What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

@yetagai
Or do you think people should be discriminated against because of their attitudes or beliefs?

If those attitudes cause human rights abuses then, yes.

Perhaps we could agree to support helping those with negative attitudes to change their minds?

In theory a good idea. In practice it's not always feasible.

Yes, the phrase 'suicidal empathy' is used to claim doing the right thing is unrealistic because it can be difficult to do.

When there are a string of rapes, stabbings and terrorist attacks, when Sweden has just had a mass bombing campaign, it maybe stops looking like just "difficult to do" though? It starts looking downright undesirable, and I think longer-term it's going to be disastrous in terms of Europe lurching to the right.

Then they won't get refugee status. You become a refugee if you are being persecuted not if you're persecuting.

Perhaps we could agree to support helping those with negative attitudes to change their minds?

-- Or do you think people should be discriminated against because of their attitudes or beliefs? (Not that I wish to put words in your mouth, you understand ...)

@username299 and some are perpetuating them....

Globally we are one tiny island. We are over populated. The infrastructure cannot cope. We need less people not more. Integration is not a requirement. I can understand why not everyone feels happy about the state of the country. It's very naive to blindly accept all coming here. It doesn't fit the narrative to disagree with liberal thinking and doing so is regarded as far right.

People seeking asylum are escaping human rights abuses.

Yes, the phrase 'suicidal empathy' is used to claim doing the right thing is unrealistic because it can be difficult to do.

It'll be difficult to get rid of borders. Almost impossible, maybe. But it doesn't follow borders aren't bad. They are.

(An example of heroic suicidal empathy? Sophie Scholl. Think about the lessons there.)

It presupposes that some of them speak English and are able to get jobs. It also presupposes that those that are unemployable are supported into employment and integration while their cases come up.

Asylum seekers have a incredibly small impact on finance and public services in the UK. Most are not eligible for public funds. False asylum claims are a vanishing small issue for this country.

The right wing press like to make what is a very small issue into a huge issue in order to cause division.

The press are careful to ignore all nuance and blame the struggles of our public services and rising economic challenges on "immigrants", while acting like "immigrants" are all people pretending to be asylum seekers and stealing public funds, housing, jobs. All of those things are factually incorrect.

The only reason why the press push the hatred of asylum seekers, "illegal immigrants", "immigrants", "small boats" is because so many people in this country are gullible enough to follow this line of thinking and blame the scapegoat for the collapse of our economy and public services. Rather than looking at what's really happening - the rich are growing richer and public services can't compete. The rich own politics and the media. Elon Musk is a shining example and look how hard he is pushing the hatred of immigrants. It's easy to rile up hatred and division so that everyone blames each other for taking the things they need, rather than looking to the super rich who are endlessly building and hoarding resources and wealth for themselves.

That idea presupposes that a) they speak English and
b) that they have skills we need.

My opinion is give them an NIC number and let them start working, contributing and living their lives.

@yetagai What d'you think, ? (Maybe such citizens should be discriminated against because of where they're from? Is that what you think?)

I never said that at all, so please don't put words into my mouth.

However, I would not support helping those who want to come here and bring their negative human rights attitudes with them.

Perhaps we shouldn't help oppressive societies. But maybe individual citizens of such societies? By offering them asylum, perhaps?

What d'you think, @Daisychainsforme? (Maybe such citizens should be discriminated against because of where they're from? Is that what you think?)

@yetagai I do understand what you're saying, and it's a genuinely noble sentiment.
However, there does come a point where I think the first policy allegiance should be to existing citizens and residents of a country. If the negatives become too great, then the use of the right-wing term "suicidal empathy" starts to actually sound accurate.

That being said, in the UK the vast majority of recent arrivals are not asylum seekers anyway, Johnson was very very liberal with visas. But in European countries like Germany and Sweden, it clearly has had an overall negative impact for the existing inhabitants.

@yetagai I just - naively - wish we could at least try to do the right thing and help people when they need it, no matter what colour their skin, what their crazy religious beliefs or cultural habits

So you would help societies where the regime oppressed it's citizens (especially women) ?

Yes. Probably everything you say is true. But still you don't address the moral point about discrimination.

It's as bad to discriminate against someone because of place of birth as it is to discriminate against someone because of colour of skin. If you doubt this, consider a small child needing help: would you deny assistance to a child because he or she had a certain skin colour? Some people would, of course; they'd be immoral. Likewise with denying assistance to a child based on his/her place of birth.

(To be clear, the point I'm making is not about children: that's just an example to help you understand. The point is about discrimination and morality.)

The debate about borders and immigration/emigration usually ignores this (moral) point. It's 'naive' to bring it up, we're told. But, actually, it's inescapable. Yes, it makes for hard choices. Doing the right thing often comes with a cost.

I just - naively - wish we could at least try to do the right thing and help people when they need it, no matter what colour their skin, what their crazy religious beliefs or cultural habits ... or where they happen to have been born. So, I insist, borders as they currently function are bad because they're discriminatory.

Borrowing against increased tax revenue from the increased number of contributors, many of whom have no recourse to public funds and pay additional charges for eg visas and NHS access.
Large scale infrastructure projects (when run properly) are hugely beneficial to the economy, so that’s another benefit we can chalk up to increased population.
Increasing your population is one the single easiest ways to boost the economy. It has to be done properly, but it is.

Honestly, I don't want this. We already have such a high population density and I really don't want to see any increase. For me, any supposed economic benefits won't be worth concreting over green belt.

No, I’m saying only 7% asylum seekers because it’s a fact and yet they are the ones the thread was started about. There does need to be a conversation about managing immigration, but it shouldn’t start with asylum seekers.
Reducing student visas is decimating our universities though, so just doing more of that is a bit of a disaster.

I can't see it as sustainable. Massive borrowing to increase the population every decade

The cost of borrowing is already causing us issues

They have no recourse to public funds for five years. They then have unlimited recourse to public funds for the rest of their lives.

Then why, in this time of massive and totally unprecedented immigration, is Britain’s economy more sluggish than ever?

Human quantitative easing doesn’t work. If GDP increases by 0.1%, while your population grows by 700,000, then GDP/capita and living standards fall. That is not economic growth.

Mass migration of low skilled, poorly paid workers into a generous welfare state with large fiscal transfers make the existing population poorer. It also makes that welfare state entirely unsustainable.

I have no idea. You’d like to think someone was totting up all the figures somewhere but I suspect that it is all short term planning going on. What looks good for the next 4 years kind of job. what props up the economy until we can get into power again.

my point is that immigration through visa routes can be planned on benefits to society but having the right for us all to claim asylum is a purely humanitarian response.

So years from now in a scenario where the US have taken Greenland by force and our Russian overlords are putting our civil rights activists in gulags, we too could claim asylum elsewhere.

Borrowing is incredibly high already and debt servicing is huge, more than the defence budget

It's risky too as we could face another large event

France and other countries are facing issues with high debt rn

As for growing the population ad best way to grow economy where is that number in a few decades?

Borrowing against increased tax revenue from the increased number of contributors, many of whom have no recourse to public funds and pay additional charges for eg visas and NHS access.

Large scale infrastructure projects (when run properly) are hugely beneficial to the economy, so that’s another benefit we can chalk up to increased population.

Increasing your population is one the single easiest ways to boost the economy. It has to be done properly, but it is.