The FT reports this morning that:
James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, said on Sunday that the government wanted to show the UK was not a “land of milk and honey” as he defended moves to strip families of benefits if their asylum applications were rejected.
He said ministers were looking at removing support for more than 10,000 failed asylum seekers in family groups, who under the current rules are still housed and paid a weekly £36 allowance even if their asylum claims are rejected.
I am aware that others have raised issue with this proposed reform but I want to as well.
In playing tough these ministers, secure with their incomes and safe in their homes in ways that those claiming asylum will never be, are deliberately creating poverty tending towards outright destitution for children who are already living on well below any sum that might be considered to meet need.
Nothing in this policy is appropriate. It speaks of an ability amongst ministers to now objectify groups of people in society as if they are less than human. It says that these ministers lack sufficient empathy to understand that needs must be met even if migrants must also, I accept, be deported on occasion.
I condemn that increasingly prevalent view amongst ministers.
First they came for the migrant....
You know where this leads and it is somewhere we should be going nowhere near.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I made similar comments when the gagging law was introduced. Sadly my prediciton turned out to be correct.
Why should a failed asylum seeker be given benefits? Which other country in their right mind allows this?
Any with care for human beings until such time as they can be safely moved to another country
And even on an economic basis asylum seekers on benefit are not generally people of ‘private means’ so any money they are paid goes straight back into the UK economy. And what is the alternative? Should they just be told to steal?
No benefits.
No accomodation.
Does anyone seriously think they will go “home”?
The gov has no idea at all how many illegals reside in the UK.
Estimates are between 300 thousand and 900 thousand.
So making more homeless and moneyless is not going to do anything other than increase the number of “illegals”
Cameron refereed to the migrants using the collective noun ‘swarms.’ This says it all-his party’s attitude to the needy and poor – the language of eugenics?
Iain Duncan Smith and many Tory MPs believe some people are simply disposable this is with the full approval of Cameron and the baying mob of the Daily Mail.
It’s all a bit like listening to those old b&w films about the rise of nazi Germany…..maybe Cameron/May will move the homeless migrants to a “work camp”, where they can atone for their sins by inhaling carbon monoxide/cyanide?
So people from conflict zones in the Middle East or in extreme poverty in Africa are prepared to risk life and limb because they know all about the UK benefits system. And those people are going to hear the news about cuts and decide not to come…
Just staggeringly disingenuous. These are purely gestures to pander to – and encourage – the worst kind of racial and xenophobic prejudices. Or maybe they reflect the personal prejudices of this governments ministers.
As with so many of this governments policies and announcements, it flies completely in the face of all available data
Prof Geoff Palmer told on the radio this am of how Keith Joseph said to him at interview ‘why don’t you go back to Jamaica and grow bananas’. This is a Thatcherite Goverment in its social as well as economic prejudices
Agreed
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/03/15/nazi-germany-vs-modern-britain-some-similarities-that-should-disturb-you/comment-page-1/
I notice that my perfectly reasonable comment did not make it past moderation.
Why would anyone want to live in your ‘courageous state’ when obviously it would be one where only certain opinions – based on wholly muddled thinking – would be allowed? Strikes me that it would be like all the other socialist states: repressive.
I cannot recall why I deleted the comment – I usually give seconds at most to such a decision
But my right to decide what to publish is not part of repression – it is part of freedom. Without editorial freedom you get repression
And I have not in any way stopped your right to publish elsewhere
So I suggest you stop talking nonsense. That is the best way to get on here