|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 25, 2023 9:54:06 GMT
If the Asylum Bill does not get through Parliament and the Rwanda scheme fails to get off the ground then the cost of housing asylum seekers projected to reach £11 Billion a year. But that is not the worst of it - as Labour are expected to win next years election and they have already said they will not implement the Rwanda scheme and increase the numbers of Asylum seekers the bill will go even higher...  So why don't the government want to get a move on to sort the claims quicker, that seems the obvious way to reduce costs. It's almost as though they are not doing that deliberately as a dead cat to distract from other issues. The replies on this thread indicate the success with a certain demographic. Ask your woke left friends hash. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 25, 2023 9:54:26 GMT
If the Asylum Bill does not get through Parliament and the Rwanda scheme fails to get off the ground then the cost of housing asylum seekers projected to reach £11 Billion a year. But that is not the worst of it - as Labour are expected to win next years election and they have already said they will not implement the Rwanda scheme and increase the numbers of Asylum seekers the bill will go even higher... So why don't the government want to get a move on to sort the claims quicker, that seems the obvious way to reduce costs. It's almost as though they are not doing that deliberately as a dead cat to distract from other issues. The replies on this thread indicate the success with a certain demographic. but the rate they are coming is unsustainable, up to 600 A DAY are making the crossing, that's almost 17,000 a month, where are we going to find accommodation fo them even if their claim for asylum is approved?
We have our own housing crisis, without banging another 17,000 homeless people per month, why should we build tens of thousands of houses to house people who've never done a days work in the UK? The UK will end up a concrete jungle, and our green spaces will be non-existent.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 25, 2023 10:03:15 GMT
I'm not proposing that we accept them all. The whole point of the assessments is to sort out the asylum seekers from the economic migrants. We should immediately deport the latter. But it's no good taking months and even years to assess, as it ends up costing the tax payers (because we stop them from working) and lose track of where they are. The government could sort this quite easily if they wanted to, but they want to keep this as an issue to whip up hatred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 25, 2023 10:05:56 GMT
That is assuming that Labour will deal with asylum seekers as the Tories are. If Labour begin processing the asylum seekers in good order they can look for work and contribute to the economy. Those that fail the process can be sent home, legally. Win win all round. Which will massively increase the incentives for the flows of irregular people . My prediction is your determination to use these people to perform vindictive, underhand assaults on the community you live in will get noticed by the community you live in It happens before they've moved in, I suspect RAF Scampton, among others, will be a battleground even before the move in. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 25, 2023 10:08:08 GMT
There are now approaching 80 million people on a small island with most of the packed into one comer. Your claim of it 'needing' yet more people is patent nonsense. You, of course, also know it is nonsense. "Up to 1.3 million people born abroad left the UK between the third quarter of 2019 and the same period in 2020, according to a blog published earlier this month by the government-funded Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence. In London alone almost 700,000 residents born overseas have probably moved out. The exodus constitutes the largest drop in population in the UK since the Second World War. Coronavirus is largely to blame. Many migrants work in the hardest-hit sectors, such as travel and hospitality, and have sadly lost their jobs and returned to their home countries and families. It is unknown how many will return. If they do, they find themselves subject to much stricter immigration rules as, from 1 January, free movement of people ended. Many of those formerly in jobs classed as unskilled will no longer qualify for work visas. Indeed, Brexit is also a factor in the migrant exodus. During the whole Brexit period, immigration proved to be the most hotly debated subject and, for many voters, it was the reason they voted to leave. The debate was divisive and often inflammatory. Migrants felt unwelcome. The legacy is a reduction in the UK migrant workforce at a time when the country needs them most". CIPD. Okay- you may not be a liar, you may instead be living in a fantasy universe in which the population of the uk is steadily and dramatically declining. I only think it's fair to point out that this is not remotely the case. The point I made remain un-addressed |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 25, 2023 10:10:22 GMT
I'm not proposing that we accept them all. The whole point of the assessments is to sort out the asylum seekers from the economic migrants. We should immediately deport the latter. But it's no good taking months and even years to assess, as it ends up costing the tax payers (because we stop them from working) and lose track of where they are. The government could sort this quite easily if they wanted to, but they want to keep this as an issue to whip up hatred. We don't want any of them hash If you feel so strong about it maybe you should house a few. Watch your area decline then and house prices drop. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 25, 2023 10:10:38 GMT
I'm not proposing that we accept them all. The whole point of the assessments is to sort out the asylum seekers from the economic migrants. We should immediately deport the latter. But it's no good taking months and even years to assess, as it ends up costing the tax payers (because we stop them from working) and lose track of where they are. The government could sort this quite easily if they wanted to, but they want to keep this as an issue to whip up hatred. Like many of your follow travellers on the left, you appear not to understand the nature of incentives. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jun 25, 2023 10:18:23 GMT
That is assuming that Labour will deal with asylum seekers as the Tories are. If Labour begin processing the asylum seekers in good order they can look for work and contribute to the economy. Those that fail the process can be sent home, legally. Win win all round. We don't need them! We cannot house many of the indigenous people as it is, let alone house thousands of alleged Asylum seekers every year, its not possible unaffordable, in some places in the UK English is fast becoming the second language |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2023 10:18:37 GMT
Fruit picking. Carer staff. Doctors. Nurses. Ancillary staff. Teachers. Railway workers. Bus conductors.🤣 Barristers. Lawyers. Jury duty. Gardeners. Office staff. Electrician. Sailors. Sewage workers. Bar work. Waters. Waitresses. Hair dressers. Pot hole fixers. Builders. Taxi drivers. .................. you idiot, are you honestly telling us that these 'young Albanian men' have arrived illegally by dinghy, and intend to work ..
hahahahahahah
They have NO intentions of doing a hard days graft, they'll either make their money by crime, or knock-up some daft tart and have a load of kids with her, you really are a utter lefty nitwit.
I am not telling you that you are making it up. I responded to another poster that asked why we need migrant workers. Why am I an idiot for stating facts? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 25, 2023 10:20:10 GMT
I'm not proposing that we accept them all. The whole point of the assessments is to sort out the asylum seekers from the economic migrants. We should immediately deport the latter. But it's no good taking months and even years to assess, as it ends up costing the tax payers (because we stop them from working) and lose track of where they are. The government could sort this quite easily if they wanted to, but they want to keep this as an issue to whip up hatred. One of the things you ever fall short on is being realistic. We don't have enough people qualified to vet the ones arriving |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2023 10:21:14 GMT
"Up to 1.3 million people born abroad left the UK between the third quarter of 2019 and the same period in 2020, according to a blog published earlier this month by the government-funded Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence. In London alone almost 700,000 residents born overseas have probably moved out. The exodus constitutes the largest drop in population in the UK since the Second World War. Coronavirus is largely to blame. Many migrants work in the hardest-hit sectors, such as travel and hospitality, and have sadly lost their jobs and returned to their home countries and families. It is unknown how many will return. If they do, they find themselves subject to much stricter immigration rules as, from 1 January, free movement of people ended. Many of those formerly in jobs classed as unskilled will no longer qualify for work visas. Indeed, Brexit is also a factor in the migrant exodus. During the whole Brexit period, immigration proved to be the most hotly debated subject and, for many voters, it was the reason they voted to leave. The debate was divisive and often inflammatory. Migrants felt unwelcome. The legacy is a reduction in the UK migrant workforce at a time when the country needs them most". CIPD. Okay- you may not be a liar, you may instead be living in a fantasy universe in which the population of the uk is steadily and dramatically declining. I only think it's fair to point out that this is not remotely the case. The point I made remain un-addressed That is why we consider Net migration, which was 600,000 last year of about 10 football stadiums. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2023 10:22:04 GMT
I'm not proposing that we accept them all. The whole point of the assessments is to sort out the asylum seekers from the economic migrants. We should immediately deport the latter. But it's no good taking months and even years to assess, as it ends up costing the tax payers (because we stop them from working) and lose track of where they are. The government could sort this quite easily if they wanted to, but they want to keep this as an issue to whip up hatred. We don't want any of them hash If you feel so strong about maybe you should house a few. Watch your area decline then and house prices drop. The NHS would all but collapse without immigrant workers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2023 10:22:51 GMT
We cannot house many of the indigenous people as it is, let alone house thousands of alleged Asylum seekers every year, its not possible unaffordable, in some places in the UK English is fast becoming the second language That is, of course, a different problem and down to the government of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 25, 2023 10:23:49 GMT
you idiot, are you honestly telling us that these 'young Albanian men' have arrived illegally by dinghy, and intend to work ..
hahahahahahah
They have NO intentions of doing a hard days graft, they'll either make their money by crime, or knock-up some daft tart and have a load of kids with her, you really are a utter lefty nitwit.
I am not telling you that you are making it up. I responded to another poster that asked why we need migrant workers. Why am I an idiot for stating facts? Ok, remove the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 25, 2023 10:33:04 GMT
Okay- you may not be a liar, you may instead be living in a fantasy universe in which the population of the uk is steadily and dramatically declining. I only think it's fair to point out that this is not remotely the case. The point I made remain un-addressed That is why we consider Net migration, which was 600,000 last year of about 10 football stadiums. Net migration - Ie a net increase in population. You seem to be living in a fantasy universe in which the converse is the case. The whole argument is incidental in any case as i cite the population itself as evidence that your claim that more are needed is patent, dishonest horse-water. Even if the population were instantaneously dropping this would not form evidence more people were actually needed. |
|
