After Asylum: A Glimpse Inside the Hidden Realities of the UK Refugee Hotel System

[newbee2022]

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

Remove incentives, no free money, no free housing, detention on arrival, no free legal representation and deportation as soon as possible thereafter using any money they turned up with to pay for their flight.   The UK being an island has a unique advantage also of being able to defend its seas from invasion, so stopping boats from arriving in the first place seems to be the easiest approach. 

Splendid idea. 🤗

All of your ideas are against the laws.

You said:

1. No money: that might work if you give food for free

2. Free housing: it's getting now difficult. You want them to sleep where? In winter? During rain?

3. Detention on arrival: where to keep them? How long? On a plain field?

4. Deportation: where to? And how?And how to finance? Thousands of flights??

5. Defends it's seas: how to do? You want to bomb migrant's boats?

Can't wait for your answer 😁

[newbee2022]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

British pension is 3x to 4x a Thai workers wage.

There are no poor expat pensioners here, but there are a few with poor money management skills!

 

As for what would I do with them, apparently the weather in the outer Hebrides and Orkneys is nice, and there's plenty of islands currently vacant.

Silly answer.

[newbee2022]

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

How would Joe Starlin have solved this problem?

And would his solution have been to make their home countries liveable?

Gibberish

[James105]

12 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Splendid idea. 🤗

All of your ideas are against the laws.

You said:

1. No money: that might work if you give food for free

2. Free housing: it's getting now difficult. You want them to sleep where? In winter? During rain?

3. Detention on arrival: where to keep them? How long? On a plain field?

4. Deportation: where to? And how?And how to finance? Thousands of flights??

5. Defends it's seas: how to do? You want to bomb migrant's boats?

Can't wait for your answer 😁

 

1.  They would be fed in the detention center.  

2.  They would be in detention for a short while.  No housing required.

3.  48 hours or so.  There would be high throughput as since they would not have legal aid it won't take long.

4.  Their home country or Ascention or Falklands.  Safe countries.

5.  Royal navy.  Big boat > rubber dinghy.   

 

It's all moot anyway as the migrant problem will be over in less than 1 week.  If you think that the illegals will want to risk their lives for no incentives then you must think they are really stupid, which goes back to my point that you are a bit racist for thinking that way.   

[loong]

3 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

Wow, the UK sure has a lot of spare money...

I guess that a lot of 'refugees' have been granted asylum and absorbed into the system and are still getting free housing and money etc. As they are no longer 'refugees', I expect that the ongoing costs are not included in those totals.

[newbee2022]

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

1.  They would be fed in the detention center.  

2.  They would be in detention for a short while.  No housing required.

3.  48 hours or so.  There would be high throughput as since they would not have legal aid it won't take long.

4.  Their home country or Ascention or Falklands.  Safe countries.

5.  Royal navy.  Big boat > rubber dinghy.   

 

It's all moot anyway as the migrant problem will be over in less than 1 week.  If you think that the illegals will want to risk their lives for no incentives then you must think they are really stupid, which goes back to my point that you are a bit racist for thinking that way.   

I think you should Google the meaning of racist.

Now to all your ideas:

To act as you described you would have to change all laws, for which you need the consent of parliament/citizens. So, no chance for it.

1. There are no detention centers yet. They are to be built. Lot of money required

2. See no 1

3. And after 48 hrs? What you want to do then?

4. Their home countries have to take them back. If they don't (at present regularly) your planes will return. Same with "safe countries". Actually on the Falklands you would have to provide housing, food and health care.

5. This I didn't understand.

Royal Navy yes. And what about the rubber boats? The rubber boats belong to the Navy??? Please explain this point.

Given that your actions could be carried out....it would not change the current situation.

 

[GarryP]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Ridiculous answer.

There are hardly any "retirees" with a good pension coming to UK ?.

So your example with Thailand is just laughable.

Could you answer at least what you would do with all the migrants in UK if you would be in power?

To rephrase @James105 's answer: Should an illegal immigrant be able to claim free money and housing from Thailand to fund their stay here?  If they arrived illegally should Thailand fund their legal battle to stay?  If they commit a crime should Thailand provide legal aid to defend them and pay again for this to fight their deportation?   If your answer to one or more of those questions is no, then why do you think that western countries like the UK should have to provide these services to those who rock up on its shores illegally?

 

Obviously, they aren't going to come here though because they won't be given these benefits. That is why they are going to Western countries - the benefits. While I do have sympathy for genuine asylum seekers, the vast majority are economic refugees aka illegal immigrants looking to line their pockets without giving anything in return aka scoungers.   

[newbee2022]

6 minutes ago, GarryP said:

To rephrase @James105 's answer: Should an illegal immigrant be able to claim free money and housing from Thailand to fund their stay here?  If they arrived illegally should Thailand fund their legal battle to stay?  If they commit a crime should Thailand provide legal aid to defend them and pay again for this to fight their deportation?   If your answer to one or more of those questions is no, then why do you think that western countries like the UK should have to provide these services to those who rock up on its shores illegally?

 

Obviously, they aren't going to come here though because they won't be given these benefits. That is why they are going to Western countries - the benefits. While I do have sympathy for genuine asylum seekers, the vast majority are economic refugees aka illegal immigrants looking to line their pockets without giving anything in return aka scoungers.   

The first part is horrendous nonsense. (Read my answer to that)

The second part: Give them a job and the pay back by taxes and self earned money.

[James105]

2 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

I think you should Google the meaning of racist.

Now to all your ideas:

To act as you described you would have to change all laws, for which you need the consent of parliament/citizens. So, no chance for it.

1. There are no detention centers yet. They are to be built. Lot of money required

2. See no 1

3. And after 48 hrs? What you want to do then?

4. Their home countries have to take them back. If they don't (at present regularly) your planes will return. Same with "safe countries". Actually on the Falklands you would have to provide housing, food and health care.

5. This I didn't understand.

Royal Navy yes. And what about the rubber boats? The rubber boats belong to the Navy??? Please explain this point.

Given that your actions could be carried out....it would not change the current situation.

 

 

You didn't go to school?  I probably should have guessed that from your response.  Let me educate you.   This symbol > means greater than.   Big boats (that the navy has) > rubber dinghies.   

 

You also asked me if I had power what would I do.   I told you what I would do.  Now you are saying my powers are limited, that somehow my powers come along with a parliament full of wet lettuces that would prevent me from making the laws required?  You claim that a sovereign country is not allowed to defend its borders or make its laws?  

 

There is a movie called Field of Dreams where the slogan was "build it and they will come".   My proposal is somewhat the opposite, call it "Beach of nightmares" if you will.  Take it away and they will not come.   Take away the incentives, take away their legal aid, take away any possibility they will be allowed to stay, take away their money to pay for their flight back and they will not come.   Problem solved within a week.   

[GarryP]

14 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

The first part is horrendous nonsense. (Read my answer to that)

The second part: Give them a job and the pay back by taxes and self earned money.

A large majority are not coming for work. They are coming for benefits. But that is a good idea of yours. Provide compulsory employment, such as road sweeping, emptying bins, cleaning services, etc. If they refuse to take on compulsory employment, then they will be repatriated. I think the numbers coming in would decrease considerably. 

[BangkokReady]

4 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

Wow, the UK sure has a lot of spare money...

 

Tons of spare land and housing, too, apparently.  That's why people say "Just get to England, they'll give you a free house and free money, then after a few years, you can bring your family over, and they'll get free money too!".  Wonderful!

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

A large majority are not coming for work. They are coming for benefits. But that is a good idea of yours. Provide compulsory employment, such as road sweeping, emptying bins, cleaning services, etc. If they refuse to take on compulsory employment, then they will be repatriated. I think the numbers coming in would decrease considerably. 

The thing with "repatriation" is very difficult or impossible.

But employment works perfectly in Denmark. (Check Google). From day one migrants will have to work and learn the language

[SunnyinBangrak]

Unless their dingy set off from Afghanistan and first hit land in the UK they are not "refugees" at all. No ifs no buts. 

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

You didn't go to school?  I probably should have guessed that from your response.  Let me educate you.   This symbol > means greater than.   Big boats (that the navy has) > rubber dinghie

What a stupid comment.

I expected an explaination but not a silly answer.

Again: where is the connection between Navy and rubber boats (I think you mean inflatable= English).

 

[GammaGlobulin]

6 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Due to the fact that you can only send them back to their home countries if these countries agree... you'll have to take the burden and feed them trying to get them jobs in order to pay taxes.

Up to this time there will be hardly no change.

Unless you would make life in their home countries livable.

So any investment to improve education and infrastructure in these countries is a good investment.

But it seems almost impossible for any govt to tell the simple people/electorate the truth.

 

We ALREADY know that life in Mexico, and other places south of the border is unlivable.

We KNOW that the best way is to improve living conditions...DOWN THERE....but...

What can I do about it?

 

Improving conditions down there is impossible within a short enough timeframe to avoid CATASTROPHE in the UK, and the US.

We need to send them home.

Or, we need to send them somewhere.

This is the only way they will get the message and stay put.

 

We are rewarding bad behavior, that is...

We are rewarding them for invading the north.

 

This is a direct result of no planning.

They were babies unplanned for.

Lack of family planning is just one cause....though...

 

 

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

You didn't go to school?  I probably should have guessed that from your response.  Let me educate you.   This symbol > means greater than.   Big boats (that the navy has) > rubber dinghies.   

 

You also asked me if I had power what would I do.   I told you what I would do.  Now you are saying my powers are limited, that somehow my powers come along with a parliament full of wet lettuces that would prevent me from making the laws required?  You claim that a sovereign country is not allowed to defend its borders or make its laws?  

 

There is a movie called Field of Dreams where the slogan was "build it and they will come".   My proposal is somewhat the opposite, call it "Beach of nightmares" if you will.  Take it away and they will not come.   Take away the incentives, take away their legal aid, take away any possibility they will be allowed to stay, take away their money to pay for their flight back and they will not come.   Problem solved within a week.   

I'm not interested in strange movies but reality.

As you see your solutions are not practical even you were PM. It would cost much more money than it is the present status quo.

[newbee2022]

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

We ALREADY know that life in Mexico, and other places south of the border is unlivable.

We KNOW that the best way is to improve living conditions...DOWN THERE....but...

What can I do about it?

 

Improving conditions down there is impossible within a short enough timeframe to avoid CATASTROPHE in the UK, and the US.

We need to send them home.

Or, we need to send them somewhere.

This is the only way they will get the message and stay put.

 

We are rewarding bad behavior, that is...

We are rewarding them for invading the north.

 

This is a direct result of no planning.

They were babies unplanned for.

Lack of family planning is just one cause....though...

 

 

Stop.

I commented already: you can only send illegal migrants into their home countries if these countries will take them. Otherwise your full plane will have to return.

And to send them to "somewhere" (where is this) you will have the same problems.

[recom273]

3 hours ago, shackleton said:

The British tax payer is going to wake up one day 

And reliase  where his tax pounds are been wasted 

Over crowded hospitals schools crumbling roads  not enough housing

The list goes  on

we are becoming a third rate country because of illegal immigrants and refugees

Numbers need to be restricted to genuine cases 

And they are, right ? 

 

More have been sent back in the last 8 months than the conservatives have done in 4 years or something. 
 

The current government says that unrestricted migration cannot be supported, kind of outlined by the article - these people aren’t getting a free ride, ff - 8 quid a week pocket money (does that even buy a packet of tobacco?) or 50 quid a week to buy your own food which you heat up in a communal microwave.
 

If your claim is accepted then you are out of that system, if you don’t qualify, you get shipped off to the detention center and out the door. The whole thing is not a government program, it was a scheme created by the conservatives to make money for their buddies, convert failed hotels in cities that no one wants to visit into bunk houses, supplying meals - someone is making a nice profit, considering the prison service only gets £21 per inmate. I’m sure there is a whole lot of truth that isn’t told.  

[recom273]

44 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Unless their dingy set off from Afghanistan and first hit land in the UK they are not "refugees" at all. No ifs no buts. 

how do you work that out? 
 

if you are referring to the idea that asylum seekers (correct they are not refugees, they are going through the process of applying for a right to remain in the UK) have to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive to, then you might want to question other information that you have also picked up along the way. 
 

Asylum seekers don’t necessarily have to seek asylum in the first safe country, it’s a bit of a myth that suits the narrative of certain right wing organizations. Hell, I wouldn’t want to live in France or Germany, would you? 

[recom273]

2 hours ago, GarryP said:

To rephrase @James105 's answer: Should an illegal immigrant be able to claim free money and housing from Thailand to fund their stay here?  If they arrived illegally should Thailand fund their legal battle to stay?  If they commit a crime should Thailand provide legal aid to defend them and pay again for this to fight their deportation?   If your answer to one or more of those questions is no, then why do you think that western countries like the UK should have to provide these services to those who rock up on its shores illegally?

 

Obviously, they aren't going to come here though because they won't be given these benefits. That is why they are going to Western countries - the benefits. While I do have sympathy for genuine asylum seekers, the vast majority are economic refugees aka illegal immigrants looking to line their pockets without giving anything in return aka scoungers.   

no one gets free money. These people are here, the UK could follow the Thai model, if they don’t have finances, let them wander the streets, Hyde park would be just like Calais with some massive plastic encampment. It would be chaos, beggars everywhere, crime would go through the roof and it’s cheaper to put asylum

seekers in a crap hotel, bung them 8 quid a week for sweets, than overload the justice system and put them in prison awaiting trial. 
 

if their claim Is successful, then rightly or wrongly they get the same rights as UK citizens, they can get a small loan for a house deposit or whatever, they can claim unemployment benefit while seeking work, but that doesn’t run forever. No one gets free money and lives on eternal benefits, that’s another myth that suits a rhetoric.
 

After they are up and running they contribute far more than UK citizens that enables them to use the NHS and they pay a higher rate of tax. 

[Denim]

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

I have seen whole families banging on the hotel door to see the doctor days after departure. But we can’t see you; you are no longer our patients. You are not asylum seekers anymore; you are ordinary British citizens.”

 

 

Oh the irony.

 

Now they can feel happy to be as miserable as homeless natives.

[James105]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

I'm not interested in strange movies but reality.

As you see your solutions are not practical even you were PM. It would cost much more money than it is the present status quo.

 

It currently costs £5bn+ to put these illegals into hotels, feed them, give them pocket money, pay for their legal aid, pay for their clothes, playstations, mobile phones, and I have no idea if this includes the extra policing cost, prison cost when they rape or murder someone and actually get caught, followed by the endless appeals when they have served their sentence as they don't want to leave the land of free money. 

 

If there were no illegal immigrants as there were literally zero incentives to risk coming to the UK, then by my maths this reduces to approximately zero.   So a saving of £5bn there or thereabouts.   So zero is a bit less than your solution which seems to be bury head in sand and do nothing or engage in endless talks with other clueless leaders to do nothing which is costing £5bn a year.   

 

Some of that money saved could even be used to help genuine asylum seekers from culturally equivalent countries such as Ukraine who would want to actually return to their country when safe to do so.   

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, recom273 said:

Hell, I wouldn’t want to live in France or Germany, would you? 

Yes, I would. Better than this rotten UK. Go to Blackpool, then you know what I mean. 

I'm happy to go once and then home to the Green Grass Island, to Limerick 

[James105]

1 hour ago, recom273 said:

The current government says that unrestricted migration cannot be supported, kind of outlined by the article - these people aren’t getting a free ride, ff - 8 quid a week pocket money (does that even buy a packet of tobacco?) or 50 quid a week to buy your own food which you heat up in a communal microwave.

 

How much are they paying for the hotels they are staying in?  Do you have a link to back up this patently false claim they are not getting a free ride?  

[SunnyinBangrak]

1 hour ago, recom273 said:

Hell, I wouldn’t want to live in France or Germany, would you? 

If I was genuinely fleeing for my life due to political persecution I would be gleefully happy to settle in Germany or France. Bit irrelevant though isn't it. Not a single dingy sailor that paid big money to get to England fits that category. I'd deport every single one today, confiscate their free iphones and deport everyone in their contact list too. Helping immigration fraud is bad, bye bye.

Take about a day to fix the gimmigrant crisis, of course a disaster as labour would lose their next voting block.

[newbee2022]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

It currently costs £5bn+ to put these illegals into hotels, feed them, give them pocket money, pay for their legal aid, pay for their clothes, playstations, mobile phones, and I have no idea if this includes the extra policing cost, prison cost when they rape or murder someone and actually get caught, followed by the endless appeals when they have served their sentence as they don't want to leave the land of free money. 

 

If there were no illegal immigrants as there were literally zero incentives to risk coming to the UK, then by my maths this reduces to approximately zero.   So a saving of £5bn there or thereabouts.   So zero is a bit less than your solution which seems to be bury head in sand and do nothing or engage in endless talks with other clueless leaders to do nothing which is costing £5bn a year.   

 

Some of that money saved could even be used to help genuine asylum seekers from culturally equivalent countries such as Ukraine who would want to actually return to their country when safe to do so.   

I think your "saved money" is going down the same river as the saved money when leaving the EU 😁

 

Once again: you CANNOT fly out the illegal immigrants to their home country if this country will not take them back.

You can joggling with your money as long you want. But fact is you will have to act: Give them a job and let them earn their living.

[nauseus]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

You did read the OP?

 

Yes. Your point is?

[GarryP]

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

The thing with "repatriation" is very difficult or impossible.

But employment works perfectly in Denmark. (Check Google). From day one migrants will have to work and learn the language

Denmark introduced a very strict immigration policy which has resulted in a considerable drop in asylum seekers there. The work requirements and integration policies are good. Very different to the UK. Comparing apples with oranges. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

The thing with "repatriation" is very difficult or impossible.

But employment works perfectly in Denmark. (Check Google). From day one migrants will have to work and learn the language

 

Yes "repatriation" is very difficult. That's why some countries are now reducing immigration.

 

Like Denmark, where things have not worked "perfectly" (check link). 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-migration-eu-parliament-election-mette-frederiksen/

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Stop.

I commented already: you can only send illegal migrants into their home countries if these countries will take them. Otherwise your full plane will have to return.

And to send them to "somewhere" (where is this) you will have the same problems.

 

If these home countries will not take them then why should the UK? Especially as most of these migrants pass through several "safe" countries on the way?