Won’t that just encourage more economic migrants to come if they’re given housing, support and able to work whilst still availing of that support?I think people would be surprised to find out how many asylum seekers are interested in working but are limited by the rules. I can’t imagine that interest/want to work changes if they’re granted refugee status. There’s definitely some sort of need to address these issues given by studies discussed here
I’m not sure what’s going on with the first part of your reply - I quoted a specific bit for a reason but now it seems relevant to another reply you gave too
English Channel migrant crossing crisis #3
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Uk Politics Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I think this brings us back to the point of the asylum system. It's not a jobs programme, it's to bring people to safety. The point isn't to look at them and wonder what they can do for our country.
If anything the concept of an asylum system is to work the other way around. I can only imagine the upset that'll come with what I'm about to say
but in the first instance, the true purpose of an asylum system for us as a stable country to say 'what can we do to help them?'. Once they've settled, then sure, they have to make sure they integrate, gain education, and work.The point of seeking asylum is that someone needs help escaping a dangerous situation. Unless people start fabricating wars, then the primary reason for seeking asylum won't ever be economic betterment.
We know not everyone is fleeing wars and dangerous situations, yet still claim asylum .I think this brings us back to the point of the asylum system. It's not a jobs programme, it's to bring people to safety. The point isn't to look at them and wonder what they can do for our country.
If anything the concept of an asylum system is to work the other way around. I can only imagine the upset that'll come with what I'm about to say
The point of seeking asylum is that someone needs help escaping a dangerous situation. Unless people start fabricating wars, then the primary reason for seeking asylum won't ever be economic betterment.
Claiming asylum doesn’t mean that they will get asylum
Allowing asylum seekers to work has been campaigned by some as a way to integrate them into society. The argument also goes that if they have jobs before they are granted refugee status they may be less likely to be homeless and have to rely on resources associated with that
I see why the government aren’t too keen on that and I honestly don’t have that many thoughts on it but l do think it’s worth considering
They’re still supported while their claims are assessed, even though thousands come from democracies like our own.
What about those with no documentation would you be happy to put them in a position of trust?
Yes because that’s the system we have
I’m sure one could argue that by having asylum seekers with an actual income the government could require them to pay for something or other and cut costs that way
It doesn’t change anything for me as I don’t believe that all asylum seekers are inherently bad
There’s also the select ones which may be able to get a job under the current rules too
Every British citizen that applies for certain sectors has to undergo checks I don’t know why it should be different for strangers coming into the country, especially as it’s been recently highlighted about people abusing the visa system .It’s not about being bad it’s about safeguarding, we wouldn’t want Gary Glitter working in a kiddie setting for example.
I’m sure someone somewhere could ensure safeguarding procedures. There must be something in place given that care work is on the shortage list and I would think that would also have safeguarding aspects to it too
Of course it does that’s exactly why backround checks need to be made, there’s vulnerable people involved.
MPs reject all Lords amendments to Illegal Migration Bill
That's all the votes over now, and the government has won every single one - meaning all nine amendments from the Lords have been rejected.
Remember, the Conservatives have a majority in the Commons, so it wasn't much of a surprise.
But there have been a few high profile Tory rebels in the mix, including former minister Sir Robert
Buckland and ex-Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Here are the results for each of the votes:
----------------------------
Makes you wonder how truly committed the government is to resolving this if they've rejected an amendment which prevents LGBTQ people sent to a country where their lives would be under threat; an amendment which requires them to establish safe routes; and an amendment which forces them to crack down on criminal gangs.
That's all the votes over now, and the government has won every single one - meaning all nine amendments from the Lords have been rejected.
Remember, the Conservatives have a majority in the Commons, so it wasn't much of a surprise.
But there have been a few high profile Tory rebels in the mix, including former minister Sir Robert
Buckland and ex-Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Here are the results for each of the votes:
- Lords' amendment to stick to UK's international obligations - MPs reject it by 298 votes to 213;
- Lords' amendment to allow asylum claims if person is not removed within six months - MPs reject it by 307 votes;
- Lords' amendment to stop LGBT+ people being deported to certain countries - MPs reject it by 300 votes to 212;
- Lords' amendment to limit time of detention of unaccompanied children - MPs reject it by 289 votes to 220;
- Lords' amendment to limit time of detention for children who arrive with families - MPs reject it by 300 votes to 208;
- Lords' amendment to protect victims of modern slavery - MPs reject it by 282 votes to 227;
- Lords' amendment to ensure safe and legal routes are established - MPs reject it by 284 votes to 226;
- Lords' amendment on organised immigration crime enforcement - MPs reject it by 297 votes to 214;
- Lords' amendment on establishing a 10-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking - MPs reject it by 292 votes to 215.
----------------------------
Makes you wonder how truly committed the government is to resolving this if they've rejected an amendment which prevents LGBTQ people sent to a country where their lives would be under threat; an amendment which requires them to establish safe routes; and an amendment which forces them to crack down on criminal gangs.
Of course you can’t do anything illegal on a property. But as far as I’m aware owning more than one isn’t illegal, nor is keeping it empty if one wishes, and nor is a developer selling to the highest bidder, who will inevitably be the person with the deepest pockets.
And I know a thing or two about police work and believe me I wish we could have just rocked up to a house a busted down the door on suspicion. I would have cut crime in Durham by 50% just by kicking in 20 doors in the arse end of Sunderland. The reality is the police must obtain a warrant to enter if the owner doesn’t give informed consent.
And the graveyards of history are full of the victims of the leaders who believed they knew what ”the majority” wants. There is literally nothing more terrifying in life than a left wing government with moral certainty. (Shudders).
Local authorities have the power to bring empty properties back into use through compulsory purchase orders and enforced sales. In addition the 2004 Housing Act introduced Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) under which local authorities can take possession (but not ownership) of an empty property in order to make sure that it is brought back into occupation.
... unless it's a right wing government without morals.
A days worth of migrants. What a joke.
Hopefully they’ll have someone on site dealing with their claims ,like the military bases, let’s see what becomes of the new bill
There'll be mini towns, policed and to the standard of Brits homes otherwise the pitchforks will be out again. That's not a deterrent.Hopefully they’ll have someone on site dealing with their claims ,like the military bases, let’s see what becomes of the new bill
This is such an obvious stunt. How many commissioned? 2?! And when they're full which will take 2 days?
Just stop the boats. So simple but they'll never do it.
Maybe they’ll have no choice…There'll be mini towns, policed and to the standard of Brits homes otherwise the pitchforks will be out again. That's not a deterrent.
This is such an obvious stunt. How many commissioned? 2?! And when they're full which will take 2 days?
Just stop the boats. So simple but they'll never do it.
Interesting article. The latter half focusing mainly on risk from right wing extremist groups would suggest to me that that’s possibly the main reason it has increased - also fits the description of being fragmented and less organised. Another article mentions the traditional Islamist terrorist groups also becoming more fragmented but doesn't give them as much focus and right wing groups
There was talk of it a few months ago but many people got very angry about it for some reason or other, so I wonder if the government is trying to tip-toe around it with this
Maybe we’ll have nothing to tiptoe round if they don’t take our security seriously.
Monga has more or less posted it but this does include the date when it's coming into effect:
- Status