Labour……I really tried but have now given up!

Boz

Are there are live-in job these days, that would suit asylum.seekers?
I was reading that a problem is looming because so many AS are put out on the streets, after a period of time, to fend for themselves. How do you do that without a job and a home?
If they start allocating council flats, trouble will arise.
If I was standing in Calais, waiitng for the next boat, I would turn back.

Yes but thankfully you're not. When it was suggested that AS might like to work, it was shouted down here as they were viewed as unskilled and a risk. All of them.

Babs03

@Cadeby
The truth is that our country is a first world country thanks in no small part to the contribution of immigrants, from the Irish Navvys who helped build our bridges and railways, to the Indian workers who saved our cotton mills, the black Windrush population who manned our buses and trains etc., and the many, many immigrants from around the world caring for us in hospitals and care homes. And that is to name but a few. Am sure others could expand upon this.
Even now our government are recruiting abroad in parts of Africa etc.,for teachers, doctors, and nurses.
We need immigrants, always have, always will, and those I know who came over recently and have been processed are already working, most doing more than one job.
But of course immigration has become a scapegoat for bad governance so when a PM or government are scrutinised nobody mentions the NHS, education, the environment, the care system, poverty etc., all that draws people’s attention is immigration.

Well said, good to hear someone quoting facts.
I would like to add that Over 2.5 million soldiers from the Indian subcontinent fought for the British during World War II, which was part of the Allied Nations. This included troops from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The British Indian Army, also known as the Indian Army, started the war in 1939 with around 200,000 men, but by August 1945 it had grown to over 2.5 million, making it the largest volunteer army in history. Around 1 million of those soldiers were Muslim.
Also many from Africa and other countries around the world.

Boz

Are there are live-in job these days, that would suit asylum.seekers?
I was reading that a problem is looming because so many AS are put out on the streets, after a period of time, to fend for themselves. How do you do that without a job and a home?
If they start allocating council flats, trouble will arise.
If I was standing in Calais, waiitng for the next boat, I would turn back.

Asylum seekers get 30 days grace after acquiring refugee status, during this time they can look for a job and housing etc.
Contrary to popular belief, 80% who have been here for less than 5 years rent privately, they don't get priority for a council house/social housing. Council housing has always been available for them to apply, but they have no priority, they join the queue like any other citizen, hence why most of them end up renting privately.

🤣🤣🤣

Callistemon213

Whitewavemark2

Callistemon213

But assuming I agree with you. I would be a bit stupid to give up on the government after one month don’t you think?

What gave you the idea I had?

I hadn’t - it was sort of combining your comment with the OP.

Why?

Just because

Iam64

I haven’t read anything about operation scatter.
It’s been policy and practice for many years to ‘disperse’ asylum seekers. Many are sent to northern area because rents are cheaper. Then they’re dispersed again. Eg asylum seeking family of mother and 2 children from a war torn African country. Dad killed there because he had the wrong politics. Mum and children placed in Kensington, Liverpool, an area with many African families
Mum and children dispersed again to live in a small town in the north west. It’s well known as a very”white’ area. Not a single other African family nearby. Child the only black child in her school. Austerity = no family centres or supports. Area means no other asylum seekers or black people. Mum has to get the bus to a town 8 miles away to buy familiar veg;food. Child asks me if I go to Church, is it a black church. They’ve been to 3 local Churches but didn’t fit in, they’re getting the bus to Liverpool to go to church

Let’s hope Labour doesn’t deliberately set out to isolate and further traumatise. I’m more confident this government gives a dA*m

This is exactly what I meant.

I can’t find anything verifiable about a so-called ‘operation scatter’ or changes to council housing policy.

I’m not paying paywalls, or taking anything from twitter as truth.

I’m sure, if these stories are true, they will be made freely available to all via verifiable main stream media.

My source is Shelter.

Callistemon213

Thanks Siope.
The OP content is erroneous then.

I'm not sure where all this mythical Council housing is anyway.

I don't know if it is, because I don't know whether it refers to all immigrants or some, which is what I am trying to clarify

More generally, I should also make a huge mea culpa: the Tory proposals for 10 years residency were not enacted (as with so many other of their vague plans).

Presently, the law is that immigrants - which, to repeat, does not include asylum seekers - can apply for social housing if they have (sorry this is long, but may as well make the legal position currently clear):

- British or Irish citizenship
- indefinite leave to remain (ILR)
- refugee status or humanitarian protection
- settled status under the EU settlement scheme
- right of abode as a Commonwealth citizen
- a visa that allows you recourse to public funds

What does 'recourse to public funds' mean?
It means you can apply for help with housing or benefits if needed.

Examples of leave to remain that allow recourse to public funds include:

- Ukraine family scheme visas
- Homes for Ukraine sponsorship visas
- Afghan relocations and assistance policy
- Afghan citizens resettlement scheme

What if you have 'no recourse to public funds'?
You cannot get council housing or most benefits in the UK.

This affects many people from abroad including:

- people seeking asylum
-work permit holders
- international students
- people on partner visas
- visitors and some other types of limited leave to remain

So, OP, can you please let us know what these new criteria are going to be, and if they will override in any way local rules and procedures? And, very importantly, how they will vary from the law as it stand now?

Callistemon213

Thanks Siope.
The OP content is erroneous then.

I'm not sure where all this mythical Council housing is anyway.

Yet to be built I’ll wager ( yes, I am reading a Regency set book at the mo)😁

I haven’t read anything about operation scatter.
It’s been policy and practice for many years to ‘disperse’ asylum seekers. Many are sent to northern area because rents are cheaper. Then they’re dispersed again. Eg asylum seeking family of mother and 2 children from a war torn African country. Dad killed there because he had the wrong politics. Mum and children placed in Kensington, Liverpool, an area with many African families
Mum and children dispersed again to live in a small town in the north west. It’s well known as a very”white’ area. Not a single other African family nearby. Child the only black child in her school. Austerity = no family centres or supports. Area means no other asylum seekers or black people. Mum has to get the bus to a town 8 miles away to buy familiar veg;food. Child asks me if I go to Church, is it a black church. They’ve been to 3 local Churches but didn’t fit in, they’re getting the bus to Liverpool to go to church

Let’s hope Labour doesn’t deliberately set out to isolate and further traumatise. I’m more confident this government gives a dA*m

Thanks Siope.
The OP content is erroneous then.

I'm not sure where all this mythical Council housing is anyway.

That’s politics, elect a new PM to change things then hate him for the changes he’s making, exactly like Macron in France. Changes need to be made, they have been left a lot of debt, Tory and Reform supporters are not going to be pleased, nor those receiving benefits they don’t need.

Callistemon but those are two separate issues, surely?

At present, as far as I understand it, immigrants with a residential visa (whether Temporary Leave to Remain or Indefinite Leave to Remain) - which does not include asylum seekers - cannot apply for social housing until they have been resident for ten years. The OP reads as if Rayner has proposed scrapping or reducing that residency period.

Asylum seekers have no right to remain and are not deemed to be residents. Once their claims are processed and it's been determined that they are refugees, then they do.

Callistemon is right that new immigrants need to be with their own communities where their support systems are, but I give the govt credit for being able to work this out for themselves so assume that the policy won’t be so blunt as reported.

I may be wrong but I didn’t think there was a ‘cap’ on nursing home fees to be abolished. Please put me right OP. I think the proposal to ensure that people don’t have to sell their houses to meet care costs has been abandoned, but that was not to have been introduced until next year.

I most certainly hope that the govt is working hard on ways to manage the crisis in social care, but to give up on them after a month is a fair weather friend indeed.

There was a thread about Asylum Seekers and housing on twitter today, by a barrister, which people might find interesting here.

Here it is 'unrolled'
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1821565332546326925.html

Here is the original thread, with comments and nested threads

x.com/SqueakinglyJen/status/1821565332546326925

@Cadeby
The truth is that our country is a first world country thanks in no small part to the contribution of immigrants, from the Irish Navvys who helped build our bridges and railways, to the Indian workers who saved our cotton mills, the black Windrush population who manned our buses and trains etc., and the many, many immigrants from around the world caring for us in hospitals and care homes. And that is to name but a few. Am sure others could expand upon this.
Even now our government are recruiting abroad in parts of Africa etc.,for teachers, doctors, and nurses.
We need immigrants, always have, always will, and those I know who came over recently and have been processed are already working, most doing more than one job.
But of course immigration has become a scapegoat for bad governance so when a PM or government are scrutinised nobody mentions the NHS, education, the environment, the care system, poverty etc., all that draws people’s attention is immigration.

I think the policy was mooted before the protests.

Reported in The Times but behind a paywall and I'm not going to pay but also reported on a site called The European Conservative (Tice et al are quoted) if anyone wants to Google.

Callistemon213

^Thing is scrapping the winter fuel allowance for those not on benefits means money freed up to pay junior docs^

No it doesn't.

It doesn't work like that.

You are right, Callistemon, it doesn't work like that, but we have a voting population which, on the whole, firmly believes that it does and any divergence from it by the government will just go down as a black mark against them.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul actually makes sense to most voters ☹️

Are there are live-in job these days, that would suit asylum.seekers?
I was reading that a problem is looming because so many AS are put out on the streets, after a period of time, to fend for themselves. How do you do that without a job and a home?
If they start allocating council flats, trouble will arise.
If I was standing in Calais, waiitng for the next boat, I would turn back.

Siope

The only link to this that I can find is the Telegraph, which is not very reliable (and I can't read the article as it's paywalled).

Can someone provide more details, please? Is she talking about immigrants who come to work, or is the talking about refugees? Or both?

The current residence requirement is 10 years. Is she proposing to remove it altogether or to reduce it? What conditions will apply? Will it be linked to immigrants gaining an Indefinite Leave to Remain visa, which takes 5 years of residency? Or to some other visa status? What other conditions will apply?

These kind of details are very important in understanding the potential impact of this alleged policy.

I don't think it does mean that.

I think it means, instead of sending asylum seekers to large hotels, they might be sent to smaller hubs around the country.
I think plans were in place already here but we've already got a Labour Government and Council.

Siope

The only link to this that I can find is the Telegraph, which is not very reliable (and I can't read the article as it's paywalled).

Can someone provide more details, please? Is she talking about immigrants who come to work, or is the talking about refugees? Or both?

The current residence requirement is 10 years. Is she proposing to remove it altogether or to reduce it? What conditions will apply? Will it be linked to immigrants gaining an Indefinite Leave to Remain visa, which takes 5 years of residency? Or to some other visa status? What other conditions will apply?

These kind of details are very important in understanding the potential impact of this alleged policy.

This is true, I took it to mean migrants who come to work here, am sure it’s nothing to do with asylum seekers, but needs to be clear.
British residents of long term standing should always be first to be chosen for social housing if they are in need IMO.

Thing is scrapping the winter fuel allowance for those not on benefits means money freed up to pay junior docs

No it doesn't.

It doesn't work like that.

How will local authority and housing association allocation processes be changed by this alleged change? Will they still retain autonomy to respond to local need and set their own criteria? If not, who will?

You've repeatedly been told the actual truth on many threads about housing etc. Yet, you refuse to listen. I'm not going to waste my energy by arguing with you. Your mind is closed and made up.