What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

What have I said that is Guardian-esque?

I am not massively keen on the Guardian. It is a bit too centrist for me. Though John Crace and Marina Hyde are pretty good.

You’ll be attacked for being ‘racist’ because our own U.K. citizens can’t stick together to fight for better for our future.
Genuine people in need should come, although they should find a way to improve their situation. Those coming to work are a positive addition to the U.K. Unfortunately where I live in London many of them turn to crime (fact before anyone comes at me)
I also find it heartbreaking when it’s men and they leave their women and children behind to suffer, this shouldn’t be allowed, they either all come or not at all.
For those who welcome everyone, would you put them up in your house and provide for them?
Would you prefer for the U.K. funds to go on our elderly who have no heating, invest in schools and nhs, keep the homeless off the streets, have more housing for everyone? Sadly those who have had very fortunate lives don’t see the consequences of helping other countries before this one.

@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.

And your post is a Guardian reader bingo 👏

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.

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

@justteanbiscuits apologies, I reread it but I understand the confusion I used America and Australia as an example, which actually isn’t the best as their entry requirements are so strict. However there are plenty of other countries we would be able to move to freely if we followed the right emigration process.
but further to my point, very few countries have an entry requirement that are strict as those two examples making it easier to migrate.

I am the one who brought up Skilled Workers. I never said you did.

To shorten my question: on what grounds do you think you are allowed to emigrate to America or Australia?

Blimey. That post is like Daily Mail bingo.

Impressive.

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 skilled worker thing came about from my mention. When you suggested if you don't like the laws because of your "life style" you move to another country. The used it as one example of something I don't have in order to just move to another country. IF I needed to claim asylum I would need to, because I don't have the requirements for standard immigration.

My view is, if they made it possible to apply for asylum from abroad they could properly check the genuine nature of people applying, and arrange safe passage for them which would prevent dangerous travel which is probably one of the main things putting off women and children who are unable or unwilling to climb in an illegal lorry or boat transport. It's absolutely nonsensical to force people to travel illegally in order to claim asylum. Often men travel in order to try to send money home to their family, or to set something up to get their family over later.

@Lynds778 seems to have buggered off after laying down the poison.

My small city has two local hotels now used for asylum seekers. Mostly men

they are better behaved than the local worthies.

@Sunseaandgreys absolutely understand everything you’ve just said and is the point that I was trying to make from the very first comment that was made.

And thank you for understanding that I am not at all saying “god no, don’t let people into our country because they are gay” I’m just stating there are various different methods of emigrating that do not mean having to seek asylum. And that seeking asylum should be prioritised for those who are in life threatening situations.

If your life is at risk, I have absolutely said yes I think this is fair grounds to seek asylum.

Off you go then. You go and talk to a group of young blokes hanging around a street corner. What could possibly go wrong.

How easy would he have found it in 2025? We're not talking 30 years ago (yes, I know I don't know exactly how many years ago this was, but I presuming you are at least 25 and you weren't conceived the moment he came to the UK). Having the ability to get a scholarship in another country shows he has been educated, has the ability to apply and not living in abject poverty.

@poetryandwine
sorry I think it is you that is not understanding and I completely understand why… because you are lying words into my mouth that have not been said.

Did I mention anything about “skilled workers”…?
I actually worked with a man who was from Pakistans (he was not yet a UK citizen) he found a job here, and was granted permission to live here whilst he worked, as he was working and able to prove he could provide for himself, his wife as allowed to reside here too, they had two children and he’s working towards getting UK citizenship… he has not seeker asylum but instead has gone through a process many others do to emigrate to another country. His job was not called as being a “skilled worker” so I’m unsure where you have got this information from?

They have been leaders of demonisation of everyone since the get-go. Single mothers, benefits recipients, forriners, anyone who looks different

Yep. And they weren't keen on Jewish people either back in the 1930s.

Always been a scummy rag, always will be.

Why was my post deleted?

I posted saying how daily mail is not a good source to read and the readers tend to be racist / xenophobic?

And I wrote how sick I felt when I read that poor boy of PPs neighbour from Afghanistan who was attacked with a hammer? Why was that deleted? @MNQH?

Which organisations are these, other than the one already linked, which is biased. Who tracks the biases and credibility of these self appointed arbiters of truth?

Totally get both the point you and “Just” are making - but I think the key area is that you have an example that does not fall under the the reasons for asylum….. as your original example.

So the original that you mentioned “If I was gay and I lived in a country that was homophobic I would leave but I wouldn’t seek asylum”

If you were gay and could NOT prove that you faced a risk of persecution due your status as being a member of a social group “Gay individual” - you would not be eligible for asylum anyway so if you’d seek it or not is a bit of a moot point.

However what I think other posters are trying to highlight, people who are making asylum claims based on their characteristic of being Gay is BECUASE the county they are from they DO have a well founded fear they will be persecuted for being Gay, not just that their original country is a bit homophobic.

does that make sense?

@Tryingtoberreasonable Two points: that bisexual Iranian is risking their life, because practising gay sex is a capital crime. Uganda, Iran and Pakistan are the only three countries where this is true, and where (to my limited understanding) sexual orientation is therefore a compelling feature of an asylum claim. With the usual high standards.

Someone asked about a gay person from Tunisia claiming asylum. Because the maximum penalty for gay sex is only (!) 3 years in prison, I would guess that a claim based in sexual orientation is a lower priority.

Also I am not sure why you think we can just decide to go live in America or Australia. Well, I took American citizenship after moving there on a highly skilled visa, but the bar was very high. Australia is similar: basically you need a Skilled Worker Visa, a Partner Visa ir a Family Visa. For a Skilled Worker Visa, you cannot be more than 45 yo. The other visas require an Australian partner or family member

Again, perhaps we are not communicating clearly. I do not understand why, @Tryingtoberreasonable , you think we have freedom of movement beyond that granted to skilled workers, and why you think a gay person from Iran/Uganda/Pakistan would be likely to have skilled worker status.
I would like to understand.

@justteanbiscuits sorry just to continue he lived under a dictatorship, and regularly saw and heard about people who’s homes were raided and every single family member killed because they had vocalised they did not agree to Robert Mugabes leadership, or had voted against him.

"Asylum seekers should be housed in ordinary council housing."

And where would that be then? Have you any idea how dire the housing shortage is? There's a five year minimum wait in my city for council/HA housing.

I suspect a lot of posters on this thread don't live in social housing and are highly unlikely to be affected in any shape or form by asylum seekers.