End of hotels for asylum seekers unrealistic, borders chief says

20 comments

1. Can’t imagine how they think taking them from hotels and putting them in private let’s is going to be a better solution, but.

2. News Flash!.

   Terrible idea, that wasn’t thought through, turns out to be a terrible idea. Government stumped.

3. They started calling them “asylum seekers” when it became obvious they weren’t refugees

4. Once again, why not house them in army style barracks? It’s not cruel or dehumanising, we house our army personnel there just fine. Should not be *too* expensive to construct and maintain such areas, definitely less expensive than hotels or private accommodation?

5. The fact they are being housed before British people who have been on social housing waiting lists for years is horrifying.

6. But increasing taxes for hard working middle class is very realistic…

7. Could always just join the eu and restore the pre brexit levels of migration, which we were coping with easily.

8. End of Labour is nigh if they don’t make it realistic.

9. why oh why do they make these ridiculous promises that anyone with a modicum of sense can see are entirely unachievable? Better to say 50% and over-deliver than fail to meet yet another target

10. We need to be brutally honest about this, the country can’t afford this, we can’t afford asylum seekers, we need to make coming here unappealing as possible for unskilled migrants, asylum seekers etc they just can’t be here.

    Build secure camps by the coast, give them food, shelter and a ticket to leave. They shouldn’t be in our communities or free to roam at all.

11. Start deporting these people I swear to God. I hate that my tax money goes towards women-hating, backwards people who get housed when we have tons of our own actual native citizens going without.

12. It feels like the whole media ecosystem is around immigration now.

13. Here’s a crazy idea, let’s let them work and they can pay rent and contribute to society. Why do we force them onto benefits?

14. Can we not just get hundreds of shipping containers, drill a few holes in them for ventilation, and put them on a grim patch of concrete surrounded by fences somewhere? The fact that these unwanted, unwelcome economic burdens / unverified threats to our society, citizens and culture are getting free accommodation at a cost of billions to the British taxpayer – who is facing increased taxes and a cost of living crisis is offensive and disgusting.

    The government’s first priority should always be to serve the needs of the British public. Caring for these people should be a distant secondary concern.

15. end of life for the disabled is realistic though eh?

    edit: i know its no the *border chiefs* job to answer that but it is a question that must be asked

16. Straight down the mines, you can dig your way to citizenship!

17. Like I have said to many peoples over the years.

    If you truly want to handle large volume of asylum seeker and illegal immigrant then we have plenty of island to build suitable facilities.

    It keeps them away from the general population and also ensure no additional illegal activities are taken part of.

    Yes it a big project yes it would cost a lot of money but again we have plenty of island that are suitable.

    And for those that truly are not meant to be here it be a great deterrent without effort as it mean they cannot partake in any real negative intentions once they realise they are on an island mile from anywhere.

    Also added bonus we do not have to erode an international rights that may protect them as they will be secured and properly process.

    But again political will is truly not there and as long as the influx benefits the few that profit from it then I doubt it will ever happen.

18. Deport the Scum and that includes the labour party

19. the borders chief can’t even secure our borders, when we’re a damn island surrounded by miles of water

20. Someone recently said this was happening because of quantitative easing. The idea was that immigrants are here on purpose to mitigate inflation — the logic being that the more people in the country, the more supply-side pressure. An increased labour force and overall population, offsets inflationary effects. It’s not about QE directly causing immigration, but more that immigration can serve as a tool to absorb the inflationary impact of QE and other stimulative policies. More workers = lower wage pressure, more competition, and more output — all of which can dampen inflation, at least in theory.

Comments are closed.