Refugees "visiting home"

I'm a Ukrainian living in the UK (married to a local guy so not a refugee). This summer was the first time I went to Kyiv to see my family since 2022. During the time I was there, about three weeks, there were regular powercuts (up to 10 hours at a time), airstrike alerts several times a day, some followed by explosions. My parents are old and not very mobile, so they couldn't and didn't want to leave when the war started. Yes, lots of people are still in Ukraine, life goes on but there's absolutely no way I could say it's safe there. (Now every time I hear a car or a bike accelerate outside, I jump up cos it sounds a lot like an airstrike alert. Imagine living like this every day of your life for 2.5 years)

Given the fact that 6 million Jewish people died in the Holocaust, do you think this is a good example of a refugee scheme working well?

The UK took a tiny proportion of Jewish people. We even insisted tiny children be separated from their parents, who were left to die. IMO we should be ashamed of that, not aiming to replicate it.

People’s ability to flee war and persecution should not be dependent on the goodwill of individual wealthy benefactors.

The Ukraine scheme was badly thought through and unsafe. It was also unusual in that all those needing to be housed were women and children, so in any case it’s not a model that would work in most scenarios.

Assuming you're ok with the idea that people who aren't rich shouldn't have a say in how the government spends their tax money, let's get a bit more granular here. What do you think happens when any of these placements break down, or when they're exploited as they sometimes have been by sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine scheme? There really have been some quite significant safeguarding issues with that scheme, and it certainly hasn't prevented local authority involvement from being needed.

I like your idea; have refugees sponsored by someone who homes/feeds etc them until they are independent. It would allow the "refugees welcome" types to put their money where their mouth is, as I expect they mean "refugees welcome provided I'm not paying in any way"!
This is how Jewish refugees came to the UK just prior to WW2 in many cases. It'd take the pressure of Councils to find housing etc for them. The Ukraine scheme was a good model to use as it also helped integrate people as they'd live with someone already a citizen.

Yeah. I observe some stepping into, or wilfully trying to stay just outside, sea-lioning territory here.

That's because the poster is just making stuff up - their story isn't true.

There is no argument in your post - just a insult- how clever you are…

For anyone reading, this sort of drivel is why it's a good idea not to double down in internet arguments on subjects you know nothing about. Let @timenowplease serve as a salutary example! Sometimes it really is ok just t take the lesson, look a few things up and stop talking before you really embarrass yourself.

If she came via a legal route, never claimed benefits and has now moved out of your friends home and is studying and supporting herself, what’s the problem? She’s not a refugee, she’s a legal migrant, surely.

I think the Homes for Ukraine scheme was an excellent idea - it really called the bluff of the ‘all refugees welcome’ lot. If anyone says ‘all refugees welcome’ but didn’t take in someone on that scheme, then I think they need to take a really long hard look at themselves. I think all migration should be managed via schemes like that, so consenting people with the necessary means can support the majority of the refugees needs, rather than councils bearing the brunt - which inevitably takes resources away from the most vulnerable in society.

broccolienthusiast · Today 12:37
Ye, super safe out there.
I don’t know if some of you are plain stupid or just ignorant but jfc”

Wilfully ignorant in many cases, I suspect.

Not going to continue this conversation with you past this point.

She is a refugee. This has nothing to do with legal status. It's a simple fact as she is fleeing a war. All people all over the world who are fleeing wars are called refugees. Again, this has nothing to do with bit of paper from the British Government. Words mean things. Someone who is fleeing a war is called a refugee.

What a mean minded thread OP.

Yes and she isn't going back to where she came from but to another, safer, city where her family have taken shelter.

Op, the girl no longer lives with you so what does it matter?

I can understand people wanting to see their loved ones and being prepared to take the risk though I doubt anyone from Syria would do the same.

This is hilarious.

You've said she is a refugee. Your exact words were 'She's apparently fleeing a war so that makes her a refugee, whatever her legal status'.

As well as showing that you did call her a refugee, this is also completely wrong. There's literally a whole category of protection for people fleeing wars who don't fall under the ambit of the Refugee Convention, in fact.

The fact that you think the difference between being a refugee and being not a refugee whilst having a different type of leave to remain is mere semantics and pedantry says everything. You don't know what you're talking about.

Ye, super safe out there.
I don’t know if some of you are plain stupid or just ignorant but jfc

🤨

Would you visit Kyiv at the moment OP? Would you feel completely at ease if you did?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

But if my family were there, I think I would think the risk would be worth it to see my family, especially if I was only 19. That's so young.

It sounds like she has coped remarkably well under very difficult circumstances but most probably misses her family and home very much. Good luck to her.

You don't sound very nice OP.

Seriously?

Their home town could be taken over at any given moment, and they would have to gain refugee status/a visa/ asylum immediately, whilst everyone else is rushing to do the same. Maybe they will get one before the soldiers get there, maybe they won’t. That’s very different to being there for a short period but having somewhere you can legally get back to easily.

It’s really not difficult to understand. You can’t just “hold” refugee status somewhere else until you might need it.

OriginalUsername2 · Today 11:51
I think so too. It’s a shame people can’t just politely educate the OP without all the bitchiness

OP clearly does not wish to be “educated” despite her “genuine”, honest, question.

there is a very unpleasant, racist undertone to her/his posts and to all of those agreeing with her/him.

Such unpleasant comments about people not seeking asylum but “seeking a better life”. What’s wrong with that? Thousands of Brits do the same in Spain and France every year. Oh, hang on, they’re British so that’s different, obviously.

If we're playing top trumps, a female Instagram influencer went to Afghanistan and posed with the Taliban and talked about feeling comfortable as a woman there.
There's no cure for stupid and few for handmaidens.

She didn’t get killed on her short visit? Obviously it is totally safe then. Probably just using her country’s war against a global superpower to have an easy life over here.

WhereIsMyDaughter
**
I personally don't have an opinion on the issue. I don't know all the facts and background to someone's situation and it's not my place to sit here and judge. If they are here legally, that's the main thing“

The background is that the young Ukrainian woman in question is not a guest or friend of the poster. Her former host has no issue so what on earth has it to do with the OP?

Someone with nothing better to do than insinuate about a refugee’s motives on the internet when they clearly have bugger all idea of the dangers in that person’s home nation should they return does need to get a life.

I'll do you one better op, an instagram influencer I follow just went to Ukraine on holiday. Who the hell goes on holiday to a country where there is a war?

How utterly heartless some of the posts on this thread are.

Kyiv is NOT safe. But people are still living, working and going to school there and making the best of it.

We hosted a refugee family of a Mum and 2 kids 2 years ago. After missing her husband/kids dad and parents/grandparents terribly they returned to Kyiv. They endure daily drone attacks and long periods of time without power, heat or water which is only going to get worse as winter approaches.

Mum & kids recently travelled 30 hours by train to have a holiday in another European country which we happily contributed to. As the Mum said, the kids need a break from the rocket attacks. Men are not allowed to leave the country.

DH has been asked to go to Kyiv for business. I have told him I do not want him to go under any circumstances.

Please do not begrudge the refugees who live here the chance to see their loved ones at home for a short time. It may be the last time they see them.

My Ukrainian guest (that sounds strange because after 2 years she is very much part of our family) goes home 2 or 3 times a year. It's terrifying . I worry about her every time she goes. However she has an elderly grandmother who won't move, her mother also has a younger daughter of school age , therefore as GM won't move and mum doesn't want to be separated from her young daughter, they are all obliged to stay. It's awful and dangerous.

I would never tell our guest, but I am willing the GM to pop her clogs (she's 91) and then her mum and sister will come and they will all be safe.

As for asylum seekers , I think there is a lot more abuse in that system than the homes for Ukraine scheme. I work in SOC and have run multiple prosecutions where the accused are naturalised British - having persuaded the govt that they have a 'well founded fear of persecution ' in there home country, gained ILR and then Citizenship. (Whilst committing multiple acts of criminality) Only for the country from where they are fleeing to be the first place they visit once safely in possession of a UK passport.

The irony being is that they travel on their birth countries passport to that country and back to UK on the British one. This isn't an occasional thing.. this has been going on habitually for at least 20 years.

In my mind, if you are granted asylum for humanitarian reasons and there hasn't been a substantial regime change in the country you forfeit your citizenship here if you return.

So long it is not on our taxes she can choose to do wherever she wants. The problem is when we have so little for our own poorest communities and some come to take advantage. If she is paying taxes and working to contribute under a working visa is fine. However, if she gets free education, accommodation and benefits because of the war going on but goes there when on a refugee status is different. Resources are very scarce but people are not willing to close the tap. Then complain about nothing working and poverty.