New asylum rules

Rachel Millward has opposed plans to house 600 asylum seekers in her local area, despite her party’s national stance of welcoming refugees.

My neighbour has been saying for the last 10 years that she would like to take in refugees but has never done so.

Where are we going to house refugees and how do we combat the strain on public services.

Time and time again I see “not in my backyard” politics.

Chocolatelovinggran

Apologies, Spinnaker.

No problem Chocolatelovinggran - thank you

Casdon

Primrose53

Not sure why everybody is going on about taking jewellery etc. Labour MP Barry Gardiner was on TV last night saying although it was a suggestion in Denmark, they never actually went through with it.

It will never happen here! 17 Labour backbenchers have now said they are against the plans SM outlined yesterday. Some very vocally.

I noticed Kemi Badendoch offered to work with SM to sort out this issue but SM was very curt in her reply. It would have been a good idea I thought.

What is it that you think Kemi Badenough could bring to the table, what knowledge or skills does she have that would be of benefit?

On the gold issue, I think if a family fleeing from a war zone or oppressive regime enters the UK with gold, it probably is theirs legitimately. I’d be more suspicious as to the provenance if a single man brought in a large amount because surely if it did belong to his family, it would be the only form of security for the family left behind?

On the gold issue, I think if a family fleeing from a war zone or oppressive regime enters the UK with gold, it probably is theirs legitimately.

Yes, it might well be.
However, if it is very valuable, above a certain amount, I can see the point that UK citizens, including pensioners, are means-tested before they can receive certain benefits, so should asylum seekers be subject to the same rules as UK citizens or exempt from those rules?

That is an academic question, btw, not that I have a particular opinion on the matter.

Babs03

NotSpaghetti

Lord Dubs was on the Today programme his morning:

“The hard line approach will not deter people from coming here. There are some minor things which will be OK, but on the whole I think we’re going in the wrong direction.”

He added: “My particular fear is integration in local communities. If people are here temporarily and people know they are here temporarily, the danger is that local people will say ‘well, you’re only here for a bit, why should we help you to integrate, why should your kids go to local schools?’.

“People who are going to be removed are hardly going to be as welcome as people who want to integrate into our local communities.

“My experience of asylum seekers and refugees is that they have two wishes: one is to complete their education if they are of that age, and secondly what they want to do is get jobs and make a contribution to our country. Surely we should do everything we can to help them do that.”

On plans to deport families with children, Lord Dubs said: “When there are children who are on their own and have family in this country, then I think the right thing to do is to have family reunion and bring the children over here.

“But to use children as a weapon, as the home secretary is doing, is I think a shabby thing. I’m lost for words, frankly.”

He added: “The government are keen to say they’ll return people to safe countries. In the past, governments have said Afghanistan’s a safe country to return people to.

“I think we need to be very careful before we return people to safe countries to make sure they are safe, otherwise we’re simply doing the worst thing of all, which is sending people back into danger. We’re a better country than that.”

I'm in broad agreement with him.
I've written to my MP about it.

Agree totally with this.
Dealing with this issue only to actually make it twice as bad is what governments have been doing for decades.
Instead of harsher policies that play to the gallery we need a government that starts thinking for itself and comes up with an actual humane solution.

Yes

Well, what could she offer Oreo? I want the Tories to be involved in this, it was a Freudian slip.

Oreo SM actually said yesterday that she was going to stop making our country so attractive to asylum seekers. She used the words “golden ticket” I believe. The penny seems to have finally dropped with her!

Casdon

You said it’s not happening now, which isn’t the same thing, policy changes are quite possible.

I’m more interested in what Kemi Badenough could offer though in this scenario? I’m all for the parties working together to find a workable solution, but for that to happen it needs to be people with knowledge and experience. James Cleverly would have much more to offer, he has been Home Secretary, whereas she hasn’t.

Badenough? You’ve missed giving a funny name to Cleverly.

Babs03

@Kandinsky

“Because it’s all very well saying ‘I’m a wonderful kind person’ which is lovely, but that doesn’t really work does it.”

Who is saying that?
Have never heard anyone say this.
I may not be a wonderful or kind person, but I don’t think that it is logical to be unkind to asylum seekers or make nasty comments about them when they are not the problem.
Westminster is.

No….they are the problem not Westminster.Why is it the fault of our government?
Or are you saying we provide too much here for them which attracts even more asylum seekers to our shores?

Sorry, forgot to tag, that was in response to Primrose53.

You said it’s not happening now, which isn’t the same thing, policy changes are quite possible.

I’m more interested in what Kemi Badenough could offer though in this scenario? I’m all for the parties working together to find a workable solution, but for that to happen it needs to be people with knowledge and experience. James Cleverly would have much more to offer, he has been Home Secretary, whereas she hasn’t.

Kandinsky

*I may not be a wonderful or kind person, but I don’t think that it is logical to be unkind to asylum seekers or make nasty comments about them when they are not the problem Westminster is*

What is Westminster doing wrong?

See this is my point. You never get a clear answer.
All you’re saying is you don’t want to be unkind to asylum seekers. How is that going to solve the problems?

Well when it comes to what Westminster is doing wrong I would have a very long list.
Asylum seekers probably wouldn’t even figure at the top of it seeing as I believe there are a myriad of burning political issues apart from small boats.
The thing is if you don’t see this as staggering incompetence by a succession of governments especially the last Tory government, who or what do you suppose is to blame?

I may not be a wonderful or kind person, but I don’t think that it is logical to be unkind to asylum seekers or make nasty comments about them when they are not the problem Westminster is

What is Westminster doing wrong?

See this is my point. You never get a clear answer.
All you’re saying is you don’t want to be unkind to asylum seekers. How is that going to solve the problems?

Casdon Don’t waste your time worrying about it. It will never happen here. I explained a few posts ago.

NotSpaghetti

Lord Dubs was on the Today programme his morning:

“The hard line approach will not deter people from coming here. There are some minor things which will be OK, but on the whole I think we’re going in the wrong direction.”

He added: “My particular fear is integration in local communities. If people are here temporarily and people know they are here temporarily, the danger is that local people will say ‘well, you’re only here for a bit, why should we help you to integrate, why should your kids go to local schools?’.

“People who are going to be removed are hardly going to be as welcome as people who want to integrate into our local communities.

“My experience of asylum seekers and refugees is that they have two wishes: one is to complete their education if they are of that age, and secondly what they want to do is get jobs and make a contribution to our country. Surely we should do everything we can to help them do that.”

On plans to deport families with children, Lord Dubs said: “When there are children who are on their own and have family in this country, then I think the right thing to do is to have family reunion and bring the children over here.

“But to use children as a weapon, as the home secretary is doing, is I think a shabby thing. I’m lost for words, frankly.”

He added: “The government are keen to say they’ll return people to safe countries. In the past, governments have said Afghanistan’s a safe country to return people to.

“I think we need to be very careful before we return people to safe countries to make sure they are safe, otherwise we’re simply doing the worst thing of all, which is sending people back into danger. We’re a better country than that.”

I'm in broad agreement with him.
I've written to my MP about it.

Agree totally with this.
Dealing with this issue only to actually make it twice as bad is what governments have been doing for decades.
Instead of harsher policies that play to the gallery we need a government that starts thinking for itself and comes up with an actual humane solution.

Primrose53

Not sure why everybody is going on about taking jewellery etc. Labour MP Barry Gardiner was on TV last night saying although it was a suggestion in Denmark, they never actually went through with it.

It will never happen here! 17 Labour backbenchers have now said they are against the plans SM outlined yesterday. Some very vocally.

I noticed Kemi Badendoch offered to work with SM to sort out this issue but SM was very curt in her reply. It would have been a good idea I thought.

What is it that you think Kemi Badenough could bring to the table, what knowledge or skills does she have that would be of benefit?

On the gold issue, I think if a family fleeing from a war zone or oppressive regime enters the UK with gold, it probably is theirs legitimately. I’d be more suspicious as to the provenance if a single man brought in a large amount because surely if it did belong to his family, it would be the only form of security for the family left behind?

Lord Dubs was on the Today programme his morning:

“The hard line approach will not deter people from coming here. There are some minor things which will be OK, but on the whole I think we’re going in the wrong direction.”

He added: “My particular fear is integration in local communities. If people are here temporarily and people know they are here temporarily, the danger is that local people will say ‘well, you’re only here for a bit, why should we help you to integrate, why should your kids go to local schools?’.

“People who are going to be removed are hardly going to be as welcome as people who want to integrate into our local communities.

“My experience of asylum seekers and refugees is that they have two wishes: one is to complete their education if they are of that age, and secondly what they want to do is get jobs and make a contribution to our country. Surely we should do everything we can to help them do that.”

On plans to deport families with children, Lord Dubs said: “When there are children who are on their own and have family in this country, then I think the right thing to do is to have family reunion and bring the children over here.

“But to use children as a weapon, as the home secretary is doing, is I think a shabby thing. I’m lost for words, frankly.”

He added: “The government are keen to say they’ll return people to safe countries. In the past, governments have said Afghanistan’s a safe country to return people to.

“I think we need to be very careful before we return people to safe countries to make sure they are safe, otherwise we’re simply doing the worst thing of all, which is sending people back into danger. We’re a better country than that.”

I'm in broad agreement with him.
I've written to my MP about it.

@Kandinsky

“Because it’s all very well saying ‘I’m a wonderful kind person’ which is lovely, but that doesn’t really work does it.”

Who is saying that?
Have never heard anyone say this.
I may not be a wonderful or kind person, but I don’t think that it is logical to be unkind to asylum seekers or make nasty comments about them when they are not the problem.
Westminster is.

I think it's good that the government is realising that this is seen as a big problem throughout the country and is making decisive plans to address the issue. Whether or not they can be carried out is another problem. Labour has a huge majority and 17 backbenchers can't make any difference to a vote on this.

As for taking asylum seekers into our homes if people want to help their fellow human beings, some do, but people can still care about this issue without doing this. I care desperately about the homeless but am not taking them into my home. Tbh doing this is a wonderful gesture but won’t cure the problem. Governments have been staggeringly incompetent for decades as well as not reading the writing on the wall with regard to meddling in the ME or Africa to the detriment of its citizens. Also Brexit was an own goal inasmuch as it caused the small boat crisis we see today. Greater cooperation with the EU rather than an isolationist stance is what is needed here. Sadly thanks to Boris and Farage that ship sailed a long time ago and promptly sank taking any hopes of dealing with increasing numbers of asylum seekers with it.

The posters who always show up on these threads defending asylum seekers, do you think everything is fine?
No problems, nothing to see here, anyone who thinks there’s a problem is racist ( so that includes our very own Labour Home Secretary ) etc etc ……
If you don’t think this, and think there is a problem, what is the problem? what do you think the solution is?

Because it’s all very well saying ‘I’m a wonderful kind person’ which is lovely, but that doesn’t really work does it.

Not sure why everybody is going on about taking jewellery etc. Labour MP Barry Gardiner was on TV last night saying although it was a suggestion in Denmark, they never actually went through with it.

It will never happen here! 17 Labour backbenchers have now said they are against the plans SM outlined yesterday. Some very vocally.

I noticed Kemi Badendoch offered to work with SM to sort out this issue but SM was very curt in her reply. It would have been a good idea I thought.

I wonder if the Indian family who live in a flat over our local PO have vaults full of gold?
A very silly and irrelevant comment regarding how some wealthy people keep their wealth. Am pretty sure the taxman was not surprised after dealing with wealthy people in the UK on a regular basis, with our higher ups squirrelling their wealth offshore.

Apologies, Spinnaker.

So it's those pesky Indians with their gold that is the problem here?

The jewellery referred to is not quite personal jewellery; it represents the family wealth, usually in the form of gold from dowries, and spends most of its life in very secure vaults, only appearing on occasions such as weddings.
When Indian weddings developed into the enormous affairs they are today there was a sudden spate of burglaries from Indian homes and the value of the jewellery stolen was astonishing, to the police and to the taxman.
The jewellery was collected from the vault the night before the wedding, to be returned the day after; thieves spotted an opportunity and families lost their entire, undeclared wealth at a stroke.