New Asylum Seeker Housing Plans

[Highway Man]

At the moment the government is paying huge sums to private landlords and hotels to house the asylum backlog.

There are far too many people to house than can be accommodated in derelict military bases.

The whole of your statement above just shows the scale of the problem that we have. When people on here say that illegal migration is not a major problem or even a problem, well it is and it is one that we should be looking at how to stop the boats as well as removing these from our country. We shouldn't be looking at building houses for them but we should be building detention centres to hold them before deportation.

 

[noseall]

That's weird. I saw in the news that asylum seekers will be forced to pay £10,000 towards their accommodation.

It was a standard troll post (but I think you already knew that).

 

[King Billy]

You missed the part that mentioned ONCE THEY ARE EARNING A CERTAIN AMOUNT.
Again time after time you are slippery and slimy with your posts hoping that you can get away with it.
They can remain on benefits and not work and never have to pay it.

The penalty for not paying, because they can't, for whatever reason, is that they can't apply for permanent settle visa.

Yet again you're proving yourself incapable of sensible debate without resort to abuse:

...you are slippery and slimy ...

 

[ellal]

You missed the part that mentioned ONCE THEY ARE EARNING A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

They can remain on benefits and not work and never have to pay it.

How about the UK's indigenous scroungers...

Do you believe they should start to pay back a portion of their benefits if they ever get into work and reach a certain wage threshold?

 

[festive]

How about what about....

How about no. How about no we are not a welfare state, no we can't afford it you're not coming in, and yes 'indigenous scroungers' that includes you and ones working whilst claiming PIP as well it's a fekin joke, our whole public services need a routing.
I dread to think how much money is wasted internally in gov departments 'inclusion and diversity' calls and help groups and so much bullsh't no wonder we are ****ed they are all fcked and a bunch of melts.

Starmer wants to save the world... lets be frank. Oooh betty.

 

[foxhole]

Another U-turn!?
When the Tories did this, they were heavily criticised by Labour at the time, even though it makes better financial sense than sticking them in hotel luxury.

Very little financial saving , could even work out to be more expensive given the poor state of the housing .

 

[ellal]

How about no. How about no we are not a welfare state, no we can't afford it you're not coming in, and yes 'indigenous scroungers' that includes you and ones working whilst claiming PIP as well it's a fekin joke, our whole public services need a routing.

So you want it to be a 'survival of the fittest' in UK?

No place for anyone unable to pull their own weight?

How about our public health care service - only available for those able to pay?

Why not just get rid of those who don't 'contribute' to the 'greater good' at any point in their lives

I take it that you or any member of your family have never been a recipient of any state 'benefit' of any kind?

 

[Deluks]

Very little financial saving , could even work out to be more expensive given the poor state of the housing .

Only because the MOD are notoriously bad at negotiating contracts.

 

[aveatry]

How about the UK's indigenous scroungers...

Do you believe they should start to pay back a portion of their benefits if they ever get into work and reach a certain wage threshold?

Yes you make a very good point this country has enough of its own population on benefits so we dont need any more from other countries.

 

[festive]

So you want it to be a 'survival of the fittest' in UK?

No place for anyone unable to pull their own weight?

How about our public health care service - only available for those able to pay?

Why not just get rid of those who don't 'contribute' to the 'greater good' at any point in their lives

I take it that you or any member of your family have never been a recipient of any state 'benefit' of any kind?

Ok someone in my family his wife has a 'disability' however is working in full time job earning good money, they both are and he's driving around in a very nice car... so they played the system she got a council house they've now bought that for a fraction of what I paid for my first house.

Someone else in my family did similar has a council house , has long term intention to buy it cheap and they have 3 kids obviously one has been 'taken out of poverty" now, the wife spends her time at home mostly doing house chores and drinking obviously not the money used to take the other one out of poverty. She also just just discovered she has ADHD and is on pip and pip care.

So yes I have family that have and no I don't agree because when I work hard I lose my tax allowance and hmrc actually increase the tax percentage on my salary which is beyond moronic I pay a percentage already why should it go up for me, as I decided to devote decades of my life working for pennies to study and increase my earning potential yes life sacrifices only for me to be viewed as 'cash rich' and am instead treated with contempt and resentment what I've achieved and instead I pay 10 times more
We ask for equality where's mine?

I want to pay for my own medical care privately via my own financial channels and give my NHS resource time I already pay for in my taxes to everyone else and I'll pay for private care but that's seen as a benefit because I'm so minted I can afford it so I should be taxed on that. Why? I am already alleviating the NHS paying for my own treatment that is pure resentment not reason.

Someone earning £120,000 pays around £40,000 a year in Income Tax and employee National Insurance, compared with roughly £1,500 for someone on £20,000—around 25 times more, despite earning about 6 times as much. Wheres the equality there? So that's fair is it?

Which way do you want it Squeaky pants? All I'm favour of the needy and we suck it up or the other way ? I am happy to support the elderly sick and poor.
Not the ****taking lazy fcks and the world seeing us as an easy touch scared of calling them out for being seen as racist so instead take money off the hard working.

 

[King Billy]

The problem with strict rules often comes back to bite, depending on unforeseen future global geopolitics.

For instance the UK introduced strict immigration controls during WW2.
But this prevented the UK government assisting with the evacuation of affected Jews from Nazi Germany.

Britain’s reluctance to accept refugees fleeing Nazi Germany was driven by strict interwar immigration controls,
The primary factors that limited the UK's support include:

• Strict Entry Requirements: The UK did not legally recognize a right to asylum. Refugees required financial guarantors who would cover their living expenses and had to prove they possessed considerable wealth or specialized skills. The government generally refused to fund resettlement.

The support was provided by private individuals, charities and religious organisations.

German refugees in the UK during WWII were primarily supported by private charities, religious organizations, and local volunteers, rather than direct government funding. Support mechanisms relied heavily on sponsorship and community-led relief efforts.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

The whole of your statement above just shows the scale of the problem that we have. When people on here say that illegal migration is not a major problem or even a problem, well it is and it is one that we should be looking at how to stop the boats as well as removing these from our country. We shouldn't be looking at building houses for them but we should be building detention centres to hold them before deportation.

I've said numerous times we should have thrown a few billion at having a much stricter process for those arriving illegally. More coastal patrols, significant building of basic, clean, safe accommodation (e.g. on ex military sites) to house them until their claim is concluded. And if the claim is not approved, ensuring there aren't 100 different legal loopholes they can use to ensure they can't be deported.

Part of me thinks it's almost unbelievable re the article about the £250k houses being offered to them. Then again, part of me doesn't.

 

[aveatry]

I've said numerous times we should have thrown a few billion at having a much stricter process for those arriving illegally. More coastal patrols,

Yes actually on the beaches - just wait their for them to arrive instead of picking them up 12 miles away.

significant building of basic, clean, safe accommodation (e.g. on ex military sites) to house them until their claim is concluded. And if the claim is not approved, ensuring there aren't 100 different legal loopholes they can use to ensure they can't be deported.

Part of me thinks it's almost unbelievable re the article about the £250k houses being offered to them. Then again, part of me doesn't.

Its actually 100% true

 

[Highway Man]

OMG wrong thread. Sorry

 

[morqthana]

How about no. How about no we are not a welfare state, no we can't afford it you're not coming in, and yes 'indigenous scroungers' that includes you and ones working whilst claiming PIP as well it's a fekin joke, our whole public services need a routing.

What about people who took Covid payments when they didn't need them?