Protest by Asylum Seekers

barbiedoll

Of course asylum seekers cost money! I recently saw a (genuine) asylum seeker from Sierra Leone. She has had female genital mutilation, she is also pregnant. Her pregnancy care alone is costing a fortune, not least because she has to see specialist midwives, we have to use translators and she will obviously need housing in the near future. I don't begrudge her a penny, she has had a horrible life so far but we don't have a bottomless pit of money. Many asylum seekers have medical issues and the few that don't immediately have babies here because it helps their case if they are "settled" in the community. But I can't work out why we are taking in people from Bolivia, Morocco, Russia, Brazil, Mongolia etc etc. These countries aren't in the EU, nor are they at war. Why are we housing and paying these people, most of whom don't work? I've been seeing these people for ante-natal and post-natal care, none of which they have to pay for. Even if they aren't claiming benefits (unlikely), why are they getting free NHS care?

Esqui

There seems to be a real confusion here between asylum seekers who are either pending a decision or have been granted asylum, and failed asylum seekers who have avoided deportation. As I said, I believe the latter would have relatively little cost to the country, as they are 'off the radar' - can't work, can't claim benefits etc.

And barbiedoll, we would only allow people seeking asylum from the countries you mention if there was a genuine reason for doing so. But largely, people from those countries would come as regular immigrants, and only be granted citizenship if they had skills to give to the country.

sookipeaspud

and what about my rights? My opportunity to make money? We do live in a country of democracy and choice do we not?
Why should I lose out due to the concerns of people who are quite frankly bigots.

darkpool

If these failed asylum seekers don't work and claim no benefit what do they live on? Have they got swiss bank accounts or trust funds? i just don't believe failed asylum seekers don't use the NHS/ schools etc.

sookipeaspud, why not start a charity for impoverished landlords like yourself? i'm sure you'd get a good response from people here

Esqui

Failed asylum seekers cannot access free NHS treatment. Supreme Court ruled on that last year.

darkpool

so where do failed asylum seekers live then? do they live in houses? are these houses paid for by the taxpayer?

do these failed asylum seekers eat food? who gives the failed asylum seekers money to buy this food?

do these failed asylum seekers wear clothes? does the taxpayer provide money for them to buy clothes?

when a failed asylum seeker gets sick is he turned away by the NHS? Who pays the NHS to treat the failed asylum seekers?

Is anyone else confused how failed asylum seekers can live in this country and not get some support from the taxpayer?

Esqui

They live in a variety of ways. Sure, some may turn to crime/fraud, but many rely purely on goodwill to get by.

Or they work as prostitutes, live on the streets begging, or take illegal work by gang bosses.. And yet that's still preferable to their situation in their home country,

darkpool

so we have 450,000 failed asylum seekers working as criminals/ prostitutes/ beggars? How can you say they don't cost the country?

If that's not the best argument for toughening up the immigration system i don't know what is.

With most viewpoints on MSE i can see where the poster is coming from (though i might not agree with them). But I just don't see your thinking at all. I just don't see how any person could think having 450,000 criminals/ fraudsters/ beggars/ prostitutes and people living on "goodwill" to get by can possible not cost the country.

Esqui

I never said they don't cost the country, I just said that no-one really knew...so to say each one costs £10000 was incorrect. My '1p' guess was had no more basis than your £10000. I suspect the figure is actually somewhere in the middle.

darkpool

Please find an extract from the Daily Telegraph below. The 8k yearly figure does not include the cost of any treatments received from the NHS or schooling. I believe my guess of 10k a year is a realistic figure.

I think we can both agree there are at least 450,000 failed asylum seekers, this must cost the country 4.5billion a year. Do you think this money could be better spent elsewhere? What would you spend it on? Health? Education? Green Issues? Biggest party ever?

"In the financial year 2007/08, about 9,365 failed asylum seekers received £73 million in accommodation and food allowances – the equivalent of £8,000 a year or £150 a week for each claimant."