Andy Burnham says wealthy areas must house more migrants after leafy village revolts over 1,250 asylum seekers

Sunshinegirls

10:46yanda

I live in the NW but that was not my point, Andy Burnham said we all have to take our share but Andy Burnham Unelected PM with no mandate we don't want them full stop.

Oh dear - do I have to explain the British Constitution again. There is no such thing as an unelected PM - sigh

if that was the case hospitals and IT tech companies would be recruiting them from abroad they wouldn't have to pay people smugglers to get here.
Now, that's a thought. Bring all those asylum seekers in by the coach load, fast track their papers, then close the door to any others who turn up through other channels. A bit like, quota full for the foreseeable future. Then review the situation and bring in more.

Cossy

Btw. In my darling new grandson’s neonatal Unit, there’s barely one white face.

Consultants are black, his named nurses are Asian, midwives are also black!

Some of them probably originate from third world countries, their parents might even have been Asylum Seekers!

Thank bloody goodness they are here, every hour they care for our darling Henry is a gift to us and his parents! 💙

Thank goodness indeed, Cossy. When DH was in hospital twice, the staff were from all over and of all colours. We are eternally grateful to them all for their care.

I hope baby Henry is doing well.

Perhaps they could put one of the Number 10's to good use! And choose posh or not as posh.

Cossy

Doodledog

As I said upthread, a sudden influx of people into any community changes it, and people who chose to live there for its quietness or whatever will find it difficult, although I’m not sure who buys a house near a barracks and expects a traditional rural lifestyle.

But that’s not what the OP was about. First, it blamed Andy Burnham. Then it talked about wealthy areas as opposed to less wealthy ones, and mentioned that the village in question is ‘leafy’ despite the large barracks (which was not mentioned).

Then there was the ‘working hard’ trope, as though people who live in non/leafy areas must be idle, and nobody buying property in ‘nice’ places has inherited money or had well-paid but non-strenuous employment.

Then there was the rant about asylum seekers not paying for their asylum, as though we didn’t have a problem with the welfare bill that pays for Brits who don’t pay a penny into the system.

All of this cloaked in sarcasm about how ‘wonderful’ and Utopian it all is. Let’s not pretend that this started as a genuine debate about where to house people - the OP was far from that.

Well said. I won’t take further part now in any threads about migrants, where the sole purpose of posting is to make nasty, not so covert, goady digs.

Frankly there’s some posters here whose entire raison d’etre for posting is simply to be divisive.

These people, are all humans, most of them will have appalling backstories, however much you wish to pretend they don’t.

Some on here speak from a place of compassion, of knowledge, have worked or volunteered with Aslyum Seekers, others parrot what our right wing media posts and the likes of Farage, Lowe et al spout.

Like it or not, Brexit has affected this situation, like it or not International Asylum Law and Maritime Law gives these humans rights, you might not like, you don’t have to like it, but is factual.

Yes, I too want the boats to stop, I also want those here processed quickly, those very few committing heinous crimes deported and those not meeting the criteria deported.

Far far more of our British born citizens are affected by poverty, unemployment, mental health issues, etc etc than they ever will be by the Asylum Seekers.

Please put things in perspective.

But the issue isnt that they have appalling back stories, I dont doubt that.

The issue is that they are in the UK illegally.

How many are you personally happy to see settle here, all of the contents of their countries?

Fallingstar

I think it would be much better if asylum seekers are not just housed in deprived areas where resentments are already pretty high due to a lack of opportunities/jobs, neither of which are linked to asylum seekers but failed government policies over many decades.
These areas should not bear the brunt of it, nor should asylum seekers.
Housing them in less deprived areas will put less of a burden on an already struggling infrastructure and integration will probably be easier without facing the growing resentments of a hostile community looking for a scapegoat.

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Tuliptree

They don’t ’all want to come here.’ That’s misinformation, Other European countries have asylum seekers as well.

Many many of them!!

Exactly but who cares about pesky facts on yet another migrant bashing thread

Meandrogrog

Cossy

Doodledog

As I said upthread, a sudden influx of people into any community changes it, and people who chose to live there for its quietness or whatever will find it difficult, although I’m not sure who buys a house near a barracks and expects a traditional rural lifestyle.

But that’s not what the OP was about. First, it blamed Andy Burnham. Then it talked about wealthy areas as opposed to less wealthy ones, and mentioned that the village in question is ‘leafy’ despite the large barracks (which was not mentioned).

Then there was the ‘working hard’ trope, as though people who live in non/leafy areas must be idle, and nobody buying property in ‘nice’ places has inherited money or had well-paid but non-strenuous employment.

Then there was the rant about asylum seekers not paying for their asylum, as though we didn’t have a problem with the welfare bill that pays for Brits who don’t pay a penny into the system.

All of this cloaked in sarcasm about how ‘wonderful’ and Utopian it all is. Let’s not pretend that this started as a genuine debate about where to house people - the OP was far from that.

Well said. I won’t take further part now in any threads about migrants, where the sole purpose of posting is to make nasty, not so covert, goady digs.

Frankly there’s some posters here whose entire raison d’etre for posting is simply to be divisive.

These people, are all humans, most of them will have appalling backstories, however much you wish to pretend they don’t.

Some on here speak from a place of compassion, of knowledge, have worked or volunteered with Aslyum Seekers, others parrot what our right wing media posts and the likes of Farage, Lowe et al spout.

Like it or not, Brexit has affected this situation, like it or not International Asylum Law and Maritime Law gives these humans rights, you might not like, you don’t have to like it, but is factual.

Yes, I too want the boats to stop, I also want those here processed quickly, those very few committing heinous crimes deported and those not meeting the criteria deported.

Far far more of our British born citizens are affected by poverty, unemployment, mental health issues, etc etc than they ever will be by the Asylum Seekers.

Please put things in perspective.

But the issue isnt that they have appalling back stories, I dont doubt that.

The issue is that they are in the UK illegally.

How many are you personally happy to see settle here, all of the contents of their countries?

What are 'the contents of their countries'? Genuine question - I don't know what you are asking.

I have said more than once that I understand why people in small communities don't like them suddenly becoming larger. As I explained, it's happened to me in the small town I've loved for years. The difference here is that the 'incomers' are largely white and middle class, but they still change the look and feel of the town, and push long-term residents out of our comfort zones - even the white middle class long-term residents.

We all recognise that if our children are to have homes of their own we need to build more of them, though; and whilst it may not be our children buying on the new estates, ours will be living in someone else's town, and changing the dynamic there. It's life. Things change, and we have to live with that. We will have changed things in our own way, too.

No, most people won't want men hanging about outside of schools, but it's up to the Head Teacher and the police to move them on, and make it very clear that it is not acceptable behaviour.

Where that happens, it is not Islam that drives it though. I don't personally know any Muslims who see women as inferior. I do know British men who see women as 'her indoors' however. Someone who might have a 'little job' but is otherwise dependent on his income for support, and who is expected to do all the washing, cleaning and so on. I even know couples who both have professional roles who look at life like that, and are surprised when Mr Dog runs a hoover round and irons his own shirts.

Sexism, exploitation of women and disrespect are not solely Muslim traits. There are boors in all walks of life.

This thread is looking at things backwards. Yes, we have an increase in the populations of various areas. Yes, that can be discombobulating for those living there.

But we also have an ageing population, and need younger people to do the jobs necessary to keep our way of life afloat. On top of that we have a housing shortage, so more need to be built and they have to go somewhere. That will inevitably mean that small towns will get larger, and lifestyles will change.

I don't believe that it should be only those in non-leafy, not-'nice' areas who should shoulder all of this. I admit I don't like it at home, but I do understand why it's happening, and that it is probably necessary if the British system is to continue, even if it won't do so in the way I thought it would.

I'm almost sure that a Head Teacher or teacher has no power to move unwanted people hanging outside the school gates on. In my experience you can only deal with removing people from inside the gates on school property.

Around 10/11 years ago I saw the tail-end of a snippet from a news bulletin - a journalist interviewed a migrant emerging from one of Germany's mandatory Integration Courses.

Germany's Integration Act has legally mandated these courses. "Refusing to attend or failing to accept core constitutional principles (like women's rights and religious freedom) resulted in cutbacks to social benefits and the denial of permanent residency."

"Footage of newcomers rejecting gender equality became central to political campaigns. It directly fueled the rise of the right-wing populist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), and forced mainstream political parties to adopt much tougher stances on border control and cultural assimilation."

The 'student'/migrant I saw being interviewed was a young male from an obvious Patriarchal society (not sure exactly where he was from because I missed that initial part of the interview).

He quite clearly did not accept the authority or autonomy of women in society. He continually shook his head, "No, no" he said when asked if he would acknowledge this principle. How this would play out if he was granted leave to remain in Germany - remains to be seen.

Of course, he's just one migrant among thousands of others who may well feel quite differently, tho' there might be those who would pretend to accept Western democracy's core tenets when it became obvious that their future in Germany depended on it.

This is what people are referring to when they talk about cultural differences. Personally, I think it is essential that this aspect of immigration is not dismissed nor brushed under the carpet. It's really a question of scale/numbers, but you cannot, on the one hand, actively campaign against the Patriarchy, as the Left tend to do (and I say this as a Left-leaning person), and on the other hand ignore, or refuse to debate, the effect of how-ever-many numbers of young men with such Conservative Patriarchal beliefs will have on their community for fear of being seen as bigoted.

Sociologists and politicians have been debating this for over a decade. They acknowledge the tension exists, but are polarised about the solution. One conclusion is that a refusal to accept women's autonomy results in isolated, parallel societies, and worse. This is not multi-culturalism, it's not a recognition of respect for different faiths or cultures.

Just how widespread this is, I've no idea. My own (limited), anecdotal, experience with those individuals from different cultures has been positive. But that's not the case for everyone. And it only takes one horrendous assault for the issue to raise further questions.

My point is that it has to be acknowledged that there will be numbers (unknown) of young males holding cultural values instilled from birth that are in direct opposition to our own. This is, I believe, what people are concerned about when they talk about hundreds of young male asylum seekers wandering aimlessly around their town or village (leafy or otherwise) with nothing to do. It would be abnormal for any demographic, regardless of where they are from.

(quoted text is from Google AI)

Dickens

Around 10/11 years ago I saw the tail-end of a snippet from a news bulletin - a journalist interviewed a migrant emerging from one of Germany's mandatory Integration Courses.

Germany's Integration Act has legally mandated these courses. "Refusing to attend or failing to accept core constitutional principles (like women's rights and religious freedom) resulted in cutbacks to social benefits and the denial of permanent residency."

"Footage of newcomers rejecting gender equality became central to political campaigns. It directly fueled the rise of the right-wing populist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), and forced mainstream political parties to adopt much tougher stances on border control and cultural assimilation."

The 'student'/migrant I saw being interviewed was a young male from an obvious Patriarchal society (not sure exactly where he was from because I missed that initial part of the interview).

He quite clearly did not accept the authority or autonomy of women in society. He continually shook his head, "No, no" he said when asked if he would acknowledge this principle. How this would play out if he was granted leave to remain in Germany - remains to be seen.

Of course, he's just one migrant among thousands of others who may well feel quite differently, tho' there might be those who would pretend to accept Western democracy's core tenets when it became obvious that their future in Germany depended on it.

This is what people are referring to when they talk about cultural differences. Personally, I think it is essential that this aspect of immigration is not dismissed nor brushed under the carpet. It's really a question of scale/numbers, but you cannot, on the one hand, actively campaign against the Patriarchy, as the Left tend to do (and I say this as a Left-leaning person), and on the other hand ignore, or refuse to debate, the effect of how-ever-many numbers of young men with such Conservative Patriarchal beliefs will have on their community for fear of being seen as bigoted.

Sociologists and politicians have been debating this for over a decade. They acknowledge the tension exists, but are polarised about the solution. One conclusion is that a refusal to accept women's autonomy results in isolated, parallel societies, and worse. This is not multi-culturalism, it's not a recognition of respect for different faiths or cultures.

Just how widespread this is, I've no idea. My own (limited), anecdotal, experience with those individuals from different cultures has been positive. But that's not the case for everyone. And it only takes one horrendous assault for the issue to raise further questions.

My point is that it has to be acknowledged that there will be numbers (unknown) of young males holding cultural values instilled from birth that are in direct opposition to our own. This is, I believe, what people are concerned about when they talk about hundreds of young male asylum seekers wandering aimlessly around their town or village (leafy or otherwise) with nothing to do. It would be abnormal for any demographic, regardless of where they are from.

*(quoted text is from Google AI)*

That is a good post. I was on holiday and having a sea swim and got talking to a man doing the same. His work involved close contact with illegal immigrants. He said the men put their own comfort first before the women and children. They came a distinct second, so very different from the decency of our own men. That is why some are so fearful of what is changing here.
It does seem that some just cannot see the dangers, until it is too late.

Good post Dickens.
Successful integration has to be built on mutual respect. ALL migrants, wherever they might hail from, should comply with our norms of conduct. Some of their cultural values, without stamping out their identity, must change straightaway if social cohesion is to be achieved.

I saw a documentary about NZ once. In it migrants live in a nice sort of camp and receive information and training including language teaching on NZ life and civic expectations. Eventually they are helped to find work and a home outside the camp. Surely this sort of thing could happen here for approved irregular migrants.

What sort of migrants were these?

My understanding is that NZ has a skills based migration policy either migrants almost certainly having a job offer to come to.

With not either

These were not invited. Goodness knows how they got there. They looked like Pacific islanders from what I remember.

Thats what puzzled me - how did they get there?

Found it - it’s a programme for the quota of refugees that they take in so completely regulated arrivals. At first read through it looks really interesting

www.google.com/search?q=do+new+zealand+have+camps+for+rducating+migrsnts&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#lfId=ChxjMe

From my understanding of knowing someone who works in this field, the women and children are housed first - not the men. They are seen as less as a security threat. All of the detained migrants receive mental and physical support from the local NHS trust

As an aside, what is a 'wealthy' area? I wouldn't consider myself to live in a wealthy area yet I've just been on holiday and could buy two houses for what our house is worth and the area seemed much leafier and safer. It is all just divisive language and as a grown up, I'm getting a bit fed up of it all. Most people are the same, they want secure housing, a job, food on the table, a happy loving family. Migration has nothing to with this.

MartavTaurus

I'm almost sure that a Head Teacher or teacher has no power to move unwanted people hanging outside the school gates on. In my experience you can only deal with removing people from inside the gates on school property.

A headteachers job is to run a school, not to police leering migrants at the school gates. That’s for the police to do.

Absolutely a Headteachers job is to run school and safeguarding is one aspect of the job.

If any men, of whatever nationality or immigration status was observed loitering in and around schools they would follow protocol and also most likely contact the police to enforce the law.

We also have to bear in mind that headteachers are female as well as male. Groups of misogynistic men will take no notice of female headteachers even if they did try to move them on. The police is the answer here.

MartavTaurus

I'm almost sure that a Head Teacher or teacher has no power to move unwanted people hanging outside the school gates on. In my experience you can only deal with removing people from inside the gates on school property.

No, but they could work with the police to do it.