Asylum seekers with children to have support payments cut

[Alty]

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.

You lose that bet.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

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!

Presume you have to kid yourself to be able to sleep at night though?

 

[Alty]

Presume you have to kid yourself to be able to sleep at night though?

Haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Red]

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!

Yeah, because a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk will know more about the quality of life of asylum seekers than somebody who worked with one and was in the company of other asylum seekers. It's quite unbelievable that you somehow think that by processing forms it gives you insight into these people's lives. I'm not saying you can't comment, I'm just saying stop talking bollocks about it from behind your desk at the Home Office because the reality for asylum seekers in the real world is nothing like what you think it is. You arrogantly said that most people here know nothing about the asylum system. It's patetnly obvious to me you know nothing of the challenges faced by asylum seekers.

 

[Alty]

Yeah, because a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk will know more about the quality of life of asylum seekers than somebody who worked with one and was in the company of other asylum seekers. It's quite unbelievable that you somehow think that by processing forms it gives you insight into these people's lives. I'm not saying you can't comment, I'm just saying stop talking bollocks about it from behind your desk at the Home Office because the reality for asylum seekers in the real world is nothing like what you think it is. You arrogantly said that most people here know nothing about the asylum system. It's patetnly obvious to me you know nothing of the challenges faced by asylum seekers.

"Processing forms" yep, that's what it amounts to. It's not like I actually spoke to these people or their family members and legal reps or anything.

Deary me.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

I'm saying that because of the documented racism, brutality and injustice of the immigration system, anyone who works there has to practice some serious cognitive dissonance to reconcile what they do with their own conscience.

Dehumanisation of labour and that.

 

[Red]

"Processing forms" yep, that's what it amounts to. It's not like I actually spoke to these people or their family members and legal reps or anything.

Deary me.

You spoke to them and their families in a controlled environment whilst processing their claims. Does this give you an insight to their daily lives? No it does not. When you've spent some time with asylum seekers and witnessed on a daily basis the challenges they face and how hard their lives are, I'll give your opinions on their quality of life some credence.

Just to let you know, ending a post with deary me as though you're addressing a child unable to grasp something just lessens your credibility.

 

[Alty]

I'm saying that because of the documented racism, brutality and injustice of the immigration system, anyone who works there has to practice some serious cognitive dissonance to reconcile what they do with their own conscience.

Dehumanisation of labour and that.

Complete nonsense.

I don't expect to be able to settle in other countries as a matter of right. Why should I? I certainly wouldn't bemoan the "injustice" of being refused that right if I had nothing to offer the nation.

I do find it bizarre that the practice of importing cheap labour en masse is seen as in some way progressive. I don't think we're doing developing countries a favour by saying to their people they should come here and do our manual and low-skill jobs for us.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Immigration as "cheap labour" is indeed a shit reason to support open borders.

The correct reasons are a) migration is a human right and b) Britain's wealth is down to colonial plunder and everyone in the global south has some right to a share of our relative prosperity.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Alty]

You spoke to them and their families in a controlled environment whilst processing their claims. Does this give you an insight to their daily lives? No it does not. When you've spent some time with asylum seekers and witnessed on a daily basis the challenges they face and how hard their lives are, I'll give your opinions on their quality of life some credence.

Just to let you know, ending a post with deary me as though you're addressing a child unable to grasp something just lessens your credibility.

I've never claimed to have a deep insight into the daily lives of asylum seekers. All I've done in this thread is counter some erroneous generalisations (mainly through my own working experience) and present a few facts about what asylum seekers are actually entitled to.

I've never said anything disparaging about those who genuinely need asylum. Nor have I said life is easy. I just happen to disagree with the posters who've claimed asylum seekers can't possibly live on the entitlements they receive, that the overwhelming majority have good claims and have risked their lives to come here, and that 99% of them think they'll get nothing when they come here (which, if it was true, would beg the question of why free housing, healthcare, education and some cash on top is seen as insufficient...).

I apologise if I came across as condescending. But in all honesty it's difficult when the person arguing with you falls back on "you just process forms...I knew a guy".

 

[Alty]

Immigration as "cheap labour" is indeed a shit reason to support open borders.

The correct reasons are a) migration is a human right and b) Britain's wealth is down to colonial plunder and everyone in the global south has some right to a share of our relative prosperity.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

a) I simply don't accept that migration is a human right for the reasons stated above.

b) What about rich countries that were never imperial powers? Indeed, what about the relatively rich countries that were themselves colonies? Are they spared the obligation to give away their wealth? I totally accept there's an obligation on rich countries to help those in desperate need around the world. But once a country becomes independent, its social and economic progress is its own responsibility.

Giving our cash to poor countries to assuage hangover colonialism guilt is absolutely pathetic. It's the equivalent of a rubbish parent continuing to fund their waste of space child well into their 30s.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Lol colonialism/capitalism/imperialism still fucks over these countries through the IMF/global capital etc.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Red]

I've never claimed to have a deep insight into the daily lives of asylum seekers. All I've done in this thread is counter some erroneous generalisations (mainly through my own working experience) and present a few facts about what asylum seekers are actually entitled to.

I've never said anything disparaging about those who genuinely need asylum. Nor have I said life is easy. I just happen to disagree with the posters who've claimed asylum seekers can't possibly live on the entitlements they receive, that the overwhelming majority have good claims and have risked their lives to come here, and that 99% of them think they'll get nothing when they come here (which, if it was true, would beg the question of why free housing, healthcare, education and some cash on top is seen as insufficient...).

I apologise if I came across as condescending. But in all honesty it's difficult when the person arguing with you falls back on "you just process forms...I knew a guy".

'Fall back on'? You make that sound like it's a weak argument to say someone who has worked with asylum seekers on a daily basis will have a greater understanding than someone who processes claims. I'd say it stands to reason that somebody who works with asylum seekers and witnesses their daily life will have a clearer understanding. I think maybe you found it difficult to refrain from being condescending because you know that I'm right.

You say disagree with people who say that asylum seekers can't possible live on the entitlements they receive. How do you know this? Again I'm sorry, but I give more credence to The Refugee Council who work closely with asylum seekers and know more about their quality life than you do

.http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1

• Most asylum seekers are living in poverty and experience poor health and hunger. Many families are not able to pay for the basics such as clothing, powdered milk and nappies.
  (The Children's Society Briefing highlighting the gap between asylum support and mainstream benefits, 2012 Independent Asylum Commission citizens’ inquiry in The Independent, 2007)
• Almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on state support – this can be as little as £5 a day to live on.

£5 a day to live on. I don't know what world you live in but in the one I inhabit £5 per day would not yield even a basic standard of living.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/refugees-and-benefits

People fleeing their home country and applying for protection (or asylum) in the UK are generally excluded from claiming most benefits (asylum seekers are 'persons subject to immigration control' in the benefit rules). They instead have to rely on Home Office support which is provided at a level less than the minimum the law allows anyone else to live on.

Is it acceptable that asylum seekers live on less than the minimum law allows anyone else to live on? I've been on JSA, it was hand to mouth. They have to live on less than that. A couple have to live on £72.52 per week, a single person £36.95. Not acceptable in my book. What kind of a life would you imagine they lead on £36.95 per week Alty?

You say that most applications are bogus.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_5

• Initial Home Office decision-making remains poor. In 2011, the courts overturned Home Office decisions in 26% of asylum appeals. (Home Office asylum statistics fourth quarter 2011)
• There is a particular problem with decisions on women’s claims. A 2011 study found 50% of negative decisions were overturned by the courts. (Asylum Aid, Unsustainable: The quality of initial decision-making in women’s asylum claims, 2011)

26% and 50%. These were high rates, has this miraculously changed since then?

I just don't get how you arrive at the conclusion that asylum seekers can live on what they currently get. Ok, yeah it keeps them alive, but if that's the measure of what being able to live on is it's a very sorry state of affairs.

 

[Modernist]

People seem to believe that people on the dole all have the life of luxury, that all immigrants can get loads of benefits as soon as their feet enter britain. Why people believe this is unknown. Maybe they read the daily mail, maybe they believe what some drunk in the pub told them, maybe they want to believe it so they have someone to blame for the countries ills. It baffles me but they're like sheep believing all this nonsense, I feel sorry for them, what miserable lives they must lead to have their sheep mentality, unable to think for themselves and always belieiving the worst in people.

 

[Alty]

'Fall back on'? You make that sound like it's a weak argument to say someone who has worked with asylum seekers on a daily basis will have a greater understanding than someone who processes claims. I'd say it stands to reason that somebody who works with asylum seekers and witnesses their daily life will have a clearer understanding. I think maybe you found it difficult to refrain from being condescending because you know that I'm right.

First half of this bit - I have a good understanding of the nature of asylum claims, where applicants have come from, why they claim they can't return, what they get up to while they're in the UK etc. More so, I would suggest, than most people posting in this thread. That's all I've ever claimed in this thread and I stand by it.

Second half - doesn't make sense.

You say disagree with people who say that asylum seekers can't possible live on the entitlements they receive. How do you know this? Again I'm sorry, but I give more credence to The Refugee Council who work closely with asylum seekers and know more about their quality life than you do

.http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1

• Most asylum seekers are living in poverty and experience poor health and hunger. Many families are not able to pay for the basics such as clothing, powdered milk and nappies.
  (The Children's Society Briefing highlighting the gap between asylum support and mainstream benefits, 2012 Independent Asylum Commission citizens’ inquiry in The Independent, 2007)
• Almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on state support – this can be as little as £5 a day to live on.

£5 a day to live on. I don't know what world you live in but in the one I inhabit £5 per day would not yield even a basic standard of living.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/refugees-and-benefits

Again, all I pointed out was that the amount of money given to asylum seekers is on top of free housing, healthcare and education. I never claimed it amounted to a high standard of living.

Asylum seekers have a number of charitable organisations who are willing to help them with everything from food to legal representation (as I'm sure you know). Life isn't easy, but it's doable.

People fleeing their home country and applying for protection (or asylum) in the UK are generally excluded from claiming most benefits (asylum seekers are 'persons subject to immigration control' in the benefit rules). They instead have to rely on Home Office support which is provided at a level less than the minimum the law allows anyone else to live on.

Is it acceptable that asylum seekers live on less than the minimum law allows anyone else to live on? I've been on JSA, it was hand to mouth. They have to live on less than that. A couple have to live on £72.52 per week, a single person £36.95. Not acceptable in my book. What kind of a life would you imagine they lead on £36.95 per week Alty?

Answered this above.

You say that most applications are bogus.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_5

• Initial Home Office decision-making remains poor. In 2011, the courts overturned Home Office decisions in 26% of asylum appeals. (Home Office asylum statistics fourth quarter 2011)
• There is a particular problem with decisions on women’s claims. A 2011 study found 50% of negative decisions were overturned by the courts. (Asylum Aid, Unsustainable: The quality of initial decision-making in women’s asylum claims, 2011)

26% and 50%. These were high rates, has this miraculously changed since then?

Those figures don't disprove what I said, if you actually investigate them properly.

I just don't get how you arrive at the conclusion that asylum seekers can live on what they currently get. Ok, yeah it keeps them alive, but if that's the measure of what being able to live on is it's a very sorry state of affairs.

I conclude they can live on what they get because...they can live on what they currently get.

 

[Red]

First half of this bit - I have a good understanding of the nature of asylum claims, where applicants have come from, why they claim they can't return, what they get up to while they're in the UK etc. More so, I would suggest, than most people posting in this thread. That's all I've ever claimed in this thread and I stand by it.

Second half - doesn't make sense.


Again, all I pointed out was that the amount of money given to asylum seekers is on top of free housing, healthcare and education. I never claimed it amounted to a high standard of living.

Asylum seekers have a number of charitable organisations who are willing to help them with everything from food to legal representation (as I'm sure you know). Life isn't easy, but it's doable.


Answered this above.


Those figures don't disprove what I said, if you actually investigate them properly.


I conclude they can live on what they get because...they can live on what they currently get.

No, they exist and remain alive on what they get and that is going to be cut even further. On the previous page you mentioned something like they should be able to get by on a few hundred quid a month. For a single person on 37 quid a week that is not a few hundred quid a month is it?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

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.

Yes, that's why Calais is besieged by people desperate to leave the war-torn wastes of Northern France to reach the sweet sanctuary of Great Britain. The benefits will just be an unexpected bonus when they get here. The only thing I don't get is why they claim the contrary.

Largely fact-free nonsense that.

No such thing as a bogus asylum seeker.

Immigration as "cheap labour" is indeed a shit reason to support open borders.

The correct reasons are a) migration is a human right and b) Britain's wealth is down to colonial plunder and everyone in the global south has some right to a share of our relative prosperity.

Sometimes you give the impression that you're a massive right-winger sent here to parody the left and make your opponents look silly.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Yes, that's why Calais is besieged by people desperate to leave the war-torn wastes of Northern France to reach the sweet sanctuary of Great Britain. The benefits will just be an unexpected bonus when they get here. The only thing I don't get is why they claim the contrary.

They don't.

The only reason that refugees in the UK rely on state support is because the government force refugees to rely on state support by depriving them of access to work.

As research by the refugee council indicated, most refugees have knowledge or understanding of the welfare system - there's no evidence that increasing benefits for asylum seekers acts as an increased pull-factor.

The vast majority of research participants were working in their country of origin and most expected that they would be able to work in order to support themselves and their families when they came to the UK. Very few were aware that they would not be allowed to work when they came to the UK. They only became aware that this was the situation after they arrived.

The majority of respondents (around three quarters) had no knowledge of welfare benefits and support before coming to the UK. Most came from countries lacking well-developed welfare systems and had no expectation that they would be supported. Some were disapproving of the welfare system. There is no evidence that respondents consider the UK welfare system to be more generous than that of other countries.

In fact, the reasons that some migrants (those who are able to choose where they seek asylum and who choose to seek asylum in Britain) it's often colonial links that play the largest factor in where they go. Partly that's due to people wanting to go to the places where they already have support networks, partly due to linguistic, cultural and institutional ties.

For the minority of respondents who were able to make choices about where to claim asylum, historical and colonial links appear to play an important role in their final destination.

The single biggest area of British life with which respondents were familiar was football.

Many respondents, and in particular those who had been persecuted as a result of their political activities, commented on the importance of human rights in the UK and on the perceived independence of the judiciary and systems of law and order.

Past colonial links mean that individuals are more likely to have members of family or other conationals living in certain countries. As suggested below, these social networks can play an important part in facilitating migration although it seems likely that their significance has been reduced by increasingly restrictive systems of immigration control which make it more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the UK. In addition, historical links between countries mean that some countries have common language, legal, education and welfare systems as well as shared cultural reference points. These characteristics may lead people to feel that they can integrate into certain countries more easily. Individuals may also have a strongly held belief that although their countries of origin have won independence from the UK, the ‘motherland’ has an ongoing duty to protect them or that the problems they are experiencing now are linked to divisive colonial rule.

Might want to have a think about why you're disseminating lies about migrants. It's massively shitty.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Anti-migrant sentiment has been going strong for the past 90 years, almost. What's strange is that despite us seeing the same arguments getting used over and over again, from Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to South Asian refugees from Idi Amin's Uganda, people still buy into this bullshit.

There are more displaced people now than at any point in history. This burden is overwhelming shared by developing countries that lack the infrastructure to accommodate the volume of refugees. Meanwhile, a tiny number of migrants that we could easily accommodate is a "swarm" and a "crisis".

Don't really understand anyone who isn't advocating for migrants right now.

 

[.V.]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7909630

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Government, under the rhetoric of "cracking down on illegal immigration", makes it possible to evict people without a court order.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...gal-immigrants-violence-calais-migrant-crisis

I hate this fucking country.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Exclusive pictures from Calais, courtesy of the Daily Mail.

They're coming for your benefits.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

If the Government decides or we are told by the EU to let them in and relax immigration and Asylum rules, the Government would need to put in serious investment into more housing, maybe even a new town. This will likely include more roads, schools, public transport, increased NHS spending, increased public service spending.

That money will have to come from somewhere, and that will be the Taxpayer and further privitisation. Would you be happy for an increase in tax to pay for all of this?

That's the real question, would you be willing to pay out more to accommodate them?

Letting them without increased spending on the above would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Also relaxing the rules to ease the crises in Calais will only encourage more to come.

Tightening border controls will only create more tension, and little more than a sticking plaster. We may not have much of a choice in the long run but to let a set amount of numbers settle here, at the expense of the taxpayer.

In short I will only agree to letting Asylum seekers and illegal migrants settle here if significant investment is put down to facilitate them, and that won't happen overnight. I would go as far as to argue that the EU would need to part fund that investment

 

[Gladders]

I hate this fucking country.

Leave then and go claim asylum somewhere, just make sure to pass through France because apparently they are not safe enough to claim asylum in.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

If the Government decides or we are told by the EU to let them in and relax immigration and Asylum rules, the Government would need to put in serious investment into more housing, maybe even a new town. This will likely include more roads, schools, public transport, increased NHS spending, increased public service spending.

That money will have to come from somewhere, and that will be the Taxpayer and further privitisation. Would you be happy for an increase in tax to pay for all of this?

That's the real question, would you be willing to pay out more to accommodate them?

Letting them without increased spending on the above would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Also relaxing the rules to ease the crises in Calais will only encourage more to come.

Yes. In fact, if you combined housebuilding with a move to drive down rents (rent being, in essence, a privatised tax) you could probably tax everyone a hell of a lot more without them feeling the pinch.

(there are other ways of solving the problem - for example expropriating the rental properties of private landlords and placing them under state control and using social rents to build more houses, but I accept that's a radical solution, even if it is right).

Tightening border controls will only create more tension, and little more than a sticking plaster. We may not have much of a choice in the long run but to let a set amount of numbers settle here, at the expense of the taxpayer.

In short I will only agree to letting Asylum seekers and illegal migrants settle here if significant investment is put down to facilitate them, and that won't happen overnight. I would go as far as to argue that the EU would need to part fund that investment

The EU needs to recognise that migration is inevitable and drop the ring of steel. It then needs to make it easier to distribute migrants around Europe based on their structural ability to accommodate them. That would involve Britain taking in a lot more refugees. Internal borders need relaxing too - so new arrivals have the same right of free movement as everyone else.

That's the only pragmatic solution - everything else is King Canute commanding the waves to turn back and getting increasingly angry, violent and racist when they don't.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Leave then and go claim asylum somewhere, just make sure to pass through France because apparently they are not safe enough to claim asylum in.

I'd probably hate all the other countries too, plus my job and my friends are here so I'm stuck in this racist shithole.

 

[Alty]

Government, under the rhetoric of "cracking down on illegal immigration", makes it possible to evict people without a court order.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...gal-immigrants-violence-calais-migrant-crisis

I hate this fucking country.

"Under the forthcoming immigration bill, landlords will be expected to evict illegal immigrants soon after receiving a Home Office notice that their tenant no longer has the right to rent in the UK. In some circumstances landlords will be able to act without a court order."

I despair sometimes. Surely when the Home Office becomes aware that someone has no right to be in the UK, they should make arrangements to remove that person?? What use is it chucking them out on the street but failing to facilitate their passage back to their country of origin? It's just going to lead to crime. This is all about looking tough when in fact it'll do nothing to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country. TBH it's borderline cruel.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

"Under the forthcoming immigration bill, landlords will be expected to evict illegal immigrants soon after receiving a Home Office notice that their tenant no longer has the right to rent in the UK. In some circumstances landlords will be able to act without a court order."

I despair sometimes. Surely when the Home Office becomes aware that someone has no right to be in the UK, they should make arrangements to remove that person?? What use is it chucking them out on the street but failing to facilitate their passage back to their country of origin? It's just going to lead to crime. This is all about looking tough when in fact it'll do nothing to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country. TBH it's borderline cruel.

Borderline? I know I don't believe in borders but I'm pretty sure that's straight up cruel.

Not to mention the fact that this will clearly lead to not just discrimination against undocumented migrants but also to people (especially people of colour) without passports (there's so much racism in propertly letting anyway).

 

[SUTSS]

I work in a letting agents and we have had several calls this week from landlords worried about taking foreigners on because of this. Doesn't seem to appease all when we say that we check visas before letting to non-eu migrant anyway.

 

[Alty]

I work in a letting agents and we have had several calls this week from landlords worried about taking foreigners on because of this. Doesn't seem to appease all when we say that we check visas before letting to non-eu migrant anyway.

I suppose a letting agent might have the time and resources to regularly check someone's immigration status. But a private landlord being expected to keep going back to the tenant to make sure they've extended their visa? Nah. For peace of mind you'd let to a Brit Cit/EEA National.