Should There Be Age Limits In Politics?
News0 min ago
British families should be first in the housing queue not immigrants
Labour minister Margaret Hodge says British families should be given council housing ahead of immigrants. She said it was unfair that new arrivals jumped to front of the queue leaving no homes for British families. Hodge caused controversy last year by saying that Labour had failed to deal with immigration or provide affordable housing which in turn prompted the traditional-working class voters to move to BNP. What do you think? Are Hodge's claims true?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bigmalc
I fail to see what difference crossing the English Channel makes to the hundreds waiting in Calais to hitch a lift to Britain. They are already in a country of safety, hundreds if not thousands of miles from danger, so why risk their lives to get to Britain.
There is only one reason France is not as generous as Britain in the handouts etc.
Considering we are in the EU why should any country give better or more generous handouts than another. All EU countries should have exactly the same policy regarding housing and benefits etc then there would be no reason to continue travelling after arriving in a safe country.
I fail to see what difference crossing the English Channel makes to the hundreds waiting in Calais to hitch a lift to Britain. They are already in a country of safety, hundreds if not thousands of miles from danger, so why risk their lives to get to Britain.
There is only one reason France is not as generous as Britain in the handouts etc.
Considering we are in the EU why should any country give better or more generous handouts than another. All EU countries should have exactly the same policy regarding housing and benefits etc then there would be no reason to continue travelling after arriving in a safe country.
sandbach99
Hang on a second - for how long would immigrants be treated as second class citizens (because this is what you're proposing).
When would they be allowed council houses? Would every British born person on the list have to be housed first?
Are you saying that you would prefer to pay to keep immigrant families in B&Bs rather than have them pay councils in rent?
Seems a bit back to front to me...
Hang on a second - for how long would immigrants be treated as second class citizens (because this is what you're proposing).
When would they be allowed council houses? Would every British born person on the list have to be housed first?
Are you saying that you would prefer to pay to keep immigrant families in B&Bs rather than have them pay councils in rent?
Seems a bit back to front to me...
I just don't see what's so bad about people thinking that Britain is a good and safe place to live in. Surely it's a compliment.
The problem lies in the perception. As with all of these cases, the truth of what actually happens gets distorted in all the furore. One just has to read the answers to the questions on this issue for an example.
You only have to look at the appalling way the French corrale their immigrant population to see that it would be less desirable for an immigrant or asylum seeker to stay in France. I can't even imagine what it's like to live in the Banlieues outside Paris, especially now that Sarkozy has been elected.
There is one major difference though. The French allow far more migrants to stay (second only to Germany in Europe, I believe) and for the most part they tend to be from former French colonies. As such they already speak French and often have less trouble integrating.
It should not be underestimated what a barrier language can be. However, it should also be noted that language breaks down barriers too. Since working with people from many different parts of the world, I have picked up basic Spanish, good Polish and excellent Serbo-Croat from my refugee friend from Sarajevo. The thing is, she came here when she was eight, during the Balkans War. She's now in her early twenties and has no trouble reconciling her Bosnian and Scottish heritage. And neither do I.
The problem lies in the perception. As with all of these cases, the truth of what actually happens gets distorted in all the furore. One just has to read the answers to the questions on this issue for an example.
You only have to look at the appalling way the French corrale their immigrant population to see that it would be less desirable for an immigrant or asylum seeker to stay in France. I can't even imagine what it's like to live in the Banlieues outside Paris, especially now that Sarkozy has been elected.
There is one major difference though. The French allow far more migrants to stay (second only to Germany in Europe, I believe) and for the most part they tend to be from former French colonies. As such they already speak French and often have less trouble integrating.
It should not be underestimated what a barrier language can be. However, it should also be noted that language breaks down barriers too. Since working with people from many different parts of the world, I have picked up basic Spanish, good Polish and excellent Serbo-Croat from my refugee friend from Sarajevo. The thing is, she came here when she was eight, during the Balkans War. She's now in her early twenties and has no trouble reconciling her Bosnian and Scottish heritage. And neither do I.
Incidentally, has anyone actually provided figures for the number of:
1. New economic immigrants who immediately claim housing benefit, jobseekers allowance and a council house.
2. Same of Asylum Seekers.
It'd be interesting to find out whether there is actually an issue here, or whether people are just dailymailing themselves into a stupor.
1. New economic immigrants who immediately claim housing benefit, jobseekers allowance and a council house.
2. Same of Asylum Seekers.
It'd be interesting to find out whether there is actually an issue here, or whether people are just dailymailing themselves into a stupor.
-- answer removed --
im not saying that Gina but to get a council house you would have to have a legitimate claim to asylum and the right to stay here. I couldnt just go to the council whilst already housed, with a pillow stuffed up my jumper and claim to be a British homeless single mother to be. They check things out!!!
goodsoulette why then is it that a friend of mine has "split" with there husband and he has left the bought home they shared and has gone to the council who have now offered him a new 2 bedroom house, while he was waiting for the offer the council put him in b&b rent frre, now he and his wife are getting back together and selling their house!!!
because they witheld the truth from the council. Sounds like they have conned them. They should go to the council and inform them that they own a house. If the council found this ouit they could well soon find themselves homeless again. ....are you suggesting that asylum seekers all secretly have a house here or thousands upon thousands to buy a house, but choose to get any accomodation that is offered to them? Is your friend an asylum seeker?
Those who are out to defraud the council and the benefits system are few compared to those that genuinely need there help.
Those who are out to defraud the council and the benefits system are few compared to those that genuinely need there help.
i have no problem with helping people who are in genuine need and i agree britain should help when needed - but where does it stop?
all you have to do is turn up and say you were in fear for your life in your country - and in you come.
there is no way to prove one way or the other if the fear is genuine, so more just keep on coming.
and most of them do think britain is a soft touch - to deny that this happens is just daft.
so, are we just going to let everyone who asks in?
how many years can the country realistically support that?
how long before we are bursting at the seams?
obviously i have put it very simplistically but these are questions that need to be addressed.
also i do feel that british people in need come first - there are millions in this country struggling terribly and have waited and waited only to get overlooked.
as has been mentioned, if this keeps happening it will lead to civil unrest and resentment, which in turn will make them feel even more unwelcome.
all you have to do is turn up and say you were in fear for your life in your country - and in you come.
there is no way to prove one way or the other if the fear is genuine, so more just keep on coming.
and most of them do think britain is a soft touch - to deny that this happens is just daft.
so, are we just going to let everyone who asks in?
how many years can the country realistically support that?
how long before we are bursting at the seams?
obviously i have put it very simplistically but these are questions that need to be addressed.
also i do feel that british people in need come first - there are millions in this country struggling terribly and have waited and waited only to get overlooked.
as has been mentioned, if this keeps happening it will lead to civil unrest and resentment, which in turn will make them feel even more unwelcome.
That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far. 'You don't even have to prove that the fear is genuine'?!
Of course you do! Every case considered for asylm is reviewed by the government and ONLY THOSE WITH A LEGITIMATE CLAIM ARE GRANTED IT. Why are you people so blinkered and stupid to believe that things just get handed out willy-nilly? Do you think that the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are the most impartial bastions of truth?
STOP HATING PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!
Of course you do! Every case considered for asylm is reviewed by the government and ONLY THOSE WITH A LEGITIMATE CLAIM ARE GRANTED IT. Why are you people so blinkered and stupid to believe that things just get handed out willy-nilly? Do you think that the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are the most impartial bastions of truth?
STOP HATING PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!
British people should come first, can any person on AB tell me a country that i could go to without any means of support, no job skills, no prospects, ill with aids and needing free treatment for life costing thousands of pounds a year, get benifits and a house for free, free medical treatment, and are put before the people of that country for everything, dont tell me that it does not go on here because it does. people who dont agree are people who will never be in a position to suffer, if they were they would soon change their view.
First of all I would like to say that I have been impressed by bigmalc's coherent and logical responses rather than the fear and ignorance driven posts that also make up this thread.
Economic migrants- Well it something that the British and Irish have done in large numbers to N America Australia Canada; when either driven by genuine poverty such as the potato famine or when the lure of gold became too much. Why should there be such hostility to those who migrate here, especially those whom we actively seek out such as Doctors, dentists, social workers and factory workers? The economic migrants I know rent or purchase property with the salary/wages they earn after paying tax - pretty much the same as indigenous population.
As for Asylum seekers those whom we grant asylum to, and do not send back, must be in absolute genuine need - anyone who can survive in some of the social housing they are housed in must truly be desperate. Perhaps some of the AB posters should go and look at the accommodation that is provided - rather than the implied luxurious housing that the DM and other such papers suggest.
The fact that other countries do not provide the same levels of support to those in need doesn't convince me that we should abandon our liberal and philanthropic approach - Are we to model ourselves, have the same human rights approach as some of those Catholic (not really having a pop at Catholics just stating it is not just Muslim countries with foul human rights record) such as some in S Ameria?
Economic migrants- Well it something that the British and Irish have done in large numbers to N America Australia Canada; when either driven by genuine poverty such as the potato famine or when the lure of gold became too much. Why should there be such hostility to those who migrate here, especially those whom we actively seek out such as Doctors, dentists, social workers and factory workers? The economic migrants I know rent or purchase property with the salary/wages they earn after paying tax - pretty much the same as indigenous population.
As for Asylum seekers those whom we grant asylum to, and do not send back, must be in absolute genuine need - anyone who can survive in some of the social housing they are housed in must truly be desperate. Perhaps some of the AB posters should go and look at the accommodation that is provided - rather than the implied luxurious housing that the DM and other such papers suggest.
The fact that other countries do not provide the same levels of support to those in need doesn't convince me that we should abandon our liberal and philanthropic approach - Are we to model ourselves, have the same human rights approach as some of those Catholic (not really having a pop at Catholics just stating it is not just Muslim countries with foul human rights record) such as some in S Ameria?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.