will have the basics like temporary housing does but they can’t leave until application approved or sent home. But they can’t leave and roam UK unless their application is accepted. Anyone who is violent etc and makes it not safe will automatically be sent home.
I liked this prime minister as I thought he had both feet on the ground, but it seems not….!
If he admits it’s not fair only working class has to deal with it, then surely, he admits it’s a problem and he’s not actually addressing it?

YANBU = PM ignoring actual issue
YABU = Issue is that only working class have to deal with them

How?

As I said before many nations don't have the right to asylum/refuge law. They just ignore the claim, hold them as an illegal migrant till the eventual deportation.

Does the "fighting age" phrase refer to the age at which men would be expected to do military service. So they are dodging their responsibilities to their own country.
It might also mean that they are of an age that they could be expected to fight against tyrannical dictators if they wanted to overthrow them and live in a peaceful democracy.

Yes, but the UK does have asylum/refugee laws and that may, or may not, change in the coming years. The government has to be prepared.

Perhaps it’s time for Labour to eat humble pie and institute the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan. If Rwanda will still do business with us.

I think most people know what it means and why the terminology is used!

We have to just change it. I absolutely love what Hungary does. Just marches them back out to the border

Rwanda would have at least been something but no the all mighty labour party scrapped it

If Labour do as pledged and smash the gangs but still have this issue and people object as ever Australia can lead to way on how to deal with it. All parties are cracking down -

No matter which political party is in power, the window for using student or temporary work visas as an easy stepping stone to claim asylum in Australia is rapidly closing. Future applicants will face much higher entry barriers, immediate loss of work rights upon a rejection, fewer pathways to appeal, and an increased threat of swift deportation

Have they published this evidence ?

Shabama Mahmood has made a difference -more than any previous Home Sec- remember it was Blair who started immigration in large numbers 1/3 million initially annually wat back in 2003. So millions have arrived here with little controls. SM has negotiated with Germany to stop storing small boats ( now they are sending big boats via the UK according to the Times), paid more millions to France to do ??something, stopping families accompanying care workers, stopped many student visas ……… but still they come. She is wanting to stop right to remain after 5years for the millions that came during Boris tenure but the back benchers want to allow them to stay and have rights to benefits and housing. At least she is trying.

Loads of these supposed ‘asylum seekers’ aren’t genuine asylum seekers. They are economic migrants. And the ‘gangs’ are facilitating their illegal entry into the UK. Which is why Labour promised to ‘smash the gangs’. Of course that never happened though did it? Along with so many of their other promises eg ‘country first, party second’, and ‘all our plans are fully costed’…

You’ve completely missed the point. We’re talking about people who come to the UK and apply for asylum (whether they turn out to be genuine or not). A large proportion of these people do not travel to the uk by boat and have nothing to do with criminal gangs.

An image of over 200 mostly men on a large inflatable raft is going to be striking. If it continues it’ll cause Burnham issues.

But if they stop that and the public wonder why they’re still being asked to house people in barracks I expect it would be similar to Australia. Pressure would mount to fix that.

Yes that is really worrying

I want to stay away from them but it does feel like there is something deeply sinister about all this and evil

Take 3 million asylum seekers out of houses and off NHS waiting lists. Give British people a chance of having a home and in time lowering taxes making life more comfortable. If people have a home they have foundations for a good a prosperous life.
People like you refusing radical change to fix the country are part of the problem. We need immediate changes to help working class people affording to live. Taxes and food prices would also come down with less people in the country.
We can't just keep letting countries like France walk all over us.
The country needs to stop being a charity and wasting taxes. Paying off some of the debt is basic maths.

They’ve looked at the tendering documents which are published on the government website. Anyone can do the same. Long term planning is part of good governance and applies to all policy areas. It typically ensures better terms and better value for money in procurement. It does not meant that the relevant services/facilities will definitely be needed for the full term of the procurement period.

The costs of our debt servicing would dwarf any apparent gains in freeing up housing and public services. They’re not even comparable in scale. The cost of living crisis would deepen further in a trade war. The problem with populist policies is that they are alluringly simplistic, but simply do not consider the consequences.

@BermudaRhombusas nothing can be done about risk and crimes (Eg Belfast, Rhiannon, Brighton, Germany, other countries) would you just keep the system and accept that collateral risk?

Ok fair point.

Yes, I like her.

There is a very skilful and well resourced fear mongering campaign in operation that is successfully terrifying the population. We are told that the immigrants are ‘invading’ and ‘swarming’. That they are all ‘fighting age men’. Someone earlier described them as a ‘sea of rapists and murderers’. Many people have stopped even thinking of them as human beings. We are then encouraged to vote for a party that promises to protect us. It’s the oldest trick in the book. I’m happy to look at any policies that are put forward, but we have to do a proper critical analysis on them. Operation Fortress will not work and will put us in an economically dire situation - yes, actually worse than it is now! That will have knock on consequences for funding our public services, housing and all the rest of it. I personally won’t vote for that.

Ok but this isn’t really an answer. You can accept crimes happen because the system cannot vet, you’ve seen them. Is it worth keeping the system?

Serious Immigration has gone on for 23 years - you can blah blah about scare mongering but like anyone in the U.K. now I can see that the country is stuffed and that bringing more in to feed, house, educate, healthcare is a foolish and unfair burden

As I said, if someone has a better policy (and I’ve explained a few times why Fortress is not a better policy), then they should present it for everyone to consider. I don’t believe in magic though and am sceptical of anyone who claims to have easy solutions. As it stands, things do look to be improving under Labour (albeit slowly).