What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

If you support the current asylum framework, which is essentially "there is a list of qualifying conditions; anyone who applies and meets at least one of the conditions is eligible for asylum or humanitarian protection"...

...do you believe that there should be any limits on the number of people accepted each year?

...do you believe that countries should be allowed to set limits which are based on their own ability to provide resources, rather than eligibility of the claimant?

@justteanbiscuits my dad is an immigrant from Zimbabwe, so please do not try to educate me on other countries and peoples “abilities” to freely move.

He did not agree or support Robert Mugabe’s leadership. He wanted to move to a different country so he did, he got a scholarship to get further education here and made the decision to move to a different country with very little money.

This.^

Its definitely all the white local addicts s***ing in the street around here and making me walk the long way around with my toddler.

You are very naive about other countries and peoples ability to "save up".

My point was, that you are still missing, is that you can't just "decide to move to a different country". It's not that simple. It was easier before we left the EU but that has been removed from us.

I would be choosing to move for lifestyle reasons because (at the moment) I live in a liberal country and have no need to claim asylum anywhere.

But being gay is NOT a lifestyle choice.

@TY78910 but if you look at the original post that I responded to, the scenario given was not “punishable by death”. If that was the case yes, a persons life is at risk, they should stand good grounds to seek asylum…

@justteanbiscuits you're making it about the fact they are gay. But the WHOLE scenario was that it was against the law in that country, not that the persons life was at risk.

I have just said I don’t think it is a valid ground to seek asylum. And if I was gay and if I lived in a country that was homophobic, I wouldn’t want to live there. But I wouldn’t seek asylum, I would work, save and move to somewhere that accepted me.

It's not at all. Being unmarried is very easily fixed by getting married. That is available to you.

Being gay is punishable by death and there is no 'fix' for that, nor should there be.

@okydokethen As a social worker the vast majority of false claimants, tax avoidant and work shy people I meet are British daily mail readers.

So you have time to document peoples' reading preferences?

It seems social workers definitely have too much time on their hands 🙄

I think you’ve definitely raised really valid points in terms of how perhaps you and many others are feeling in terms of the asylum process.

All asylum claims in the Uk have to fit one of the categories as stated in the 1951 “refugee convention” and 1967 protocol (as the UK is a contributor and signatory of both)

That a person is seeking protection “owing to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” - if a person cannot prove they fit one of those criteria they would not meet the definition. - There’s also disqualifying factors

There are all also lower level status such as “Humanitarian protection” etc

But overall being poor is not a convention characteristic, therefore an economic migrant is different to a convention refugee, a person of course can both fit the refugee convention AND also be economically poor (and very often will be as those fleeing the above and economic hardship do often, but not always, go hand in hand)

The UK is bound to assess a claim in their jurisdiction and by UK’s own policy they decided that to make a claim you have to physically be in the UK to do so.

I guess a lot of question comes for the definition of safe countries as safe for who? I often am in one of the few big refugee generating countries but I’m totally safe there due to virtue of my not being from a “persecuted” community or having a certain characteristic.

As someone mentioned, is Tunisia safe for a member of the LGBTQIA+ community? This is where the determination process comes in

Is the daily mail not a genuine source, is what they post not real?

OMG, do you live under a ROCK? OF COURSE the DM is are not a reliable source, what they 'write' is largely inflammatory, divisive and hate-mongering bollocks. Designed to warp the mind of those who question nothing.

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

Look at the BS this country has come through, most of it is manipulated or stoked by the DM. Brexit, Southport, you name it.

I will never forgive them for referring to the poor kids killed by Mick Philpot as sub-human and because they were bred by this filth they were in some way undeserving of sympathy or kindness.

STOP GETTING YOUR NEWS FROM THE DAILY MAIL! It's filth.

@poetryandwine @justteanbiscuits

sorry will try to address both in one post as they discuss the same sort of things.

regarding middle aged, chronic illness scenario, you are very much aware that this is a slightly different scenario than just seeking asylum due to being bisexual. However this would then mean taking on an individual that is going to add increased pressure on a health care system that is already stretched and unable to meet the demands of the current population?

My point is surrounding priorities, and personally a family who’s live is at risk of being bombed or being killed for whatever it may be, to me is a higher priority. So if there is 1 place and those are the two cases. In my personal opinion the place to seek asylum that is highest priority would be the family with their lives at risk.

But that is very much the same for you or I, if we were to want to move to Australia or America… that doesn’t mean that we then decide to seek asylum?

Exactly. People need to go out and meet them properly, not judge them from afar. Speak to those 20 year olds on the street corner with nothing to do. Speak to the turkish barbar or nail bar owner (still dont get all that..). Or whoever it is that annoy people upthread. Hear their stories dont judge them. Its the Mails othering of asylum seekers that is the exact problem. Asylum seekers could be any of us, its an amazing lack of empathy on some of this thread. I hope trolling.

Again, being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice". Wearing rainbows every day is a lifestyle choice.

And there is already priority depending on your claim. Unfortunately, the biggest problem is lack of staff to manage the claims, so the claims take years to deal with. The system needs more resources to work properly.

Not really.

An unmarried couple can easily rectify their law breaking and continue being themselves. Being unmarried is not an intrinsic part of their being, it is a lifestyle choice.

How would a gay person change their circumstance to abide by the law?

Unless you are suggesting being gay or actively gay is a lifestyle choice?

You are already living in a violent, misogynistic, homophobic country. VAWG is in epidemic proportions here, the vast majority coming from White, home grown offenders.

@Tryingtoberreasonable , we are both asking how you accomplish the move?

Most liveable countries including the UK restrict immigration. What if neither you nor your spouse has residence rights anywhere else, nor a skill on the preferred list for a visa?

I am wondering if some people on this thread have actually taken the time to speak to an asylum seeker, let alone been friends with one.

A close friend came to this country claiming asylum as a child. They, and their families lives were in serious danger. They were hidden and driven out of their country and again, at each border before finally making it to the UK. They didn't have time to collect and bring belongings, and as they had never left the country, they had no passports and their parents passports as it had been removed from them by "the police". They came to the UK as they had family already here, and all spoke English. I can even begin to imagine the horror of this all.

You seeing it that way and it being true isn’t the same thing.

There are organisations that track bias and credibility which you can look at if you want to know the facts, not just rely on your ‘feeling’.

Sorry, @justteanbiscuits , I did not see your post as I was writing

@justteanbiscuits I think you are missing my point, my point was if you don’t agree with the laws in the country you live in - you move to a different country that does very much accept you…
I don’t really think it’s a ground for seeking asylum no. Because as I said there are people whose lives are at risk and to me that’s a higher priority.
May seem harsh, I am not saying we don’t take asylum seekers at all I’m saying that there unfortunately does need to be a level of priority within the vetting process.

I want to understand your post, @Tryingtoberreasonable

How would you accomplish your move? You need a reason to lawfully emigrate, such as a spouse with citizenship, or the offer of a job that cannot be filled by a citizen, etc

The alternative is to seek asylum

Apologies if I have misunderstood your post. I would appreciate clarification

Using the UK as an example, now we're no longer in the UK, how does one just "move to a country that does accept me". As a middle aged woman, without much in my savings account, a chronic illness, and no 'special' skills, what country would give me a visa to live and work there?!

Let's be honest, abuse of the housing and benefit system is rife with British people.
As a social worker the vast majority of false claimants, tax avoidant and work shy people I meet are British daily mail readers. The UK is falling hugely behind with the educational accomplishments and the work ethic of British people. We are a lazy nation, reliant on hard working people from other countries but yet very quick to hate.
To seek asylum isn't illegal, it's following the process set by this country.

I don't read the daily mail anyway, because I find it virtually unreadable in terms of format and adverts anyway. I don't see it as worse than the Guardian in terms of bias though. They're just biases in different directions.