shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Surely this means we’re going to have to pay migrants for food then as we can’t supply it if we’re putting them all in houses instead?
Embarrassing (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fergusons_Beard
- Start date
Surely this means we’re going to have to pay migrants for food then as we can’t supply it if we’re putting them all in houses instead?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I’d hope that we pay for a lot more people to work through the backlog and process claims at a rate that allows us to temporarily hold people in more suitable facilities
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah but that’s not a solution to now that’s a how to stop it getting worse and slowly chip away over three years. If you close all the hotels today you’re probably kicking out a bunch of homeless people from halfway houses to make room (not a random example this happened to someone I know). The migrants have to go somewhere and you don’t get 20k places at the drop of a hat
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Then build temporary facilities away from urban centres. Hotels being used instead sucks money out of the local economy and is creating a visible target for disorder
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Right. You want to build “temporary facilities away from urban centres” that we have to provide services to that won’t be seen as overwhelming the local area.
How long do you expect this to take? Are we talking alligator Alcatraz here?
The choices are rented homes or hotels. All the ex prison sites and the like are used already. They legally can’t work so you’ve got to provide everything for them while they’re there. That’s far easier in a city than out in the sticks.
Is there any evidence of them harming the economy? I’m not sure how that would even work as it’s an influx of demand.
I’m really not sure plonking a load of asylum seekers in rural Tory heartlands is going to make this go away like you think.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I’m saying the policy should never have started in the first place. Hotels being closed to the public and run on skeleton crews while being targets and causes of anti social behaviour clearly has negative economic consequences.
We are focusing on where to put people instead of getting through the backlog
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Were doing both that’s why the numbers are coming down rapidly.
So you’ve got no proof of negative economic consequences. You just think “smelly migrants must cost money”. I’d be surprised if a hotel suddenly being booked up is bad financially for the owners and staff of that hotel or of an influx of people full stop doesn’t. Is there evidence anti social behaviour is higher per capita in these groups? Seems like you’re repeating a lot of stuff you’ve no idea is true tbh.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Now you’re even accusing me of racist dog whistling. You’ve lost the plot on this one.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Im just asking you to back up your quite inflammatory statements. The fact you go straight to insults tells me all I need thanks.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Is this about me and Ashdown? No I see it as a total win when people get personal with decade old info on here. Chicken started going on about a job I left about fifteen years ago at one point. Last time o checked in on Grendel he was still ranting about my dad. Says more about them than me that I rattle them that much they’re either hunting down anything they can find or they’re so obsessed they’re remembering facts about my life from years ago.
If it was deleted it wasn’t asked for by me.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The anti social behaviour I’m on about is referring to people starting trouble while ‘protesting’ at these sites.
Asylum seekers can’t go out and spend money in the same way a tourist or business traveler can. They can’t spend money in the hotel either. The person running the hotel is providing a bare minimum staff so can afford to let a load go while still making a profit for themselves.
Add on to this the lack of security being provided in these places which leaves added risks to the people in them. At least by building places to a standard format you get consistency of treatment and security while returning hotels to their local communities.
The only people benefitting from this policy are the hotel owners. Which as it was a Tory idea, makes total sense.
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
Haven’t been keeping up with this thread as I was anticipating it turning into a shit show. But just wanted to mention, I have been in one of these migrant hotels (in Newcastle) and they are certainly not the five star accommodation some people will lead you to believe. If anything, the one I was in was not fit for human habitation and other things need to be done to house / help these people, without feeding into the pockets of greedy landlords and hotel owners.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I can well believe they’re not luxurious. As I said, the only people profiting from this are the hotel owners. There are no other ‘winners’ from it.
I presume irregular crossings into the EU have reduced mainly due to the countries the EU is partnering with/paying vast amounts of money to are doing a better job than France at stopping migrants crossing their borders and/or are accepting people back quicker reducing the deterrent at source. It’s certainly not because DR is a deterrent which was my original point
Why the irregular crossings are still increasing here is one for the government but what the EU/France are doing allowing the number get to the UK has to be questioned. if you believe being in the EU/DR would suddenly stop the a significant number of crossings that’s your prerogative. I agree it might help a bit but mainly because France might showing a bit more political will (not hard as it’s been pathetically low)
Anyway, wasting hours banging my head against a brick wall is why i try to swerve the politics threads these days. Just try to add some critical thinking
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
The one I went in had security, but was just a couple of big blokes who were very nice. Everyone inside the hotel I spoke to were sound, but it was terribly over crowded
I later found out how much they are making per head. Let’s just say it’s not going back into ensuring the facilities are decent…
Realise this is all anecdotal etc but from a personal point of view I found it quite shocking. Could be spending less money and still be putting an arm around these people, helping them integrate etc.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Macron clearly has his eyes on the EU presidency. It would surely be in his political interest to score a ‘win’ by helping to resolve the boat crossings.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Hotels were brought in initially as a Covid measure because they allowed isolation and we weren’t evicting people from accommodation. Then arrivals have risen.
Building and then quickly emptying (for that is the plan and what’s happening thanks to work on the backlog) custom made accommodation would be a lot more expensive. The only real alternative is to move asylum seekers back to essentially rented accommodation in family homes in the private market or in council owned homes (which are likely to already have vulnerable people in). If you think people are unhappy with a hotel, wait until they’re crowded outside a three bed semi in a housing crisis.
The only way out is through here really or a fuck ton of cash (which will go down how in the press?). They’ve just got to keep doing what they’re doing and clear the backlog, but as always in politics it’ll or a lot mean the term is full of anger at them not doing Tory mistakes yet then when they’re fixed they’ll get kicked out and the next lot will get credit for starting from a clean slate.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The conditions are shit. I was reading a piece and they’ve got kids sharing rooms with unknown adults, massive safeguarding issues all over, migrants begging for mops and buckets or buying them with their £9/wk because their room is filthy despite supposed to be being cleaned. People falling ill because the food is badly cooked etc.
They’d probably love to be in self catering family homes getting £45/wk and having control over their lives but can you imagine the blow back? “Migrants get 5 times as much under Labour” “Labour gives £500k home to migrants” etc etc.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It depends on how quickly the backlog can be cleared. If you’re saying years, I still strongly disagree with using hotels for the purpose.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
See next reply to you might salve your head a bit. Have rowed back (no pun intended)
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
This is why you need a deterrent and it’s no surprise crossing has gone up since Labour scrapped Rwanda. It’s the only significant change this
The home office needs to be committed to turning back boats (or other means) to France, refuse to grant asylum claimants to anyone who rocks up illegally and ensure they process anyone ‘offshore’.
For current asylum claimants, it’s implicitly a permanent settlement, ILR is granted after 5 years with no questions which gives them access to the British welfare state and the family reunion laws are so broad, it can literally apply to anyone. There was a ruling that allowed on Afghan man to bring 22 friends and family because anyone can be family.
To top it off, the vast number of these people are working aged males from violent countries, often undocumented. I don’t have polling data to hand but pretty sure the vast majority of people would only prefer to take in women and children. Frankly, it should be government policy to deny asylum to men below the state pension age and anyone claiming to be a minor or pensioner needs papers.
Ultimately, Macron was right when he called Britain ‘El Dorado’ for these illegal migrants making the crossing. You almost definitely won’t be removed if you commit crime, find work in the gig economy and after 5 years, you get ILR. That all needs to change and there isn’t a more unequipped PM to deal with this than Keir Starmer unfortunately. Not that Rishi Sunak was much better on this issue.
There are sites that could take them I think, don't know how locals would feel but I'm thinking of sites that have security, permanent tented cities like Farnborough right next to the airstrip, Harrogate outside the the town there are buildings used intermittently for exhibitions, don't think it would work though as they're simply not wanted here mostly,or at least it seems that way.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
If it means rubber stamping people into the country, it doesn’t change how angry people are on this.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It should mean processing the claim and doing due diligence on the case. I do not mean just saying ‘yes’ to every claimant.
I had a similar experience at one in Cardiff. It was very grim and bleak inside. Certainly not 4 star, as the hotel was rated.
Though it has since had a huge refurbishment and reopened to the public.
Interesting theory. Personally I think migrants are flocking to this country ever since we sacked Mark Robins.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Robins managed to resettle much more quickly than I anticipated - he assimilated very well into Midlands culture.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
In practice, this is what’s been happening and even where claims are denied, v few people are actually removed.
What else is driving the increase?
The Rwanda scheme was failing because the courts were grounding flights which demonstrates the need to repeal certain laws and pass primary legislation.
Labour are looking to do their own reprocessing scheme and if anyone can put 2 and 2 together, tells you that they know it was a mistake to scrap the plan without an alternative.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
will address the rest but can we stop with:
“the vast majority are working age males from violent countries” bit?
Lets take it bit by bit: “from violent countries” well yeah, otherwise you’d complain there’s no need to claim asylum.
“working age males”
Why might this be? I was listening to something yesterday on R4 about the migrants who died in the back of a truck in Austria about ten years ago. Was really interesting actually as it interviewed the family of those who sent their son and some of the smugglers who are now in jail.
Anyway, the journey involved paying large amounts of cash to a smuggler and basically being told to get into whatever cramped transport was used, sometimes left in a random Serbian forest for two days to fend for themselves until the next guy is available. Theres often violence in cramped accommodations with no food and water. These people are literal people traffickers.
What do you think happens if a woman elderly person or child tries to make this journey? The elderly will likely die from dehydration and exhaustion. The children if they don’t die are likely to be abducted as they can’t fend for themselves and the women too likely to disappear into sex trafficking. So the only people likely to make it are working age men.
The guy who died was escaping ISIS and heading for Germany. They interviewed his grandad who paid and said they sent him because he could have a new life even if they couldn’t make it and didn’t want to leave their home.
I’m really not sure what you want long distance migrants to look like if not “working age”/“fighting age”/“spilling your woman and taking your pint age” men
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Pesky judges upholding ‘human rights’ eh
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This should be the Electoral Commission advert.