What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

They shouldn’t be prioritised as both needs are just as important but if you read my previous comment I answered this. These are under different laws.

I don’t think the government cares at all about asylum seekers, (also don’t really think they care about much but that’s just my opinion 🤣)

However, as the UK is currently a signatory to relevant refugee and asylum legislation they have a legal obligation (which is enforceable at the international level) to provide a minimum standard to people in the asylum process.

As countries generally abide by the “non interference” process, as long as one country isn’t committing war crimes, generally countries leave domestic policy up to each other and stay out of it, so as you mentioned - policy on British homelessness, it’s up the the UK and no international treaty is going to make sure British homeless receive a minimum standard of living, so if the government don’t care - unfortunately we’re all a bit stuffed.

They only provide the minimum for asylum seekers as if they don’t the international court system can make them pay compensation.

Bravo on the virtue signalling on how awful the British were long before anyone was born on here or in Britain today. Presumably you realise every country on Earth has engaged in wars, invasions, empires, murders, etc etc or is it just Britain to blame. Out of curiosity as you seem to want current Brits to take responsibility for past transgressions, as someone presumably living in Britain now, will you be doing your part to " take responsibility"? How many asylum seekers will be staying at your place ? My guess is 0

If a man leaves his family on danger, he isn't a man. Your comments make no sense and completely illogical to any right thinking person. No man would just " set off" leaving women and children of they were in danger of being murdered. It's a ridiculous argument

I don’t feel any particular way about asylum seekers tbh. They’re a fairly distant concept. I’m healthy, I’m wealthy, I don’t live in the kind of area where they tend to be housed, I don’t need to worry for a second about the pressure in my area of their healthcare needs, or eligibility for affordable housing once granted refugee status, and they aren’t going to be applying for my job.

I imagine I would understandably feel a little bit differently if my life was difficult and a bit shit already and my perception was that more and more people were arriving to compete with me for the scarce jobs I was qualified for and the housing, the GP places me and my disabled child were already chasing, and I was a renter who’d been on the council housing waiting list for almost a decade.

The stats as you claim, may be correct, but that's down to previous government incompetence. If a government official stamped a sheep born in a stable as a horse, it doesn't mean it is. The tories were useless and it looks set to continue . If a male in his 20s and 30s ( which the vast majority are) is not as you say in poverty or in imminent risk of death, why should he be prioritised over dying pensioners and homeless people here?

Well the answer to this is the “Family reunification process” and as an individual who spends the majority of their life living and working in refugee generating countries I can answer confidently to your question - Many men would do and do this for the long term safety of the family.

I could travel to the UK and receive a positive decision on my case, then I can apply for family reunification for my partner and children under 18 to come and join me (legally)

I think in the UK and this thread is a good example, there’s just not a clear understanding of the legal requirements.

The legal processes we have in place (and what a claimant can prove beyond reasonable doubt) is what currently differentiates an individual between “asylum seeker” and “economic migrant”

There is no “poor” scale to be an asylum seeker, also it’s not a requirement to be a woman or child. If someone puts an asylum claim in they are an asylum seeker while the claim goes through and if it is successful at the refugee determination process they get refugee protection or subsidiary protection.

A British ngo claim looked at the success rate of those travelling via small boat and a high % around 65% of those were granted refugee status on first decision….. of the 35% denied…. The overall UK appeal rate was anywhere from 30% up to just under 45% were granted refugee status on 1st appeal.

So factually we can’t really say that “the vast majority of economic migrants” as actually the vast majority met the UK requirements for refugee status.

As I mentioned earlier, government and news outlets depending on their goal will choose what elements to report and how to frame people, but to say the vast majority are economic migrants ONLY. I don’t think is factual.

If their life was truly at risk, they wouldn't leave their children and wives behind. What man would leave his family behind if the risks were so great unless of course they weren't at the risks you claim.

The vast majority are economic migrants coming from France. Strangely there are hardly any small children or women at these hotels or on boats despite the apparent horrors they are leaving behind. They also arrive with smart phones in many cases, but according to the left are fleeing abject poverty.

People wonder why council tax bills are going up, housing coats are sky high with always the focus on supply rather than demand and barely able to get a Dr appointment. The NHS functioned far better before mass immigration, housing costs were more in line with wages. If these people were truly fleeing in fear of their lives, they wouldn't leave their wives and children behind. Of course the bleeding heats say anyone objecting is racist, but they never seem to offer room at their house for these poor souls fleeing in terror. Strange that. There are risks with crossing the channel on a boat, but if you were truly living in fear of your life, you wouldn't leave your wife and children behind unless you were certifiable ( or not actually fleeing in terror)

Yes, and I don’t think it should be a reason to seek asylum. We can’t take in all asylum seekers of the world. Homosexuality was illegal here too, and gay people went about their lives in a more clandestine manner. Terrible yes, but no where near as bad as having bombs dropped on you or being forced into a burqua for your whole life.

Like it or not there is a hierarchy of asylum nedd and I think with the far right rising in many Western European negations we need to revisit who can claim asylum so we ensure those being bombed are still welcomed with open arms here.

Their life may be at risk but they have a phone. Asylum is for safety. What they want is safety.

Yes, and I don’t think it should be a reason to seek asylum. We can’t take in all asylum seekers of the world. Homosexuality was illegal here too, and gay people went about their lives in a more clandestine manner. Terrible yes, but no where near as bad as having bombs dropped on you or being forced into a burqua for your whole life.

Like it or not there is a hierarchy of asylum nedd and I think with the far right rising in many Western European negations we need to revisit who can claim asylum so we ensure those being bombed are still welcomed with open arms here.

If they had money for a phone and other things ( which some Brits can't even afford) they aren't in abject poverty compared to the lowest rung already in society on these shores so why would they be prioritised.

If my family was in serious danger, I would consider a channel crossing far less risky than apparently being murderd wherever they are " fleeing in terror " from.

Practising gay sex in Iran is a capital crime.

Thus being a practising bisexual is an internationally recognised reason to seek asylum.

So I think thread has explained clearly a few times why men come before their family. I will explain re phones - if you are doing an incredibly dangerous journey away from family, the one thing you want is a phone. Phones are really really helpful, for keeping in touch, enabling you to organise things, check money, book things etc. If you use one you will know, and imagine how important that is for someone without their family. Also often people who are fleeing for their lives may have had money for a phone before they left.

Where are the small boats coming from then, Mars? If they were genuine people in fear of their lives, they wouldn't leave their families behind no matter how risky a short crossing on a boat is. You've been conned.

@justteanbiscuits but again I’m asking on what grounds are you saying you need to seek asylum.

Is this the middle age woman chronic illness that’s life is at risk. Because if we are going back to this point as I’ve mentioned so many times, the original comment was nothing to do with someone’s life being at risk - or facing the death penalty.

It was the they were gay and lives in Iran and it was against the law…

Also along with other poster are increasingly removing the scenario that there was a family facing death by bombing. Which I still stand my ground to me out of the two is a reason for higher priority.

@justteanbiscuits but again I’m asking on what grounds are you saying you need to seek asylum.

Is this the middle age woman chronic illness that’s life is at risk. Because if we are going back to this point as I’ve mentioned so many times, the original comment was nothing to do with someone’s life being at risk - or facing the death penalty.

It was the they were gay and lives in Iran and it was against the law…

Also along with other poster are increasingly removing the scenario that there was a family facing death by bombing. Which I still stand my ground to me out of the two is a reason for higher priority.

Do you have data to back up the fact that "the vast majority are economic migrants coming from France". The vast majority don't even come to the UK from France. (Yes, I have already provided links that explain all of this)

I know it's not a popular point of view, but I am against restricting people's rights to move and set up home wherever they wish. I think borders are a bad thing.

Why is this view so unpopular? Most people discriminate against others, on grounds such as religious belief, colour of skin, language, culture ... or place of birth. Me I think you should have the right to come and live next door to me whatever your religion, skin-colour, mother-tongue, culture ... or place of birth.

I know most of you think I'm wrong about this. But really it is just a moral question: who do you discriminate against, and how do you justify this discrimination?

I do understand my own views on this are held by very few others. But, well, we can hope for progress, even in morality; only a few hundred years ago, most people thought slavery was OK. (Torture? Capital punishment? Wife-beating? ...? The same.) Meanwhile, waiting for more moral progress, in answer to OP's question my thoughts on asylum seekers are that they should be welcomed and given as much help as possible to live in my country if they wish to do so.

The vast majority are economic migrants coming from France. Strangely there are hardly any small children or women at these hotels or on boats despite the apparent horrors they are leaving behind. They also arrive with smart phones in many cases, but according to the left are fleeing abject poverty.

People wonder why council tax bills are going up, housing coats are sky high with always the focus on supply rather than demand and barely able to get a Dr appointment. The NHS functioned far better before mass immigration, housing costs were more in line with wages. If these people were truly fleeing in fear of their lives, they wouldn't leave their wives and children behind. Of course the bleeding heats say anyone objecting is racist, but they never seem to offer room at their house for these poor souls fleeing in terror. Strange that. There are risks with crossing the channel on a boat, but if you were truly living in fear of your life, you wouldn't leave your wife and children behind unless you were certifiable ( or not actually fleeing in terror)

The vast majority are economic migrants coming from France. Strangely there are hardly any small children or women at these hotels or on boats despite the apparent horrors they are leaving behind. They also arrive with smart phones in many cases, but according to the left are fleeing abject poverty.

People wonder why council tax bills are going up, housing coats are sky high with always the focus on supply rather than demand and barely able to get a Dr appointment. The NHS functioned far better before mass immigration, housing costs were more in line with wages. If these people were truly fleeing in fear of their lives, they wouldn't leave their wives and children behind. Of course the bleeding heats say anyone objecting is racist, but they never seem to offer room at their house for these poor souls fleeing in terror. Strange that. There are risks with crossing the channel on a boat, but if you were truly living in fear of your life, you wouldn't leave your wife and children behind unless you were certifiable ( or not actually fleeing in terror)