Asylum seekers with children to have support payments cut

[Red]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ers-with-children-to-see-support-payments-cut

Ministers said the cuts, which would affect more than 27,800 destitute asylum seekers, were being made because the current payment system resulted in families with children in particular receiving “significantly more cash than is necessary” to meet their essential living needs.

What planet are these c*** on? £73.90 enough to live on per week with children? It disgusts me. I'd like to see them survive on that amount of money.

 

[KevinMcallister]

cuts are needed to pay for a 7k wage rise each tbf

and to think people voted these leaches in, we never learn

 

[TheWednesday]

I'd love to know how many of these claiming it are actually asylum seekers though.

 

[Modernist]

The lovely caring Tories.

 

[Aber gas]

I'd love to know how many of these claiming it are actually asylum seekers though.

Does it really matter ?

 

[silkyman]

Fuck em. Let them die.

Post sponsored by Katie Hopkins.

 

[TheWednesday]

Does it really matter ?

Well yes, when most of them aren't actually asylum seekers and have full time jobs here too.

 

[Aber gas]

Well yes, when most of them aren't actually asylum seekers and have full time jobs here too.

But the whole point of the payments are because they're not allowed to work . Asylum seekers have to live on benefits .

 

[Red]

Well yes, when most of them aren't actually asylum seekers and have full time jobs here too.

This is indicative of the ignorance about asylum seekers.

 

[Aber gas]

Don't be daft red . It's a well known "fact " that all these so called asylum seekers risk their own and their children's lives just to milk a hundred quid a week off the taxpayer whilst living in a shithole . " you couldn't make it up " " hell in a hand basket " " bloody pc liberals , running the place "
I might need to go to bed , getting a bit ranty .

 

[silkyman]

I often dream of leaving this life to cross a warzone for the honour of giving someone who doesn't care of I live or die everything I have so I can float across the med on a leaking boat, before hitching, walking or begging my way through Europe, facing violence and danger to try and climb onto a truck in Calais, with my daughter, for a bedsit in Luton.

That'd be ace.

Especially if I'll have a job waiting for me, too, apparently.

 

[Red]

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/po...about_asylum?gclid=CPWdiOea58YCFWnLtAodPXwCSQ

 

[Hooped Wizard]

Good news. Tories really have started this parliament with fire in their bellies.

Exciting times for middle income families.

 

[Red]

Good news. Tories really have started this parliament with fire in their bellies.

Exciting times for middle income families.

Why is this good news?

 

[silkyman]

It's great. All it needs is one poor family to be 100 a month worse off for 10 middle class families to have an extra tenner.

 

[silkyman]

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/po...about_asylum?gclid=CPWdiOea58YCFWnLtAodPXwCSQ

 

[Alty]

It's quite obvious most people posting here have little or no knowledge of the immigration or asylum systems.

Trust me lads, the majority of claims do not come from people escaping terrifying war zones.

You do all realise that as an asylum seeker you're automatically given a whole load of entitlements, including somewhere to live? So when we talk about forcing them to live off £x, it's actually £x + whatever the cost of housing is.

Just to clarify - I don't think the majority of asylum seekers are terrible people. I do think the UK, along with other developed countries, should offer asylum to those in perilous danger. But let's just keep things in perspective eh? Lots of claims are bogus and I think people who've fled the worst conditions known to man can probably get by fine with free accommodation and a few hundred quid per month in the UK.

 

[Aber gas]

Firstly refugees don't have to come from a war torn country to be fleeing persecution , there are lots of places in the world that are dangerous and oppressive if you happen to be the wrong colour , creed , sexuality or political persuasion . Secondly how do you explain the motivation of people putting themselves and their families in peril to get here and subsist on very little money and in the worst accomodation that can be found if their reasons are bogus ? Finally just because people disagree with your daily mail politics it doesn't make them ignorant to the asylum system .

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

It's quite obvious most people posting here have little or no knowledge of the immigration or asylum systems.

Trust me lads, the majority of claims do not come from people escaping terrifying war zones.

You do all realise that as an asylum seeker you're automatically given a whole load of entitlements, including somewhere to live? So when we talk about forcing them to live off £x, it's actually £x + whatever the cost of housing is.

Just to clarify - I don't think the majority of asylum seekers are terrible people. I do think the UK, along with other developed countries, should offer asylum to those in perilous danger. But let's just keep things in perspective eh? Lots of claims are bogus and I think people who've fled the worst conditions known to man can probably get by fine with free accommodation and a few hundred quid per month in the UK.

Largely fact-free nonsense that.

No such thing as a bogus asylum seeker.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Alty]

Firstly refugees don't have to come from a war torn country to be fleeing persecution , there are lots of places in the world that are dangerous and oppressive if you happen to be the wrong colour , creed , sexuality or political persuasion .

I was (obviously) using the worst example most of us could imagine. If I really have to spell it out for you, let's go with the following: the majority of claims do not come from people who cannot return to their country for fear of persecution.

Secondly how do you explain the motivation of people putting themselves and their families in peril to get here and subsist on very little money and in the worst accomodation that can be found if their reasons are bogus ?

For a man who seemingly dislikes tabloid hacks, you're doing a good impression here. Let's see:
1. Most asylum applications do not come from people who've had to put themselves and their families in peril to get here.

2. Most asylum seekers come from the developing world. The money they get is by no means paltry in comparison to what they'd earn if they were back in their countries of origin.

3. In "the worst accomodation that can be found" Yes, the evil British State scours the country for houses deemed shit enough to herd asylum seekers into. Come on man, do you want to be taken seriously or not?

4. For those people who do face a dangerous journey...some do so because they fear persecution and need to escape. However, many more make such journeys...or even just long journeys that lead to them living in a strange country, which itself can be a scary thought...because they don't like their lives in their countries of origin and they're desperate to get out and live in Britain (or other developed countries). But those aren't grounds for asylum. I feel symapthy for such people, but as I always ask people when it comes to this issue, where do you draw the line? Can anyone from a developing country in which the standard of living is worse than ours come and settle in the UK? Will it make us all feel better as the rich countries' populations grow by 10% per year, the public services grind to a halt and we empty developing countries of their people in the process?

Finally just because people disagree with your daily mail politics it doesn't make them ignorant to the asylum system .

Nice one. Point stands, though. A whole load of posts heaily implying that most asylum claims are genuine and that claimants' lives in the UK are horrendous. Simply not true.

 

[Alty]

Largely fact-free nonsense that.

No such thing as a bogus asylum seeker.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

Tell that to the examiner having to deal with the claim of someone with multiple crimes in the UK who only "remembered" they'd be killed if they returned home once they'd been notified they were subject to deportation.

I think my favourite yet is a bloke who claimed asylum in order to avoid being removed to...France.

 

[Aber gas]

I was (obviously) using the worst example most of us could imagine. If I really have to spell it out for you, let's go with the following: the majority of claims do not come from people who cannot return to their country for fear of persecution.


For a man who seemingly dislikes tabloid hacks, you're doing a good impression here. Let's see:
1. Most asylum applications do not come from people who've had to put themselves and their families in peril to get here.

2. Most asylum seekers come from the developing world. The money they get is by no means paltry in comparison to what they'd earn if they were back in their countries of origin.

3. In "the worst accomodation that can be found" Yes, the evil British State scours the country for houses deemed shit enough to herd asylum seekers into. Come on man, do you want to be taken seriously or not?

4. For those people who do face a dangerous journey...some do so because they fear persecution and need to escape. However, many more make such journeys...or even just long journeys that lead to them living in a strange country, which itself can be a scary thought...because they don't like their lives in their countries of origin and they're desperate to get out and live in Britain (or other developed countries). But those aren't grounds for asylum. I feel symapthy for such people, but as I always ask people when it comes to this issue, where do you draw the line? Can anyone from a developing country in which the standard of living is worse than ours come and settle in the UK? Will it make us all feel better as the rich countries' populations grow by 10% per year, the public services grind to a halt and we empty developing countries of their people in the process?


Nice one. Point stands, though. A whole load of posts heaily implying that most asylum claims are genuine and that claimants' lives in the UK are horrendous. Simply not true.

These are your " facts " personally il go with the refugee council rather than your right wing bollocks . Do I think the state puts refugees in the worst housing ? Yes , the poorest and most vulnerable are always the first to be fucked over . As for being taken seriously by you , couldn't care less . I just don't like to leave your nasty bullshit unfiltered .

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Alty's an agent of state violence these days isn't he?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Red]

These are your " facts " personally il go with the refugee council rather than your right wing bollocks . Do I think the state puts refugees in the worst housing ? Yes , the poorest and most vulnerable are always the first to be fucked over . As for being taken seriously by you , couldn't care less . I just don't like to leave your nasty bullshit unfiltered .

He's right Alty. Also you do come over as being a bit of a sanctimonious twat sometimes and to be frank I think the Refugee Council know more about this than you. Freleaf is right behind you though which says it all really.

 

[Alty]

These are your " facts " personally il go with the refugee council rather than your right wing bollocks . Do I think the state puts refugees in the worst housing ? Yes , the poorest and most vulnerable are always the first to be fucked over . As for being taken seriously by you , couldn't care less . I just don't like to leave your nasty bullshit unfiltered .

I'm not remotely right-wing and the Refugee Council are hardly going to be the most neutral voice in this, are they? By all means continue embarrassing yourself with your angry nonsense, though.

FWIW here's a basic and straightforward explanation of what asylum seekers can get: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

It isn't luxury. Life isn't easy. But it sure as hell isn't as soul-destroyingly terrible as you, Ian, Red and Silkyman seem to think. If you need somewhere to live, you'll get it. If you need free medical care, you'll get it. If you have kids, they'll be educated at tax payers' expense. You'll get a few quid on top.

 

[Red]

I'm not remotely right-wing and the Refugee Council are hardly going to be the most neutral voice in this, are they? By all means continue embarrassing yourself with your angry nonsense, though.

FWIW here's a basic and straightforward explanation of what asylum seekers can get: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

It isn't luxury. Life isn't easy. But it sure as hell isn't as soul-destroyingly terrible as you, Ian, Red and Silkyman seem to think. If you need somewhere to live, you'll get it. If you need free medical care, you'll get it. If you have kids, they'll be educated at tax payers' expense. You'll get a few quid on top.

This is exactly what I'm talking about Alty. You're not an asylum seeker, so don't presume to know how what their conditions and lives are like. It was the same with the discussion about jcp advisers. Just because they were, as you put it well meaning, towards you it doesn't mean they behave that way with most people, especially long term unemployed.

Working as a volunteer for a project in Sheffield some years ago, I was a befriender of an asylum seeker. This guy was a lecturer from Libya who fled because his life was in danger. The accommodation he lived in was owned by a private agent funded by the council and I will tell you now it was a fucking hovel that I would not have let my dog live in. It was overcrowded because he shared the house with other asylum seekers, there was no privacy. The furnishings were falling to pieces and there was damp and rot. When they complained the agent kept saying they'd sort it out but they never did. Eventually the council found out and revoked their contract. My friend was then re housed, but the new place wasn't much better. That standard of housing is unacceptable and I was informed by the organisation I worked for that such allocations in such sub standard housing is commonplace. I'm sorry to confront your delusion with reality but that's how it is.
As for disposable income he had none, nothing. Remember for a single person it's less than jsa which is extremely hard to live on
Also, implying that the Refugee Council would embellish findings is poor. They don't need to do that.
What exactly is your real life experience of the actual quality of life of asylum seekers? Finally as for your assertion that most asylum applications are not genuine it's more the case that most are deemed not genuine.

I think you should keep a lid on the pontificating about things you have little or no first hand experience of.

 

[Gladders]

Friend lived in bad conditions so all live in bad conditions!

 

[Red]

Friend lived in bad conditions so all live in bad conditions!

No, you've got that the wrong way round. Everyone is entitled to live in habitable housing.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Why are the majority of the people in this country heartless bastards?!

I'm sure these Asylum seekers leave their war torn homes and poverty stricken life back home for the glitzy life on benefits in the UK! Christ, I bet 99% of them don't even think they can claim anything when they come here.

 

[Alty]

I think you should keep a lid on the pontificating about things you have little or no first hand experience of.

The slight flaw in your argument here is that I've processed loads of immigration cases that involved asylum claims from people from a range of countries and who were living in all sorts of different places (including some in prison).

You, on the other hand, think having one pal in Sheffield means you're not only qualified to comment, but also to tell anyone who disagrees with you that they can't!