asylum: refugee family on bbc4

[Chrysalis]

watched a program on asylum seekers during the night on bbc4 it showed some useful insights. I know this has been recently dicussed but I brought this up because someone said asylum seekers are not entitled to state benefits whilst they are awaiting asylum. Seems to be far from the truth.

It showed a few familised claiming asylum.

The mother it showed when I turned it on was from afghanistan and awaiting asylum. She was been given a new house, which I think was newly built, before she moved in she was already getting family credit + income support which was £224 a week and she qualified for a furniture grant as well for £500, they went shopping with her to help her pick out furniture. I dont know how many kids she had but from the program I could see 2. The thing that struck me was she was more or less been babysitted, been interviewed in her place of residence and helped with her shopping.

Another family which was 2 parents and 3 kids,I think hindus from algeria, they were getting £190 and something a week. The thing that struck me about this family was the male adult wanted to work but our asylum laws state that asylum seekers must be supported by the state and cannot work whilst awaiting their decision. It took over 2 years for their case to be decided.

A 3rd family it was concentrating on racist attacks rather then their asylum status and income.

So its proving very expensive to keep asylum seekers at least whilst they are awaiting claim decision, so if its taking months or years because of overload why do we keep letting them in and no suspend claims until there is no backlog?

This was a interesting program and if was shown on bbc I wonder what kind of reaction their would have been.

[Angua]

The biggest idiocy from what you say is that asylum seekers are prevented fom working.

[zinglebarb]

224 quid a week with no rent or council tax to pay and possibly only 2 kids? how much do you really think it costs to live basic? its certainly not that much.
£10 a week electric
£5 quid gas
£5 telephone
£5 water rates
£2.50 tv licence

£40 clothing (no one spends this much but could cover nappies)

£67.50 basic essentials that leaves a lot for food does it not?

I think its way to much.To have £224 a week to live on with no rent or council tax to pay your looking at £350 take home wages so whats that about £420 a week before tax wages
I know loads and loads of families living on less with 2 working parents its not right

Ive lived on 40 quid a week and have been homeless admiringly it was a 15 years ago but still they are handed an easy life on the state

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

watched a program on asylum seekers during the night on bbc4 it showed some useful insights. I know this has been recently dicussed but I brought this up because someone said asylum seekers are not entitled to state benefits whilst they are awaiting asylum. Seems to be far from the truth.

Actually it was stated that immigrants are not entitled to state benefits (and despite several people saying they were, none could give legal examples of how) and asylum seekers are only entitled to state benefits as they aren't allowed to work (at least for the first 6 months).

Asylum seekers make up something like 0.5% of people in the UK recieving benefits.
The benefits they get (their equivalent of JSA for instance) is less than what a British national could get after not working a single day since they were born in this country.
We continue to take asylum seekers because we have signed a treaty saying that we would, and we signed that treaty because as a civilised and decent nation, it is our duty to give asylum to those who are genuinely in need, just as other countries have done the same with our citizens in their time of need.

[zinglebarb]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Actually it was stated that immigrants are not entitled to state benefits (and despite several people saying they were, none could give legal examples of how) and asylum seekers are only entitled to state benefits as they aren't allowed to work (at least for the first 6 months).

there still given to much

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So its proving very expensive to keep asylum seekers at least whilst they are awaiting claim decision, so if its taking months or years because of overload why do we keep letting them in and no suspend claims until there is no backlog?

Because democracy is not a water tap. You don't just switch it on and off, you either have it or you don't.

These three families are part of the "baggage" acquired when one prosecutes an invasion & war in the name of democracy (Afghanistan), adopts a "holier than thou" attitude towards human rights (Algeria) and / or colonizes a country only to abandon it years later having got what you wanted from its natural resources or geographic position (Somalia).

In essence you can't run around the world telling people you are the ideal model of a civilized welfare state democracy and then be surprised or cry foul when someone decides to take you up on the offer.

Even based on pure economics it is more cost effective to foot the bill for democracy when you can secure the strategic & economic exploitation of the home countries or states of those to whom you afford asylum.

By way of example: If you took the annual welfare costs of every Afghan refugee currently living in Britain and compared that overhead to the access to and exploitation of 3000 million cubic metres of natural gas in Afghanistan you would see, quite clearly, how it plays out. Add to that the fact that you stand to control / stymie the flow of opium from 28 of the 32 provinces (which at Dec 2003 was estimated to constitute 40 - 60% of the GDP of the country) and you can see why asylum is a cost effective method of democracy in the eyes of the Government.

The opinions of ordinary people do not factor in the Government's "cheques and balances" when it comes to the cost to the taxpayer - people need to realize this.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

there still given to much

My girlfriend and I don't eat lavishly, we have no children, we spend about £75 a week on the household (food, cleaning stuff etc)
If we had 3 children that would be probably increased to over £100.
Our gas costs as much as electricity, but again, with three kids, would be more, so about £25 a week.
Water would be increased too.
Take all of that out of £190 a week and it doesn't leave much for clothes (any parent will tell you how often you have to buy new clothes for kids) and transport and other essentials.

[zinglebarb]

you said you eat lavishly?
so why should an asylum seeker live with such standards? They are here for a reason either there country wants them dead(imo the only good reason for them to come her anyway) or they just after a better life.If its so much better here they can survive on basics until they can earn there own way imo

Essentials lmao dude im sorry mate but when I was homeless and essential was a dry place to sleep (I dossed in an old run now caravan in the end where I had 1 extension cable where I had to choose to have the heater on or watch tv etc as the fuse would trip if i had both.)
Can we please have a bit of perspective on whats essential and what isnt please.Travel expences well they can walk you can feed a family of 3 for a lot less than 100 quid from iceland

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

you said you eat lavishly?
so why should an asylum seeker live with such standards? They are here for a reason either there country wants them dead(imo the only good reason for them to come her anyway) or they just after a better life.If its so much better here they can survive on basics until they can earn there own way imo

Essentials lmao dude im sorry mate but when I was homeless and essential was a dry place to sleep (I dossed in an old run now caravan in the end where I had 1 extension cable where I had to choose to have the heater on or watch tv etc as the fuse would trip if i had both.)
Can we please have a bit of perspective on whats essential and what isnt please.Travel expences well they can walk you can feed a family of 3 for a lot less than 100 quid from iceland

I said we don't eat lavishly.
We'll have maybe one roast a fortnight, then use the left overs to make other meals.
I'll do some chicken korma sizzle and stir, my gf makes several delicious pastas etc.
Yes, lets have a bit of perspective shall we?
Do you really want them, especially with children, living as you were? Or would you rather they actually had a proper home and enough food on the table?

[zinglebarb]

im not asking for that no where did I say that? But if its better here for them they will be happy on enough. I hold my opinion that they get to much and this discussion is not likely to change my mind. Far to many come here with no good reason and get an easy life handed to them so more come putting more strain on the economy. Charity begins at home.Do you realise how hard it is for a homeless man to housed in this country? very hard but these people walk in and get new houses and plenty of cash its just wrong imo

[basa]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

..............<snip> it is our duty to give asylum to those who are genuinely in need,<snip>................

This is the crux of the matter .. many people perceive these people are not really 'genuinely in need'.

I have no problems at all with *genuine* asylum seekers, in fact 'bring 'em on', but why do so many *appear* to travel through many 'safe' countries just to get here ?? and why so many from countries which it is difficult to perceive as 'unsafe' ??

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by basa

This is the crux of the matter .. many people perceive these people are not really 'genuinely in need'.

I have no problems at all with *genuine* asylum seekers, in fact 'bring 'em on', but why do so many *appear* to travel through many 'safe' countries just to get here ?? and why so many from countries which it is difficult to perceive as 'unsafe' ??

Many factors when it comes to genuine asylum seekers, such as family already here, knowledge of the language, percieved image of Britain as a fair, just and tollerant society.

Before we go on, will this be a thread about asylum seekers, or will it be about illegal immigrants?

[zinglebarb]

well surely one claims to be the other in a lot of cases so surely it covers both

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

well surely one claims to be the other in a lot of cases so surely it covers both

No.
You see, we can have a discussion about asylum seekers who are genuine and therefore have left their homeland for safety reasons.
Or we can have a discussion about illegal immigrants who enter this country for the prospects it gives with work, rather than any life threatening issues at home.

If we have the usual discussion, it muddies the water and you get people assuming that asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are the same, which they are blatantly not.

[zinglebarb]

so your telling me theres no illegal immigrants claiming to be asylum seekers??
no!!!???
the waters are only muddy cuz they are for gods sake.