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)

I would argue the other posters reply demonstrates that that (very reasonable) reply WILL cause an argy bargy?
That's not your fault or the original poster's.

Why do you think it would cause problems it’s a straightforward reply no opinions given just a straight forward answer reasons aside if someone did press for a reason just say personal.

But what's your views on those who are not genuine asylum seekers? 76% of those on boats are young men. I'm not buying the reasoning that they have chivalrously left the women and children behind because the crossing is too dangerous and or too expensive for the whole family to come. If war broke out in England, but some of our husbands used the family finances to pay for an unnecessarily long and expensive flight to Australia, on the basis that they would help rescue us and the kids once they were settled we would all be up in arms on Mumsnet! Especially if the money could have been better utilised to get the whole family to safety by going somewhere closer. If people are genuinely seeking asylum (which some no doubt are), then they would be a far greater proportion of women). The trouble is that when the system is open to abuse, the people who actually suffer are the genuine asylum seekers, such as all those poor Syrian families, because people no longer want asylum seekers. People in this country are also affected negatively by the resources being stretched further, and whilst not suffering nearly as much as those genuine asylum seekers, the costs involved in supporting illegal immigrants (not just those arriving on boats, but overstaying visas etc) have been estimated to amount to approximately 10% of the annual NHS budget. When waiting times in A&E are currently so long and people are being squeezed by taxes, it's understandable that many would either rather see the money spent on the NHS or on the most vulnerable of those asylum seekers (i.e. women, babies, children and the elderly). The whole system is no longer fit for purpose. However, if people raise their concerns, often they are shut down or labelled as heartless dimwitted unemployed ignorant racists. The trouble is that this pushes people further away. The debate has just become about people being right. Personally I would Iike to see the system reformed so that those most at threat or vulnerable are prioritized. If you are young , male and healthy coming from a country not at war, then you are not a priority. I think that asylum should also be time limited and reviewed annually based upon changes of risk.

Not incapable. Just no more likely than any other man.

Why are you comparing our benefits with Afghanistan? Nobody becomes an asylum seeker just because it gets benefits. Ours aren’t better than the countries they’ve passed through.
I find your obsession with Afghan refugees offensive. This is a group many of whom helped our armed forces.

SOME Afghan men! It’s not rocket science. Some are Taliban, some fought with British troops against the Taliban. Others support, or don't, the government in different degrees. The government of Afghanistan makes it unsafe for women. The men who have left are the ones who disagree and, in many cases, fought AGAINST the Taliban. That’s why they need to leave.

Well yes. Obviously the subset of men who are staying in Afghanistan and oppressing women! Or are you of the ‘all men are rapists’ school? Who is raping women if it’s not men? Is it some special subset of men or…

From comments I've seen from asylum seekers the UK is attractive for a combination of some benefits but also for opportunities for under the table undocumented work e.g. gig economy, kitchens etc.

Realistically the benefits part is very good in the UK if you come here with multiple children and can get a council house etc. A single young man is typically more interested in the Deliveroo scenario. Of course, it can shift over a person's life, he may later marry and become more documented and aware of the system and go down the formal benefits path.

Someone interested in cutting down "pull" factors should probably address Deliveroo et al before benefits, I think. Although both are relevant to look at.

having someone in your own home is a bit different from just in your town or street though. And anyone you don’t know could be a risk. It’s not a gotcha that she doesn’t want an asylum seeker in her home unless she regularly houses single British men. I wouldn’t house either in my house (or women either). Doesn’t mean 8n think they are risk to everyone on the streets.

It’s not yourself taking the risk v others.
It’s personal risk versus community risk. The person not housing an asylum seeker takes exactly the same risk (if any) as anyone else at having asylum seekers in the country.
Can we remember they are a tiny, tiny group despite all this noise? All the asylum seekers in government accommodation would leave Wembley Stadium 2/3rds empty.

The point is that the person living in a town that has HMOs/hotels in the town centre vs someone living in a town who doesn't, are having two separate experiences.

My first post in this thread was to that effect: if I asked the title question and you said yup, I live down the road from one and they're hanging out in my town square and affecting my life directly and I'm still okay with it, then I won't think you're a virtue signaller.

"Community taking on the risk together" makes sense if all the communities are experiencing it equally and it's not mysterious other communities down the road who you are actually expecting to take on the risk.

Anyway, I'm often banging the drum that people should be more critical of legal immigration which is much higher, so you don't have to convince me of that, but that doesn't mean the sharp rises in asylum seeking shouldn't be looked at too.

Yes. You want them here but there isn't enough housing. What do you want to do to keep them here? I don't want illegal immigrants here, only ones who've gone through the appropriate channels. There aren't infinite council properties to house endless immigrants.

until Recently I taught at a school with large numbers of refugee/asylum seeking pupils. I’ve taught adult asylum seekers. I’ve volunteered at a community kitchen with asylum seekers. I’ve helped asylum seekers sort clothing donations. I live near a couple of hotels and an area where a lot of refugees settle post their asylum being confirmed.
Is that enough for you?

Illegal immigrants wont get houses or benefits because being illegal means you can’t let the government know you are here. If you mean asylum seekers, say so. They are also not getting council houses - they’re in the hotels. Only those passed through the proper channels would be in any way eligible for housing. And as a PP has said, Scotland has a housing crisis and very few refugees. As do areas of the rest of the U.K. with low immigrant numbers. There’s a housing crisis for lots of reasons. Asylum seekers aren't one of them.

The people saying 'but what about Our Veterans?' don't tend to have random Falklands casualties living in their spare rooms, though.

Be more teenager. Say 6 7.

I volunteer with Asylum Seekers. Young men. None of them want to scrounge. All of them want to work. They are not allowed to because of the government"s nonsensical decision not to let them.

(As an aside, I have had some of them staying with me. They are far more pleasant than the people who have asked me this question)

Yes. Seems like relevant information to know about you in an asylum conversation! You should have no problem answering the title question...

I have volunteered with adult & children's asylum seekers in the past, albeit in another country where they were resettled through formal programmes so it was families with children. I really enjoyed spending time with the individual people I worked with. They were very generous and welcomed me into their homes, and were motivated to integrate. It was a massive uphill battle to make even small amounts of progress, due to language and literacy barriers. The resources per family expended by both state aid and volunteer time were immense and I don't think integration was a realistic goal for some people we worked with (who were supported by other migrants/refugees from their language community already there).

That (plus my experiences as an immigrant a few times over) makes me sympathetic to individual people, but also just an appreciation that it's really, really hard to do at scale. The resources and investment required can very quickly become overwhelming. The effect scales non-linearly the further the cultural distance from the host country, and the bigger the size of the home-country community as an alternative to integration.

I live in a part of London that is quite insulated from asylum seekers (in fact from most mass immigration) and I'm often frustrated by people who have well-meaning things to say about how "no human is illegal" etc but have never interacted at all with the details.

I hope you think this is also relevant information about me and why I hold the positions I do.

What a ridiculous comment.

I think try a bit of honesty OP,

1. I can't be bothered/I'm not prepared to make my family's life less comfortable.
2. They might pose a danger to me or my children.

After all you and the people asking the question already know that these are the reasons.

Then you can move past the silliness into an actual conversation about how we manage risk/costs and policy when thousands of unvettable men are arriving on our shores each week.

Isn’t the point of those sorts of comments just to stop debate?

I would have thought the person asking the question wants the OP to consider why she might not want an unknown, un-vettable male living in her house and consider that they might be the same concerns many people have about them being in the country.

Yep

I suppose the crux of the matter is really that if you are not prepared to allow someone into your home, whether is be an asylum seeker, a war veteran, a recovering addict, a woman running from abuse, an aging donkey that you are not allowed to express support for these causes/agencies.

I have found this thread very interesting, and of course have realised that despite getting some good discussion and some good answers, I'm not going to respond to the poster. Just to clarify, the poster wasn't asking my personally, he was asking "anyone who wants these people here".

But it's the truth isn't it?! We don't want to pay for it, you're happy to.