What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

Afghanistan was decimated by the US and UK, then occupied for 20 years. When they pulled out they negotiated with the Taliban releasing 5,000 prisoners.

The Taliban quickly took control and now people are fleeing Afghanistan. The Taliban took all the weaponry left by the States and rule with an iron fist.

What exactly do you expect unarmed civilians to do against the Taliban? They can't even form political parties or demonstrate.

Perfectly said @user243245346 , I'm in full agreement.

Tbf the Jews were a minority in WW2 when they were being persecuted. They didn't have much of an option of fighting back (although many did eg Warsaw Ghetto uprising).

Many of the groups claiming asylum now are not minorities. My concern is that our asylum system works best when it is for small groups of persecuted people. Yet many people claiming asylum are from countries which are essentially failed states. A great proportion of the world would be eligible to claim asylum- but practically we cannot support them even if it was the best solution to the problems of many nations.

Ultimately the solution for many people's problems has to be to make their homelands better. That said it's understandable on a personal level why they would rather leave

"But do you think it morally acceptable to discriminate against someone purely because of where they were born? - Is there really any difference between that and discrimination based on skin-colour, or religious belief etc? If there is a relevant moral difference I (naively) fail to see it."

The difference (in theory at least) is that if we want to live in a certain way as citizens of the uk we can choose how to live. We have certain rights and corresponding obligations. Eg we choose to pay a certain amount of taxes and have certain social protections among other things. We also have common cultural norms that are enforced as laws (eg that it is not acceptable to force 9 year olds to marry) which are not followed in other countries.

If anyone at all can live here with no difference in treatment it can erode social protections and cultural values as well as trust within society. Eg people from other countries don't pay into the system - if they can take out with no limit the system will collapse.

@yetagai I think we need borders to stop general chaos and break down

People probably need to feel they're working to a degree too, which is the debatable part atm and part of the changes we're seeing in many places

You may be right.

But do you think it morally acceptable to discriminate against someone purely because of where they were born? - Is there really any difference between that and discrimination based on skin-colour, or religious belief etc? If there is a relevant moral difference I (naively) fail to see it.

Exactly. Most people in occupied France didn't join the resistance, for example. They just kept their heads down and tried to survive a terrible period as best they could. Like most of us would.

It's so easy for people to say that others should fight against their awful regimes and risk a probable death. We live in such luxury. I believe that most of the people who post these things wouldn't have a clue how to stage an uprising and fight against an army. They would just want to raise their families in peace and safety. Don't we all?

It will get harder, and some politicians are already responding. Hence the recent swings in many western countries

It does feel a bit head in the sand

So the Jewish people who came to the UK to flee the Nazis should have stayed in Germany and fought back?

@Anonym00se In WW2 there were many resistance organisations that fought against the Nazis that occupied their countries. They fought and some died. I don't see much sign of fighting. Except perhaps in Iran, some very brave women there.

Well I’d suggest that if it was genuinely easy for someone to stay in their own country and sort their societal problems out themselves, they would never have been granted asylum in the first place.

I mean, we live in a democracy, and we can’t sort our own problems here. What influence do you honestly believe an individual would have in an autocratic regime where their lives are at risk?

@Anonym00se I did not give any examples.
You decided to cite an extreme and I suggest a very rare example of a migrant. I question how helpful that is.

I suppose morally some would argue yes, you can see from some comments on the threads that there are people who feel strongly that men “should” stay in a location to fight and or see through whatever is causing the immediate and long term risk.

From a legal basis that’s were the “well founded fear of persecution” element comes in - a user a few pages back gave a scenario about being Gay and being in a country that was homophobic (but not with a well founded fear of persecution) and that they shouldn’t quality as an asylum seeker, which is accurate they probably wouldn’t.

So I guess someone could argue the space to stay is before something gets to a “well founded fear of persecution” stage - but then that in itself is going to be a different threshold for everyone - so it’s an interesting debate!

Lol

So are you saying that if, for example, you were a homosexual man from Afghanistan that you should just sit down with the Taliban and talk it through? 😂

Thankfully MNHQ disagree.

I am glad some of the rampant bigotry is being deleted.

Is there a point at which it is reasonable to expect people to stay home and work on sorting out their own country instead of running away to Europe?
Or is it too difficult.

Immigration is a difficult issue; we need enough people who are both productive and compatible with our culture, in order for the country to function smoothly and to keep population levels up to a viable level.

As a civilised country, we also have a moral obligation to offer asylum to a sustainable number of those who need it, providing they do not have a harmful effect on society.

Whether 'compatible with our culture' is a bit iffy or not depends on how we want our country to look in the future. If we want it to be more or less as it is now, we need people who will integrate and adapt to our ways. If we don't mind change, and/or a fragmented society then that is not important.

Of course, change is not always good - I feel that we're doing quite well as a secular society with broadly Christian tolerant values. If enough people with strongly held views based, say, on a different religion settle here, it is inevitable that they will maintain their identity and begin to exert an influence. There is now a fair degree of power in the 'muslim vote', for instance, and it's arguable that we now effectively have blasphemy laws.

As climate change worsens, there is likely to be a large increase in the number of people migrating from, say, Africa to northern Europe. Either they all have to go somewhere, bringing significant societal changes to their host countries, or they must be denied entry, neither of which are appealing options.

Nothing racist here, if we differentiate (as I do) between race and culture, although obviously most likely immigrants will be brown, but others will, of course, see things differently.

Interesting times.......

Asylum seekers make up only a small percentage of immigration though - 7% in 2023 - so that’s not really something you can blame on them. Most are coming in visas. The last government could have stopped it but chose not to. Whether they had good reason not to is another discussion.

Also.. you could ask either:

What are your thoughts? Or:
What is your opinion?

Not what's your thoughts

Stop reading the DM for starters

Immigration is set to push the UK’s population above France’s for the first time in a generation, official figures show.

James Robards, from the ONS, said: “The UK population is projected to grow by almost five million over the next decade. The driver of this growth is migration, with natural change – the difference between births and deaths – projected to be around zero.

The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The projections, for the decade from 2022, show that the UK’s population exceeded France’s in 2023 at 68.5 million against 68.2 million, the first time since at least 1997 that Britain has done so.

The population gap between the UK and France is set to widen with France projected by the Eurostat, the European statistical agency, to increase to just 70 million in 2035, some 2.5 million behind the UK.

Over the decade, net migration – the number coming to the UK minus those emigrating – will increase the UK’s population by 7.3 per cent, compared with an increase of 6.1 per cent over the previous 10 years.

The ONS projects that between 2022 and 2032 some 9,914,000 people will immigrate long term to the UK, while 4,978,000 are anticipated to emigrate. The non-immigrant population will remain flat with 6.8 million births and 6.8 million deaths'.

No, it precisely translates to the fact that we are not professionals in this area and do not have all the data at our fingertips.

If you are coming from a fact based stance, you can strengthen your arguments substantially by providing objective sources (eg from gov.uk or migration watch) for them.

A genuine, demonstrated respect for women’s and girl’s rights and freedoms in our society will solve a lot of our problems and sooth fears. It starts with government.

No, many here just have to make a choice between heating and eating