Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

We cannot continue taking on immigrants indefinitely

356 replies

MobilityCat · 08/02/2025 15:27

I'll probably be shot down for saying this but Immigration should be strictly controlled or we'll all become significantly disadvantaged. While international law doesn't require asylum seekers to stay in the first safe country they reach, some governments argue they should. There is a belief that the UK has a fairer asylum process, more legal protections, and better opportunities for work and education compared to other countries. While the reality may be different, word of mouth and social media often spread the idea that the UK is a good place to seek asylum. Our reputation as a desirable asylum destination is straining social services, housing, and the asylum system. The NHS and schools face increased pressure, housing shortages worsen, and asylum backlogs lead to long waits and high costs. Public frustration is growing, fueling political divisions. The system is unsustainable due to financial burdens, fairness concerns, and security risks.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
ReginaMolesworthy · 08/02/2025 16:27

FenellaFeldman · 08/02/2025 16:25

What is our "fair share"?

That's what I asked, I don't know how many pages back.....

Moonlightstars · 08/02/2025 16:27

Schroom · 08/02/2025 15:46

You're saying the only way to stop mass migration is to make the whole world as good as Britain - do you really think that's a realistic solution to the problem?

Where did I say anywhere about it being as good? Just much better. Immigration always goes up inline with conflict, lack of resources and war. Would you not move your family if the alternative was to stay in a dangerous place or somewhere with no prospects?

FenellaFeldman · 08/02/2025 16:25

ilovesooty · 08/02/2025 15:30

We don't even take our fair share of asylum seekers.

What is our "fair share"?

hairbearbunches · 08/02/2025 16:22

FromHere · 08/02/2025 15:32

Lots of countries take far more asylum seekers than we do. The op sounds like a PPB for the racist and thick right wing Reform party

I see this comment a lot. No country in Europe takes in the number of 'legal immigrants' we do. Can't have it both ways.

Jennaveeve · 08/02/2025 16:22

My DD’s class has 31 children in it. 23 are children for whom both parents were born abroad. 1 has a Father born abroad and 1 has a Mother born abroad. How is this sustainable?!

Fairyliz · 08/02/2025 16:22

TheAmusedQuail · 08/02/2025 15:40

But the population doesn't just increase, does it? People die. People return home to other countries. Brits emigrate. Many more people these days are choosing not to reproduce. The UK is not a cup just getting fuller and fuller.

Isn’t it?
Population was 52.4 million in 1964 and 68.35 million in 2023.
As you say the birth rate is falling so where is the 30% population increase coming from?

alwaysMakingItsofar · 08/02/2025 16:21

They come my dear, without asking. What taking is that LOL

ReginaMolesworthy · 08/02/2025 16:16

FancyBiscuitsLevel · 08/02/2025 16:12

We currently don’t have a birth rate that’s at the replacement level. it will be interesting to see how these discussions change in 20 or so years time when the ramifications of significantly fewer young people entering the workforce begins to be felt.

I don't think we need to worry about that.

If the Assisted Suicide Bill gets passed Granny will be persuaded to top herself to stop 'being a burden' and save the state a shedload of dosh. 🙄

ElvenPowers · 08/02/2025 16:16

Schroom · 08/02/2025 15:46

You're saying the only way to stop mass migration is to make the whole world as good as Britain - do you really think that's a realistic solution to the problem?

The reason why many places in the world are not currently "as good as Britain" is partly because of extractive colonialism over centuries...by...er...

OonaStubbs · 08/02/2025 16:15

We need to reduce the population, not increase it.

Ireallycantthinkofagoodone · 08/02/2025 16:14

The UK may take in fewer migrants/asylum seekers, but our country is significantly smaller than many other countries. The UK doesn’t appear to be building any more hospitals or increasing the capacities of those we already have.

I despair about the length of waiting lists for GP/hospital appointments etc in the future, if this necessary infrastructure is not prioritised.

Zanatdy · 08/02/2025 16:14

Asylum seekers are a small number of those who come to the UK

www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release

Startinganew32 · 08/02/2025 16:12

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 08/02/2025 15:36

Well, we took a million adults last year, and about the same the year before that.

That’s roughly the equivalent of having a double decker bus with seats for 62 people. So the extra two have to stand in the aisle, or sit on someone else, or squeeze onto their seat. Then next year another person gets onto the bus,….

We did not grant asylum to a million people last year. Grow up.

Whammyyammy · 08/02/2025 16:12

Lovelysummerdays · 08/02/2025 16:05

I think we should be quicker with decision making. Also if people are economic migrants then they shouldn’t have recourse to state benefits, no nhs, universal credit, housing benefits. Either self fund or get popped on a plane home.

Exactly. If people can fund and support themselves then not an issue imo. Otherwise just more strain on already stretched budgets

FancyBiscuitsLevel · 08/02/2025 16:12

We currently don’t have a birth rate that’s at the replacement level. it will be interesting to see how these discussions change in 20 or so years time when the ramifications of significantly fewer young people entering the workforce begins to be felt.

BalladOfBarryAndFreda · 08/02/2025 16:11

DogsDinner · 08/02/2025 16:09

There's so much ill-informed opinion on this thread already. If we're going to discuss immigration, we should at least do it based on the facts.

Native British are on average net contributors to the public purse. The immigrants we have been letting in for many years are a massive drain.

When it comes to care work, from some countries we got 4 dependents for every care worker. We could have doubled, trebled or quadrupled care workers wages, and it would still have only cost a tiny fraction of what the taxpayer will end up paying to support those immigrants for the rest of their lives.

Can you supply the data sources for your facts please?

Startinganew32 · 08/02/2025 16:11

So seeing as we have no borders with any country from which anyone would seek asylum, do you think it would be fair that we took no asylum seekers on the basis that they will always have to pass through another safe country before coming to the UK? You think that’s reasonable?

MadmansLibrary · 08/02/2025 16:11

username299 · 08/02/2025 15:33

Are you talking about immigration or asylum seekers? Immigrants come to the UK for work or to study, asylum seekers come to seek refuge from persecution. They make up a tiny percentage of immigrants we take in.

This. The two are often conflated, to the detriment of all I think.

Whammyyammy · 08/02/2025 16:10

With all these doctors and engineers arriving daily our NHS and countries ability to manufacture should be simply brilliant.

username299 · 08/02/2025 16:10

MN needs an anti immigration sub forum.

ReginaMolesworthy · 08/02/2025 16:10

Lovelysummerdays · 08/02/2025 16:05

I think we should be quicker with decision making. Also if people are economic migrants then they shouldn’t have recourse to state benefits, no nhs, universal credit, housing benefits. Either self fund or get popped on a plane home.

I would be inclined to agree but if they have no documentation/ have documentation but own country won't take them back, then what??

DogsDinner · 08/02/2025 16:09

There's so much ill-informed opinion on this thread already. If we're going to discuss immigration, we should at least do it based on the facts.

Native British are on average net contributors to the public purse. The immigrants we have been letting in for many years are a massive drain.

When it comes to care work, from some countries we got 4 dependents for every care worker. We could have doubled, trebled or quadrupled care workers wages, and it would still have only cost a tiny fraction of what the taxpayer will end up paying to support those immigrants for the rest of their lives.

1457bloom · 08/02/2025 16:08

Lovelysummerdays · 08/02/2025 16:05

I think we should be quicker with decision making. Also if people are economic migrants then they shouldn’t have recourse to state benefits, no nhs, universal credit, housing benefits. Either self fund or get popped on a plane home.

100%

1457bloom · 08/02/2025 16:07

These immigrants are taking all the jobs Brits refuse to do. We should make the welfare state tougher so Brits will have to do these jobs.

TheAmusedQuail · 08/02/2025 16:06

Ladyof2025 · 08/02/2025 16:04

And yet isn't it infuriating that even we English people are not allowed to just go and live in Canada or America or New Zealand or Australia? All these countries that used to be owned by us, colonized by us, members of the Commonwealth, that have shared the same monarch for centuries.

There are a whole load of hoops and hurdles that one has to go through to go and live in those countries. That doesn't seem fair while at the same time an unlimited number of people are allowed to come and live on this tiny island.

And jump through crazy hoops to be allowed here. 14 years to get leave to remain as a refugee.

Swipe left for the next trending thread