Govt announces Ukrainian style scheme to bring thousands more migrants to UK

If you or your family were born in a war torn country wouldn't any normal person be glad they were in a safe country in Europe ie France, Germany perhaps but no they pay a smuggling gang thousands of euros to take a dangerous small boat crossing across the English Channel putting their childrens life at risk. Cries of shame on you and calling people racist who are not racist will not wash anymore British citizens are finding life hard and this and other schemes like free housing etc etc are unfair people have had enough.

It's almost as if, along with the use of Hotels, this scheme has been deliberately set up to provoke more antagonism.

Sunshinegirls

If you or your family were born in a war torn country wouldn't any normal person be glad they were in a safe country in Europe ie France, Germany perhaps but no they pay a smuggling gang thousands of euros to take a dangerous small boat crossing across the English Channel putting their childrens life at risk. Cries of shame on you and calling people racist who are not racist will not wash anymore British citizens are finding life hard and this and other schemes like free housing etc etc are unfair people have had enough.

This is such an illogical response, why would anybody think that it’s okay for migrants who are aiming to reach the UK to be palmed off on a country they want to pass through, which already takes more migrants than the UK? Why would we stuff our neighbours and allies, who are already facing the same issues.

Population density? France is twice the geographical size of the UK with a similar population.
Is life in France so terrible? Plus of course France is still in the EU, so it’s possible for funding to accommodate asylum seekers as part of an EU wide approach.
Population density is key.

It’s illogical. The costs to the governments are the same. I’m not going to argue about it.

Land mass is difficult to argue, on that we can agree?

It is not unusual for developers to build houses in out of the way places. I know a young couple with a baby and a toddler who were living with her parents in very cramped conditions for a few years. They were allocated a new build house in a village with no shops, no bus route, no amenities and 6 miles to the nearest town. Obviously they accepted it but she is totally cut off during the day as her husband needs the car for work. She was grateful to have a roof over their heads, just as migrants should be.

She was grateful to have a roof over their heads, just as migrants should be.

I'm sure that migrants would be very grateful, too. But you make it very clear that you don't want them here at all. Grateful or not...

Graphite, you are a 🌟
So, it would appear that, despite chronic housing shotrages, nobody seems to want these homes, but hey, let's not allow asylum seekers to have them.

Maremia

Graphite, you are a 🌟
So, it would appear that, despite chronic housing shotrages, nobody seems to want these homes, but hey, let's not allow asylum seekers to have them.

No, let's allow them to have them and plaster it all over the news to fan the flames of hatred.

It stands to reason people who've spent years on a waiting list are going to be angry.

That’s where the rage-baiting in the media and the truth, whatever it turns out to be, seem to part company. Interviewees seem to think this was a development of social housing when it never was, bar the 12% S106 provision, which has now been removed for lack of interest from housing associations.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to make the case that this area is high density. The close of houses is in a very rural and sparsely populated area and 10 km from the town of Market Drayton.

I imagine any poor family allocated a roof over their head would be grateful for that roof but it doesn’t remove the argument of whether it is suitable to locate a large number of families who are either in the process of seeking asylum (in which case they are prohibited from working) or have been granted asylum and now need to find work and access to local services in such a rural and sparsely-populated place. It is fair to ask why this is being done and for transparency over the process.

The business of the Kent-based brothers who run this development company are described in Companies House records as engaged in buying and selling of own real estate and other letting and operating of own or leased real estate.

There are questions to be asked about whether this predominantly private development was ever destined to be offered for sale on the open market or whether it has long been slated as housing to help other regions reduce their waiting lists, irrespective of whether the area is suitable for all concerned including the new tenants.

No doubt we will know more after the MP Mark Pritchard has held his public meeting, tomorrow 2 July.

Do you mean London boroughs moving their waiting list clients out of London, paying their rent for two years and then leaving them to their fate Graphite? I know that used to happen, a lot of people were found cheap rented accommodation in South Wales through that route.

I stand back and look at these endless wars and displation, majority of it is religion and overpopulation and until they stop having an average of 6 children things will never improve. The population of Africa is set to double by 2050 we can't keep taking these people in. For me it's time to shut the borders and leave them to sort themselves out. Majority of aid should be in the form of contraception.

Well said Moii

Don't worry, Moii. Nature has its way of keeping the size of sub-Saharan African families down.

Around 2.8 million children under the age of five die in Africa each year, accounting for more than half of all global child deaths. Sub-Saharan Africa alone experiences an average of roughly 71.2 deaths per 1,000 live births, meaning approximately 1 in 14 children there do not survive to see their fifth birthday.

I'm still unsure how exactly we're going to "shut our borders".

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

The clue is in tbe name
ASYLUM seekers
They are fleeing wars and persecution.
What on earth has that to do with contraception!!!!

Maremia

The clue is in tbe name
ASYLUM seekers
They are fleeing wars and persecution.
What on earth has that to do with contraception!!!!

For goodness sake, even the Govt are calling them illegal immigrants now.

Ho many are you housing?

Primrose53

Maremia

The clue is in tbe name
ASYLUM seekers
They are fleeing wars and persecution.
What on earth has that to do with contraception!!!!

For goodness sake, even the Govt are calling them illegal immigrants now.

Even the government isn't immune from ignorance.

Members of parliament have larger than average homes and often second homes, they should lead and be the first to accommodate these people .
Also there is no way a comparison of taking in a family from Ukrainian, women and children while the men are fighting can be the same as a young man coming to live in your home from one of these countries mentioned. If so then the people on this thread that are comparing , that now have empty bedrooms can go ahead and welcome a young man that you do not know into
Your home, and yes I do know it’s not only open to men but I am confident it will be mainly young men! And will not be the desperately needed doctors , engineers, scientists ect

What's the difference between taking in a Ukrainian family, ie women and children to taking in a Somali family?

I doubt very much if it is for goodness sake that anyone is calling them anything other than asylum seekers.

See Gov.uk "Mahmood: My reforms will save the asylum system for the generation"

Theclue is in the name! The Government is clear this scheme is about asylum