A good answer to "how many asylum seekers do you have living with you?"

[SomersetBrie]

I see this quite a lot in a fairly supportive group I belong to.
Lots of people dispelling the myth that asylum seekers are raking it in, taking jobs and benefits, etc.
A positive space and then someone comes in saying "if you are so supportive of asylum seekers, how many fighting age men do you have living with you?"
It really annoys me! It's possible to be supportive of a cause without actually taking people in.
All I can think of is really rude responses, I'd like something measured and decent and not allow them to get away with shutting people down with that.

(and I know I'll get negative responses to this post, but I will be super grateful to anyone who can come up with something I can use)

Well no.
Anymore than it's "let an asylum seeker live in your house or nothing for asylum seekers". Or "send them all back or you don't care about women's safety"
You are happy to dish out the binary choices.

But what would "border control" look like to you? Given that we can only do border control ON our own border usually. Which means when people are already here.

I already said to me good border control is picking people up quickly,.and then processing their claims.

But it's constant "we can't afford to look after this many disabled people" "we can't afford to let in small boats" etc. Then what is the alternative option you have? That doesn't involve letting people starve or letting people drown?

It’s not available anyway. That’s changed.

It’s what I intend to do. I’ve signed up for a care leaver’s service that specifically deals with young men who have come here as older teenagers and as yet aren’t old enough to seek asylum on their own behalf. I’ve noted my availability as autumn 2027 to provide accommodation. Prior to that, I’m working with them as a mentor.

So I’ve just read. They still can bring them but it’s a lot harder.

It was that simple during covid with "everyone in".

As I said I’ve mostly responded to posts claiming there’s an equivalence between cultures for women and girls. I don’t believe that and think it’s an easy choice to be here for dd, me and dc generally. All the it’s just as bad here posts - I don’t think that’s correct.

Border control isn’t for France to sort as I said below. It is for the country who wants to ensure they have that.

It’s highly unlikely given the thresholds.

I'm guessing in a Serco house of multiple occupation with the rent pre-paid to the landlord for 5 years?

Not a perspective put forward after Wayne Couzens committed murder was it. I don't remember posts saying never mind women are usually murdered by people they know then.

I don't remember people saying abolish the police or this is why we shouldn't have any white men (well to be fair, a lot.of crazy online people did). Bit grownups didn't. The answer to that was fixing the culture of impunity/tolerance of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour in the police force. Microcultures are a real issue. And they can grow up very quickly. Even in white, British raised groups.

I also don't remember us saying that because of Wayne Couzens, all police staff should be kicked out of the country.

So what IS border control if its not "not letting any of them in"? And if it is "not letting any of them in" what do you mean by that? How do you envisage that playing out?

Although I do seem to recall quite a few women saying they felt they couldn't trust male police officers any more and would feel unsafe with them.

Was that unreasonable?

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2025/ps330m-homelessness-overspend-housing-crisis-threatens-bankrupt-london
Quote
"Analysis from the cross-party group estimates that skyrocketing numbers of homeless Londoners needing a roof over their heads and spiralling temporary accommodation costs mean boroughs in the capital were forced to overspend on their homelessness budgets by at least £330m in 2024-25. This represents a 60% increase on their original homelessness budget plans for the year."

This nails it. You don't have to love everyone, but there are bare minimum levels of fairness we owe everyone. That's what migration, and being human, are all about.

While people that arrive by boat can stay more will come and the numbers arriving are rising.

Australia found the arrival of boats stopped quickly when no one could stay and people were taken to another place.

Some countries in Eurpope are now looking at using third countries. When people can't stay they actually stop coming in the first place.

I agree that we have international obligations and we step up e.g. Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghanistan evacuations. Our international obligations are not to this survival of the fittest first on the dinghy gets first dibs.

Literally everyone in the world. WE owe them. We owe literally billions of people to specifically provide them the bare minimum which can only be provided on the British Isles. What?

Christ on a bike. This is really your takeaway?

I can see your point but Somerset Brie posted that when she is with her supportive group and someone asks that question it really annoys her so on that basis I don’t think it’s a smart alec remark .
if you want an even discussion you’ve got to be aware others are going to challenge you as is their prerogative
Why not just a straight forward answer “ no I haven’t any asylum seeker living with me for various reasons but I try to support them other ways “

Yes but when we know some of those "various reasons" are that they could pose a risk to her family that's the truth that the OP is trying to avoid. She doesn't want to admit they could pose a danger to her family as that suggests they could pose a risk to others in the country and concurs with the concerns people are expressing. So OP needs other reasons please.

It's not though is it?
We don't expect people who want to support homeless veterans to house them in their own homes, we don't expect those who are pro-abortion to carry out the surgery themselves, we don't expect those who are pro-life to house every unwanted child, we don't expect those who are petition against animal testing to volunteer to be tested on, we don't expect those who support free school meals to provide those meals.

It isn't the public's job to solve these issues, that's what our elected representatives are paid to do. It's the public's job to let those representatives to know what matters to us and raise them up the agenda.

Explain why it is that when an asylum seeker murders a hotel worker we have "most women are murdered by someone they know " posts? That doesn't help the poor dead woman or her family does it. We want to look at how that situation can be avoided in future.

When the grooming gang scandal is discussed we have "most sexual abuse is by people we know".

I'm asking if the same reactions were posted to a murder by a white policeman? Perhaps they were?

Well I wasn’t really thinking along the lines of what her reasons would be I was just trying to give an example of a simple reply she could make without causing an argy bargy

There is a reason why the public were encouraged to give a room in their home to a woman from Ukraine and not a man from Afganistan/Syria - or anywhere else isn't there? It's the risk profile surely. The same risk profile exists in the wider country.

It's a rhetorical question aimed at trying to figure out if you're aware of the extent of the costs imposed by your preferred policy. The cost is essentially some combination of a) resource usage and b) decreased safety/community cohesion and increased ethnic tensions.

The question is asking you, if you're not okay with taking on those costs personally, why are you okay with others taking them on?

For the record, plenty of people say things like "Pro lifers should offer to take in babies" and it's the same point. You should have to consider the costs of your policy and be able to articulate how you will address them.