Yes narrowly carried a question about unpaid work, but the Yes voters who explained themselves barely argued for work at all. All three put removal first, and the most-respected Yes case, “Not one of them should be here anyway”, says to deport and let people apply through proper channels.
Where work appeared, it was an afterthought. One Yes voter wanted people to work “to pay towards their upkeep” if they could not be returned at once, and another welcomed it “right before they are sent away”. That is a case for work as a stopgap, not for community work as a policy of its own.
The No side was louder about detention than about the scheme. The most-respected No cases wanted people held and deported, and one warned “You dont leave strangers alone in your home.” A sharper strand went at the idea itself: one voter asked “Are we really advocating slavery over paid work?”, while another replied that state-provided food and housing make it hardly unpaid. A third feared it “simply undercuts British workers”.
The No voters also raised a point Yes voters never addressed: that volunteering could signal permanence. “It sets an expectation of likely to stay,” wrote one. Yes voters, whose arguments all leaned on removal, did not answer it.
So the narrow Yes came from voters who mostly wanted the work question to be moot.
122 Opinions
No. They shouldnt be anywhere near the general population when we dont know who they are, never mind working. Until we have approved an asylum claim, they shouldnt be allowed to be wandering our streets and instead should be kept in a secure facility. You dont leave strangers alone in your home.
No they should be imprisoned and deported immediately they are criminals.
They should not be here. End of story. This is not a vote for not giving them community service, it's a vote to rid us of them entirely until our country is in better shape.
Sorry, why the hell should they? Are we really advocating slavery over paid work? What is the actual point of that?
Legal migrants & asylum seekers arriving the UK through airports & ferry ports, the price of the ticket to arriving this country legally is lower than the £2000 plus the boats people are paying to get into the country. This begs the question why are they' willing to pay so much to get into the country? We don't know these people, the culture is totally alien to ours and many go on to commit crimes & rape. To protect the public they should be contained
Send them straight back to France. Simple.
I am entirely against full mass migration, but forcing asylum seekers into unpaid community work is the wrong approach. It doesn't solve the border issue, it simply undercuts British workers. If councils and organizations can rely on free, state mandated labour, they stop hiring locals for paid roles. We need a controlled system and faster processing, not a free labour scheme.
I say no. Asylum seekers who arrive in the UK illegally should not be required to undertake unpaid community work while their claims are being decided. Instead, the government should enforce immigration law, detain people where legally justified and arrange deportation or removal as swiftly as the law permits
If they arrive illegally they should be briefly detained and then quickly deported. Any claim should be automatically rejected
As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't remain in the country at all. If they are in this country they should be held nowhere near our communities & certainly not working amongst us. This is not racist it is common sense. This should apply to everyone no matter the skin colour or background.. nobody should be allowed to roam free with full in depth vetting.