What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

I’ll tell you why it’s women and children fleeing from Ukraine and not other countries.

a) Men under the age of 60 are not allowed to leave Ukraine.
b) There are mostly no visa requirements for Ukrainian women and children to seek safety in Europe. Where they do need a visa (e.g. UK) they can apply for one and have it granted swiftly. They can then get on a plane or ferry and come here SAFELY.

No other nationality has the ability to do this. The journeys are perilous. It makes sense to send the men. Once they are given leave to remain they can secure visas for their families who can then travel here safely. It’s preferable to putting your children into a blow up dinghy to cross the Med. It’s not bloody rocket science.

If it is safer for old people to live in a country than crossing a channel on a boat, perhaps young males in their prime of life age wise should also remain their with their old folk instead of coming here. Your posts are illogical and increasingly daft

Stop all immigration of those with misogynist religions, those from regions that practice >50% FGM, those that appear pro rata massively ahead in the crime tables.
Life here is bad enough without adding in all the above.

Realistically - and again just to highlight - not setting any moral view of this…. But literally just answering your question of “is it even covered?”

I think you’d probably have to argue the “member of a political or social group” element to show that due to your differing political beliefs of the conscription forcing faction….you would refuse forced conscription and would therefore be persecuted.

Because no “forced conscription” is not word for word written in the refugee convention.

It isn't a cheap put down. You said that many young males are coming here because of forced conscription. I asked for the data and the response was " Google it" which loosely translates to you are posting nonsense with no stats to back it up.

again, not perfectly safe, just safer than coming over illegally in a boat. We are incredibly fortunate we dont have to make that choice.

Women, children under 10 and the elderly….maybe.

Young men in sportswear with iPhones….hell nah.

I really don’t think forced conscription should be a cause for asylum
though. If it was there would’ve entire African countries of young men who would be entitled to seek safe haven here and that’s simply too many people. We have to be realistic. Not being realistic leads to resentment and the rise of populism. There should be other ways of addressing the issue. Have UN peacekeepers waded in to try to stop the fighting? Have all diplomatic efforts of every UN country been exhausted?

Good point, it probably isn't, but the usual suspects are desperately thrashing around to explain why young fighting age males are rocking up to Britain leaving their wives behind as asylum seekers fleeing in terror. The most ridiculous reason given so far was because the family left behind are staying at their grans house perfectly safe.

Thank you for your suggestion,@tonyhawks23 .

When people respond with cheap put downs rather than an interest in data I think we all know they are not interested in constructive debate.

Is forced conscription even covered??
Article 1 of the 1951 Convention defines a refugee as someone who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of [their] former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

So more made up rubbish like staying at Grandma's house- fair enough

you could google it.

Maybe you can understand this example Hedgehog. The family unit is a different matter to the head of the family. Its that a wife and young children may be safer at home than making the journey, but the man if safer making the journey for them. But i dont want to argue, I think maybe we have to agree to differ.

What percentage of asylum claims are based on " forced conscription" then?

I haven't misunderstood you, you're talking utter nonsense which I think you know deep down

When the asylum claim is based on a forced conscription that amounts to becoming cannon fodder, young to middle aged fit men are the most vulnerable. This is a big problem in several African countries in the midst of civil wars.

No youve misunderstood me. Never mind, I dont think youl get it anyway.

So it's safe enough for elderly grandparents but not for them. You're desperate to defend an utterly ridiculous position. The elderly grandparents have survived to old age in some quaint cottage like a scene from little red riding hood housing the family whilst the young males flee in terror. Righto

Very good points. 🎯
Other European countries have also got much tougher at repelling undocumented migrants- we definitely need to be vetting people coming in to make sure they are 'safe' and that they will integrate well.

This is one of the most repulsive, hate-filled posts I have seen on MN. 🤮

We spent £4.7bn last year on supporting and accommodating asylum seekers.

No-one in their right mind can think this can continue, despite some of the responses on this thread.

There's too much bleeding heart liberalism when it comes to asylum/migrants. We need a robust and fair asylum policy, we need ID cards and we need them both yesterday.

The way certain people talk, you'd think that asylum seekers farted rainbows. They're just people. Some good, some bad. Putting a system in place that ensures we accept the right people is neither racist or right wing. And it needs to happen fast.

Sorry I think you misunderstood. At no point have I made a moral judgement or argument based on legislation - I’m simply providing an answer of why things happen now.

You mentioned prioritisation, so I answered that currently it’s under different legislation which is why the two aren’t comparable. I’ve never stated if I think this is good or bad or right or wrong.

Absolutely, well said

l mean that’s your personal opinion of the nature of a man, which you’re perfectly entitled to hold.

It’s not a ridiculous argument at all - you asked “why would someone do this” so I answered to you “this is why someone would do this”

If you then say “well any man who does that is not a man” I accept your opinion, but it doesn’t change the answer that that is a reason why many families choose to send a minor son or husband first.

Also other families choose not to, which is why there are women and children claiming asylum at point of entry too.