Mamardoit
Doodledog
I wonder if it would help if what were hotels (ie places run for the convenience and luxury of paying customers) were renamed when they are repurposed to simply house asylum seekers? They are no longer hotels, any more than an old bank or cinema that is now a Wetherspoons is still what it used to be.
People talk about 'luxury' hotels, as though asylum seekers get champagne delivered by room service and people are given free slippers.
They are given free everything. Priority medical and dental treatment too.
I doubt if they would want the champagne. They will get three meals a day. Pity we can't give our own people the same. I remember being unable to use medication prescribed because there was no cash spare for prescription charges. I also missed meals so the children could eat. I realise this wouldn't have been the norm for most GNeters.
Surely one of the problems is we can't provide for our own poor elderly, poor families and long term sick. It's bound to upset those people when they see what's happening. It's all made worse when the more comfortably off dismiss their concerns.
I agree that there is an issue around people who remain unaffected by having asylum seekers in their locality dismissing the concerns of those who do. That dismissal is one of the reasons for the rise of the Far Right, and for protest votes for Brexit and Reform.
But (and it's a big 'but') it is not dismissing concerns to point out that phrases such as 'hordes of single, fighting age young men', and 'They are given free everything' are simply inaccurate, as is calling people in the hotels 'illegal'. They would not be allowed to stay there if they were. Illegal immigrants are deported as soon as their application to stay is refused, and only those waiting for their case to be heard are given places to stay, which the government is trying to make happen as quickly as possible.
Of course there are more young men taking dangerous trips to safety than there are elderly people or women and children. They probably hope to send for their families when they get established, or to send money home if that's not possible. If, God forbid, my family were fleeing terror I'm sure we would send sons and SILs before older people and babies. It's common sense, as the vulnerable would be far less likely to survive a dangerous journey.
Do you have a shred of evidence that asylum seekers are given priority medical care? Or that they get 'everything' free? What is included in 'everything'? There is a lot of help available for families on low incomes, and people settled here can work for a living, which asylum seekers are not allowed to do, so they can't pay for food. How many meals a day would you allow them?