Benefit Cuts - an underhand way of hurting migrants by torys??

[Cyclone]

1. Pakistan

2. Syrian Arab Rep

3. Islamic Rep. of Iran

4. Germany

5. Jordan

6. Chad

7. United Rep. of Tanzania

8. Kenya

9. China

10. United Kingdom

 

 

That wasn't my post. And it quite clearly shows, that with <10000 asylum seekers per year, the UK is way down the list.

 

Now, have you actually managed to establish that anyone comes here to steal jobs and claim benefits. Or were you just hoping that arguing about some league tables would hide your mistakes?

 

I'm still bemused that you can call <10k asylum seekers a mass influx, or are you still not clear on the difference between the two groups?

[ricgem2002]

1. Pakistan

2. Syrian Arab Rep

3. Islamic Rep. of Iran

4. Germany

5. Jordan

6. Chad

7. United Rep. of Tanzania

8. Kenya

9. China

10. United Kingdom

 

 

That wasn't my post. And it quite clearly shows, that with <10000 asylum seekers per year, the UK is way down the list.

 

Now, have you actually managed to establish that anyone comes here to steal jobs and claim benefits. Or were you just hoping that arguing about some league tables would hide your mistakes?

 

I'm still bemused that you can call <10k asylum seekers a mass influx, or are you still not clear on the difference between the two groups?

where they going to live will they be going to live in the much needed council houses we allready got or will they be allowed into private renting paid for by hb:huh:

[Bassman62]

1. Pakistan

2. Syrian Arab Rep

3. Islamic Rep. of Iran

4. Germany

5. Jordan

6. Chad

7. United Rep. of Tanzania

8. Kenya

9. China

10. United Kingdom

 

 

That wasn't my post. And it quite clearly shows, that with <10000 asylum seekers per year, the UK is way down the list.

 

Now, have you actually managed to establish that anyone comes here to steal jobs and claim benefits. Or were you just hoping that arguing about some league tables would hide your mistakes?

 

I'm still bemused that you can call <10k asylum seekers a mass influx, or are you still not clear on the difference between the two groups?

10k asylum seekers year on year is an awful lot when British people are being put on the dole through lack of money and the financial squeeze.

My eldest son hasn't had a pay rise for two years and his wife is now facing redundancy from her job at the local council.

Yet you put immigrants before them.

[Cyclone]

How would not allowing any asylum seekers have helped to protect her job in the council?

 

Do you think that they plan to hire someone granted asylum to replace her? Do you think that asylum seekers are running the banking industry and caused the recession? You can't blame everything you don't like on everyone else in the world, which seems to be your default position. I suppose it's the asylum seekers fault that it's snowing?

[Berberis]

1. Pakistan

2. Syrian Arab Rep

3. Islamic Rep. of Iran

4. Germany

5. Jordan

6. Chad

7. United Rep. of Tanzania

8. Kenya

9. China

10. United Kingdom

 

 

That wasn't my post. And it quite clearly shows, that with <10000 asylum seekers per year, the UK is way down the list.

 

Now, have you actually managed to establish that anyone comes here to steal jobs and claim benefits. Or were you just hoping that arguing about some league tables would hide your mistakes?

 

I'm still bemused that you can call <10k asylum seekers a mass influx, or are you still not clear on the difference between the two groups?

 

The UK is way down the list of the TOP 10 yes or let us put it this way, the UK is 10th in the league of 192 countries for hosting refugees .. that puts the UK in the top 5% and probably why the UN call the UK one of the world’s major refuge hosting countries.

 

Downplay it as much as you like, but the facts are there. The UK and Germany are the only western or 1st world nations to be in the top 10 for refugee intake. It may be inconvenient for you liberal ideals but there has to be a reason why other countries fare better and take much less. Countries like the USA or France, why are they not above us? They have larger economies, higher GDP and more space to house these people. Why do refugees queue in France to get across the channel?

[Conrod]

How would not allowing any asylum seekers have helped to protect her job in the council?

 

Do you think that they plan to hire someone granted asylum to replace her? Do you think that asylum seekers are running the banking industry and caused the recession? You can't blame everything you don't like on everyone else in the world, which seems to be your default position. I suppose it's the asylum seekers fault that it's snowing?

It is of course highly unlikely that an asylum seeker, or economic migrant, would end up filling that particular job.

 

However, if we have a couple of million people out of work, and we're short of suitable housing by hunderds of thousands, not to mention other publci resourses and services, then allowing 10,000 more people into the country can only make both problems worse by 10,000. But it's not just 10,000, official net immigration still stands at 250,000 - and that's only the ones the government knows about.

 

The maths is simple enough; 10,000 more immigrants is 10,000 more jobs needed and homes needed, which we do not have - somebody British loses out for each immigrant we allow in.

[Berberis]

How would not allowing any asylum seekers have helped to protect her job in the council?

 

Asylum seekers do not remain as such forever. In fact in 2007 180,265 asylum seekers became British Citizens ... So they DO put pressure on our already limited resources in both state benefits and the job market.

[Bassman62]

How would not allowing any asylum seekers have helped to protect her job in the council?

If money wasn't spent on such hairbrained things like these false asylum seeker/refugees, centres for illegal immigrants and worst of all foreign aid there wouldn't have to be so many cut backs.

[Cyclone]

Asylum seekers do not remain as such forever. In fact in 2007 180,265 asylum seekers became British Citizens ... So they DO put pressure on our already limited resources in both state benefits and the job market.

 

You clearly no absolutely nothing about this subject. I doubt that the UK has accepted that many asylum seekers in it's history. Did you look at any of the figures earlier on?

 

Maybe you're another one who doesn't know the difference between immigrant and asylum seeker, eh?

[jonjo2]

We all know that the nasty torys of the 80s only had to wait a few months before their true colours began to show, and surely the cut to housing benefit has to the most cynical attack on migrants who wish to settle in this country.

 

Yes, its true they have not said "we hate foregners, send em awl back gaverner" as thats the line taken by the BNP, no the conservatives have used housing benefit cuts as their weapon.

 

Migrants have large familys, large familys need more money so what do our tory government do? yes they cut housing benefits to £20000 and so in effect force large familys to live in squalour.

 

Is this right and by doing this are they not taking choices away from these familys to make their own decision about their own futures? do we want a society where people are forced to live in certain areas that are dictated by how much money they have? I for one hope not, we are going back to the 19

 

Caring sharing conservatives? don't make me laugh. attacking the most needy in our society. What happened to the UK as a welcoming nation?

 

we are skint