1. If it was scrapped it would be unfair on neighbouring nations. Especially ridiculous considering the UK is one of the countries that was actively involved in destabilising the middle East.
2. How are they grifters? They apply for asylum. If they get it, they’re the real deal. If they don’t, they’re deported. What’s there to oppose there?
3. Context is relevant. If you care about spending, why care about asylum spending more than oil subsidies?
4. You talk about resettlement programs and how they’re a good way of doing things. How about the countries who destabilised these nations, takes on those seeking asylum? In which case Turkey should bear zero Afghan or Iraqi immigrants, and the western world should bear all of them. Or does it only work one way, in your mind?

Overall I am under no illusions that immigration is a non-issue in the UK, and is simply being peddled by those who run out media and economy, in order to distract people from real concrete issues like corruption, collusion, homelessness, poverty, etc. like they distracted you.

.ml

Aaaaand there it is.

According to the UN convention on the treatment of refugees:

1. There is no “legally acceptable” way to travel to a safe country. Ergo dinghys are acceptable
2. There is no limitations on how many safe countries you can travel THROUGH before applying for asylum status. As long as you apply for asylum status.

In addition:

• Asylum spending is 0.25% of the budget. Oil subsidies are 2%. Priorities?
• Asylum seekers are not entitled to regular UK benefits. They get treated as asylum seekers, i.e. they can’t work, have to stay in a hotel (certainly not nice ones), and basically are treated like 2nd class citizens until they have been here long enough to be considered “allowed to work”, which used to be 2 years, they were considering upping it to 5 years. Which is dumb.

So please for the love of the gods, educate yourself, and be less hateful.

The third paragraph sounds like you’re opposing immigration

Please fuck right off with the anti-immigration sentiment. I got enough of that when I was on Reddit.

Andy Burnham will most certainly not be making significant changes to our capitalist state. We will continue to have homelessness, poverty, and rising cost of living, regardless of his policies. This is because we fundamentally have a state that is intertwined with capitalism, and this beholden to it.

We are unable to shrug of these concepts you list until capitalism ends. they are a feature of capitalism, not a bug. It exists to consolidate the power of capitalists, and will continue to do so forever, until it ends.

If you want a real democracy in which people have real power over matters of politics and economics, you want socialism.