Hi Blue,
Without wanting to sound patronising, I just find that incredibly naive. I would suggest more research but you need to do more than just read statistics and articles that are usually biased one way or another.
I have lived and worked in and around some of the most ethnically diverse areas in the country for decades and I have many close friends from those ethnic groups who trust me enough to tell me the truth of how their communities function, they know my views on immigration but they know that they do not stem from racism, and in many cases our views on immigration are not very different.Talk to people, then you will really understand what is happening behind the statistics. I will give you an example.
Bangladeshis in the UK are more dependant on benefits than others in that benefits make up a greater proportion of their incomes than other groups. That is a fact, a statistic. If I didn't know better I might guess that may be because they are take up less skilled occupations etc. To a degree that is probably true.
But because I am familiar with the community, I also know this - The claiming of benefits is an industry in the Bangladeshi community, they have become expert at it. So many choose to work in the black economy in restaurants, small scale manufacture, taxis etc for cash and or part time hours on the books and then claim benefits. Their immigration lawyers are experts at it. The new arrivals are taken to the lawyers on arrival by their relatives / friends, processed through the system for maximum entitlement, lawyers are paid, relatives / friends are paid for the referral - everyone makes money ! Except the UK taxpayer of course.
To my certain knowledge many migrant communities are the same in that they have an efficient network with legal expertise to welcome new arrivals into the country and process them through the system to maximise their entitlements .
So yes, if you interview someone in the camps in Calais as to their knowledge of our benefits system then in most cases they would be short of the detail. To suggest they are ignorant is just naive, they know what they could get because those communities they belong to which as you suggest are already here will have told them about it and also told them not to worry about the detail because it will all be taken care of - they have a system.
Anyway , the point of the initial post is ....
If you have any belief at all in your ability to " Smash the gangs" why on earth would you be trying to sign up Landlords to a 5 year deal on their properties ? It will be interesting to see how many they sign up.
You can be as patronising as you like, because I think you're own view is simply overly cynical - naïvely so if you ask me ;)
I also don't want to sound patronising (I'm going to be, but appreciate your long response, so it's meant in a friendly manner) - however I see a lot of talk about the Bangladeshi community, yet, they're not a nationality that has any serious involvement in the channel boat crossings. Over the past few years, the boats have almost exclusively brought over people from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan. I would suggest that you check out some stats first, but I appreciate that you're not a fan.
The Bangladeshi community is a significant size in the UK, and has been for many decades - I'm not sure I'd be basing my knowledge of people from entirely different, mostly war-torn countries, making hazardous trips across the channel, with a completely different group of immigrants.
I've worked for years with plenty of vulnerable groups, including asylum seekers from a wide range of different countries, many of whom have come to the UK via illegal routes. My point was that asylum seekers aren't treated in a hugely different way to many other European countries, so the draw to the UK tends not to be down to detailed knowledge of the benefits system. If they just wanted housing and a small allowance, they'd stay in another country - they're mostly choosing the UK for other reasons. Your post seems to suggest that someone with a clipboard wandered around Calais, asking people to put their hands up if they know what PIP is, which again, sounds pretty naïve (sorry).
As for the main point - the UK generally takes less than their share of asylum seekers in the UK, and that number is relatively small in comparison with the overall population. It's not going anywhere, and we're never going to stop taking in refugees (I assume most people who have met more than a few refugees, wouldn't want to either). Some of the main reasons for the boat crossings increasing, is stronger controls at the official borders, and less cooperation with the EU, post Brexit. While it may be possible to make it harder for the gangs to operate, and we can work with the EU to minimise the risky crossings, I doubt we'll have a major reduction - and even if there were just 1000 asylum seekers a year, there would still likely be a need for housing. Bear in mind, that the rights of asylum seekers to do anything but sit around in state provided housing were gradually removed by the Tories. Add that to the fact that not much more than half a decade ago, there were only a few thousand who had to wait more than a year for claims to be decided - but that number has jumped tenfold, and you've got an issue that isn't going away within months, no matter how many gangs are smashed.
As I mentioned, these 5 year tenancies had been running for many years (so the ad is nothing new - it's just political mischief to highlight them as such), and the only way they wouldn't be needed, is if you expect asylum claims to drop to zero, and all outstanding claims to be decided immediately. It's the kind of thing that Andrew Neil would have pulled up a politician on, when he was a little more journalist, less angry old man.
ps. I don't doubt any of the comments you've made about your own experiences, and I'm not naïve about the fact that there is a large underground economy in the UK, or that there are people who take advantage of the system. I just think that Andrew Neil point is completely wrong.
