Asylum Seekers - get your money here.

[Lazarus]

Government giving away our cash. AGAIN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4609106.stm

 

[TdC]

ooh I think I'll apply for that when I come over for the Freddybeer in May

 

[DaGaffer]

Government giving away our cash. AGAIN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4609106.stm

You can see the logic. Which just goes to prove that Vulcans are idiots.

 

[Alliandre]

I'm an asylum seeker. Give me money.. I'll be back in a few weeks for more cash incentives to leave, along with the rest of the world

 

[Penguin]

Did i miss something really big or did some people not read the article? It would actually save money AND be a tad nicer than forcing people to leave? And it's only open to asylum seekers who had applied before the end of 2005 and leave before the end of June 2006...

 

[Will]

You missed the Daily Mail nature of this forum.

 

[DaGaffer]

Did i miss something really big or did some people not read the article? It would actually save money AND be a tad nicer than forcing people to leave? And it's only open to asylum seekers who had applied before the end of 2005 and leave before the end of June 2006...

See what I mean about logic? If it works, some bright spark from the Home Office will turn it into policy. Then large numbers of people become aware of it, and play "The Home Office Handout Game" forever more. 3 grand is a HUGE incentive for someone from some fly blown hole in West Africa to play at being an Asylum seeker for six months. So it'll save money on a per case basis, but encourage more asylum seekers, therby costing more money. Genius.

Nowt to do with Daily Mail reading or otherwise (I don't read it btw), just common sense.

 

[tris-]

i didnt read the article.

as soon i see the words asylum and free money in the same setance, i get my pitchfork and torch out.

 

[TdC]

does this mean I won't be getting my free money?

 

[nath]

So it'll save money on a per case basis, but encourage more asylum seekers, therby costing more money. Genius.

As it stands, Asylum Seekers need to have applied before the end of 2005, so none of them could have applied specifically to get the money. It seems like you're criticising them for the stupid decision that hasn't been made yet?

Nice.

 

[Tom]

The idea that your average asylum seeker would leave their home, endure thousands of miles of hardship and abuse, sneaking into the country in a trailer or boat, and then walk into an office to claim their £3000 is laughable.

 

[DaGaffer]

As it stands, Asylum Seekers need to have applied before the end of 2005, so none of them could have applied specifically to get the money. It seems like you're criticising them for the stupid decision that hasn't been made yet?

Nice.

I prefer to get my criticism in in advance Come off it, you know how the logic worked to come up with this idea, so of course if it shows an electorate-pleasing result, they'll carry on doing it until the financial effect bites them on the arse or there's a new government.

 

[DaGaffer]

The idea that your average asylum seeker would leave their home, endure thousands of miles of hardship and abuse, sneaking into the country in a trailer or boat, and then walk into an office to claim their £3000 is laughable.

Who says it will be the 'average asylum seeker'? A country like Afghanistan has an average annual income of $800 (that's dollars not pounds), Nigeria $1000. So some enterprising soul does the maths, gets a crate load of people together and says - "Do this and you'll earn a year's wages for six months of discomfort. You may make it, but if you don't, you'll still get a $1000" (or possibly more). Lots of these people can't get work anyway. So the trafficker can contract people to head to the UK, with a guarantee, from the UK government no less, that he'll get a return on his investment if the asylum seeker fails. There's a fair margin to play with between 3 grand and $800.

 

[nath]

Quite frankly I've no idea what they'll do if this works. What I do know is that it's patently obvious that it would be totally fucking stupid to make this rule permanent as it could be so obviously exploited. It's the key reason for making sure it applies only to people who claimed assylum before the date specified.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

If they are prepared to take £3k to fuck off does that not indicate that their excuse for staying here was not valid in the first place. If I knew I was going to be persecuted or killed £3k wouldn't change my mind about returning. In my world they fuckers wouldn't be here in the first place tbh.

 

[nath]

That's the whole point - if they're genuinely afraid of persecution they won't take the 3k. It's supposed to sort the real assylum seekers from the ones who don't really deserve to be here. Now of course there's the fact that if they don't really deserve to be here then why should we give them 3 grand to tell them to fuck off. Then again, as the article stated it may well save us money overall.

 

[throdgrain]

Fuck it just force people to leave. At gunpoint.
With the immortal words, "jog on, son".
Great

 

[TdC]

listening to you guys talk about the stuff that goes on over the years has made me wonder why people live in the UK as is, let alone flee there for refuge.

 

[Will]

I quite fancy fleeing somewhere. :/

 

[DaGaffer]

listening to you guys talk about the stuff that goes on over the years has made me wonder why people live in the UK as is, let alone flee there for refuge.

Actually I have no problem at all with immigration into the UK, quite the reverse in fact. Its just this idea that I think is misconceived.

As for wondering why people live here, yeah I do that all the time

 

[nath]

Do you have a problem with this idea or with what you think they'll do after this idea proves to be a success?

 

[DaGaffer]

Do you have a problem with this idea or with what you think they'll do after this idea proves to be a success?

Both. Paying people to leave sticks in my craw a bit anyway (as other people have said, if they don't deserve to be here, why pay them? There's a principle involved as well), but my deep, deep cynicism about UK officialdom means I can't help thinking its got fuckup written all over it.

 

[nath]

Yeah, I don't particularly agree with paying people to fuck off when (if they're willing to take the money) they most probably don't really need assylum at all. That said, I can't think of any better solution and if it ends up saving money and finding out who really needs our help then maybe we should just take it on the chin.

 

[Ormorof]

VOLUNTARY VS FORCED REMOVAL
New scheme:
Up to £3,000 in cash/benefits
3,000 predicted to take offer
£6.2m over six months

Forced removals:
PM's 2005 target missed
£11,000 per enforced return
£33m to forcibly remove 3,000 people

so in the end of it all, if 3,000 people apply it'll cost them £6.2m, but if no one applies and they have to remove 3,000 people it will cost them £33m? sounds alright to me

as long as they dont keep doing it of course, then it just gets silly

 

[old.user4556]

In my world they fuckers wouldn't be here in the first place tbh.

Well said that man.

 

[mank!]

kick 'em out and fight fight fight!

 

[Penguin]

As it stands, Asylum Seekers need to have applied before the end of 2005, so none of them could have applied specifically to get the money. It seems like you're criticising them for the stupid decision that hasn't been made yet?

Nice.

Thats what i was struggling to say earlier.

The fact is it will still save alot of money and it's nicer. They've not said they're going to do it again in the future. If anything an improvement. Argue sure, but i doubt it's going to start the "The Home Office Handout Game". Besides, it's not even happened yet, nor is there a sign of it happening.

Still room for improvement ofcourse, but hey - It's a start.

 

[nath]

And it's only open to asylum seekers who had applied before the end of 2005 and leave before the end of June 2006...

Doesn't look like you were struggling, you made it pretty clear tbh. I think some people just chose to ignore it.

 

[Draylor]

Actually I have no problem at all with immigration into the UK

You have a problem with people leaving?

Too bad

 

[DaGaffer]

You have a problem with people leaving?

Too bad

Eh?