The UK’s broken asylum system

[icowden]

I'm willing to assert that none of it is any evidence of poor treatment of asylum seekers.
The search continues...

Why are you searching for poor treatment of asylum seekers?

No-one has asserted that they are treated badly unless you count being forced into substandard accommodation and denied the right to actually do anything about it for years on end, rather than being processed, getting jobs and paying into the economy. This in turn causes mental health issues and elevates the incidence of crime within the communities waiting to be processed in a version of limbo on earth.

 

[Pale Rider]

Why are you searching for poor treatment of asylum seekers?

No-one has asserted that they are treated badly unless you count being forced into substandard accommodation and denied the right to actually do anything about it for years on end, rather than being processed, getting jobs and paying into the economy. This in turn causes mental health issues and elevates the incidence of crime within the communities waiting to be processed in a version of limbo on earth.

Playing the mental health card is bullshite.

When I've been a victim of crime, I squarely blame the perpetrator.

No one, asylum seeker or not, has to commit crime, it is a personal choice.

But it doesn't surprise me the government is blamed on here for asylum seekers who are also criminals.

As regards searching for poor treatment of asylum seekers, I wrongly assumed people on here are squawking about the system because those within it are suffering.

Obviously not, it's just another stick with which to beat the government.

I imagine you blame Rishi Sunak when your milk goes off in the fridge.

 

[AndyRM]

How is playing the mental health card "bullshite"?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Playing the mental health card is bullshite.

What is a 'mental health card' and how is it 'played'?

 

[icowden]

No one, asylum seeker or not, has to commit crime, it is a personal choice.

For a journalist you seem to have learned very little about crime. Much of it is not personal choice at all. It tends to be driven far more by emotion and lack of control than choice. Outside of a novel, sitting down and planning a crime is comparatively rare.

Addicts may "choose" to steal for example but the driver is the addiction, not that they feel like stealing. Two people may have a fight, more often than not it's driven by uncontrolled anger on the part of one of the people, or depression, or anxiety etc...

If you restrict many people to a small area, prevent them from learning, prevent them from working, prevent them from meeting family and friends, all whilst you claim to be processing paperwork, do you think it likely that

a) They will all be fine
b) They will be depressed, tired, angry, frustrated etc and therefore the risk of "crime" increases

But it doesn't surprise me the government is blamed on here for asylum seekers who are also criminals.
As regards searching for poor treatment of asylum seekers, I wrongly assumed people on here are squawking about the system because those within it are suffering.

See above. Depends how you define suffering.

Obviously not, it's just another stick with which to beat the government.

Honestly they are supplying more sticks than we can cope with at the moment.

I imagine you blame Rishi Sunak when your milk goes off in the fridge.

What a strange imagination you have. I blame him for the cost of the milk in the first place. Because that's what he's responsible for.

 

[All uphill]

Playing the mental health card is bullshite.

When I've been a victim of crime, I squarely blame the perpetrator.

No one, asylum seeker or not, has to commit crime, it is a personal choice.

But it doesn't surprise me the government is blamed on here for asylum seekers who are also criminals.

As regards searching for poor treatment of asylum seekers, I wrongly assumed people on here are squawking about the system because those within it are suffering.

Obviously not, it's just another stick with which to beat the government.

I imagine you blame Rishi Sunak when your milk goes off in the fridge.

I think you've had your answer many times @Pale Rider

Inordinate delays in processing applications puts an unfair burden on asylum seekers and on tax payers.

Closing legal routes to applying for asylum gives opportunities to bad people to exploit vulnerable people and put them at risk.

Expecting anyone to negotiate the benefits system and get themselves into rented housing in 7 days is ridiculous, and, to my knowledge has resulted in at least two people now sleeping rough.

Which of the above do you think is a good thing for this country, let alone the people themselves?

 

[stowie]

As regards searching for poor treatment of asylum seekers, I wrongly assumed people on here are squawking about the system because those within it are suffering.

Obviously not, it's just another stick with which to beat the government.

I imagine you blame Rishi Sunak when your milk goes off in the fridge.

Asylum applicants get £47.33 per week if their accommodation doesn't provide meals and £9.58 if it does. An asylum applicant must accept accommodation offered to them by the local council or they are eligible for nothing.

By any measure, this support is designed for subsistence only. Coupled with the restrictions on working, this process is intended to be a holding pattern whilst the applicant's claim is assessed.

This system is designed for a relatively swift turnaround of applications so that the applicant can either move onto becoming a member of society or be removed by the state for not fulfilling the criteria for asylum.

A Commons research briefing in March 2023 is an interesting read - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9737/. 32% percent of application had been outstanding between 6 months and a year, another third had been pending for between 1-3 years and a little under 10% had been outstanding for over 3 years (1% of the total for more than 5 years). The intention of the scheme is for claims to be assessed in 6 months or less.

During this time applicants may be in hostels or other accommodation or could be housed in detention centres.

This isn't good for anyone. It certainly isn't good for the applicant whose life is on hold for this time, but it isn't good for society at large who is paying for an applicant to be in this holding pattern with no ability to be a productive member of society or to be removed from the UK if the claim is deemed not meet the requirements.

The report determines that the number of staff working on claims is higher than ever before but the productivity has declined to more than offset the staffing levels. There will be reasons for this productivity issue, but that isn't explored in the report.

Sunak's government is in charge of immigration process and management, so not thinking they should be held accountable is somewhat weird. We have had a Rwanda deal that - even if it had worked - would have never been effective, we have a floating accommodation unit unfit for human use and we have an immigration bill that seems unworkable and counter productive. I think a government can be held accountable for their own policies and laws, no?

Although I will agree that any spoilt milk left in my fridge will be the sole responsibility of me and my family.

 

[Pale Rider]

For a journalist you seem to have learned very little about crime. Much of it is not personal choice at all. It tends to be driven far more by emotion and lack of control than choice. Outside of a novel, sitting down and planning a crime is comparatively rare.

Addicts may "choose" to steal for example but the driver is the addiction, not that they feel like stealing. Two people may have a fight, more often than not it's driven by uncontrolled anger on the part of one of the people, or depression, or anxiety etc...

If you restrict many people to a small area, prevent them from learning, prevent them from working, prevent them from meeting family and friends, all whilst you claim to be processing paperwork, do you think it likely that

a) They will all be fine
b) They will be depressed, tired, angry, frustrated etc and therefore the risk of "crime" increases

An attempt to justify criminal behaviour which I've heard many, many times.

Usually made by those with no direct experience of being a victim.

Criminals love it, of course, because the hand-wringers help them avoid responsibility for their actions.

What a strange imagination you have. I blame him for the cost of the milk in the first place. Because that's what he's responsible for.

That doesn't surprise me, but there is hope...

Although I will agree that any spoilt milk left in my fridge will be the sole responsibility of me and my family.

At last, someone prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[stowie]

An attempt to justify criminal behaviour which I've heard many, many times.

Usually made by those with no direct experience of being a victim.

Criminals love it, of course, because the hand-wringers help them avoid responsibility for their actions.



That doesn't surprise me, but there is hope...



At last, someone prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

Weird that this is the only thing you take away from my post.

Of course, a better analogy of the current Tory party is that they would steal my milk and take a dump in my fridge. Then they would blame foreigners in dinghies, get a cleaning company owned by one of their mates to clean up the mess and hand me the bill.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Well peasant is literally country-dweller. Where it comes from has nothing whatsoever to do with status.
Of course the way that the word has been used has changed and has come to mean someone of low status or who is poor.

You contradict yourself in the second sentence, but if you would actually read what i wrote between the ( ) it said and such like followed by an definition, the term peasant wasn't that important the definition was.

It has no association with criminality and your argument therefore makes no sense.

It does make sense, the people who where subjected to slavery where often either accused / convicted of a crime, poor, or a bad social standing. so criminality while i must emphasize accused off(something you left out) was a part off it. Just as black warlords where part of this, and in a further past so where kings, lords, romans etc. etc.

 

[Pale Rider]

A take on migration elsewhere on BBC1 earlier tonight.

Katya Adler visited, among other places, Poland.

She reports Ukrainians get a reasonably warm welcome, but black and brown people emphatically do not, being literally thrown back over the border into Belarus, from whence most come.

Something to do with Poland having a 'hard line Catholic government' whatever one of those is.

Whatever the reason, it makes the treatment given to black and brown people by the UK look very generous in comparison.

 

[icowden]

You contradict yourself in the second sentence, but if you would actually read what i wrote between the ( ) it said and such like followed by an definition, the term peasant wasn't that important the definition was.

What you wrote was this:-

Where did the term ''peasant''(and likewise) come from? Exactly an white/european person who was poor, he/her or his family name was shamed/called a criminal/thief etc. etc. Exactly the same false reasons black warlords used to sell (black) slaves.

You specifically asked where the word "peasant" came from and then conflated it with crime and being called a thief.
I pointed out where it came from and that it has no link whatsoever with crime or slavery.

It does make sense, the people who where subjected to slavery where often either accused / convicted of a crime, poor, or a bad social standing. so criminality

Poor social standing is not a crime.

while i must emphasize accused off(something you left out) was a part off it. Just as black warlords where part of this, and in a further past so where kings, lords, romans etc. etc.

I'm still going to disagree with you. Of course it is *easier* to sell a poor man into slavery than a rich man, but it still has nothing to do with the origin of the word peasant.

 

[newfhouse]

Poor social standing is not a crime.

I’m not sure most Tories would agree.

 

[Bromptonaut]

She reports Ukrainians get a reasonably warm welcome, but black and brown people emphatically do not, being literally thrown back over the border into Belarus, from whence most come.

Anybody who has visited Poland will tell you it's pretty much 100% white and that people with dark skins, even tourists, may get a hard time in pubs etc particularly off the main tourist beats.

Did Ms Adler explain why there were black/brown people in Belarus? Are they from it's former territories overseas?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

What you wrote was this:-


You specifically asked where the word "peasant" came from and then conflated it with crime and being called a thief.
I pointed out where it came from and that it has no link whatsoever with crime or slavery.

Well thanks for pointing that out, but as i explained earlier the word on itself was not so important as the context as the use of the term slavery when i wrote crime or thief there was also the word ''or in between together with a lot of other reasons. you can't just ignore that and cherry pick one word out of it it's part if a whole definition. You make it sounds like i said or claimed ''slaves where criminals'' which is not what i said.

Poor social standing is not a crime.

I known english is not my first language, but after crime in my original sentence the word followed was ''or'' so that indicates in this case and separation from the topic of crime and a other reason why someone might be subjected to slavery, poor social standing was one of them.

I'm still going to disagree with you. Of course it is *easier* to sell a poor man into slavery than a rich man, but it still has nothing to do with the origin of the word peasant.

I'm talking about the origin of slavery in the western world, this was before and just after Jezus christ so view off wealth and how to get it where a little bit different. Money status and power where gained by doing something for you country instead of expecting your country to do things for you, which seem to be more off the norm now.
So if you had poor social standing and/or was not delivering an use for the country if you weren't suitable as a soldier slavery was a way to be useful for the country.
I understand it's easyer to sell and poor man into slavery than a rich men but that's a bit besides the point. Because the one subjected to slavery where not seen as rich or poor anyway, whether it was an white/european slave or an black slave sold by an black warlord. the main concept is that they are subjected too slavery because they are classed as less then human, classed as lower than anything and therefore crimes can not be punished if committed against them.