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)

No one is saying that they scrounge. They cost tax payers money e.g. hotels, food, expenses, private medical cover,interpreter fees (I am one and I get paid alot), council property when they're successful. Yes most of them are lovely men, but I don't see why we should have to pay for them!

That's the truth, posters who don't have a problem don't see them! I live in a city filled with them and I work as an interpreter with them alot. They have told me they're happy to be here to get a free house and want benefits and to bring their families over. Not one has mentioned looking for a job when they're legal! Yes they're very grateful at our expense. These left woke people are truly stupid.

Good point it’s a case of the old saying “put your money where your mouth is “
Unfortunately this has become such an emotive issue that has divided people it’s very hard to have a rational debate.
The sad part is both sides of the debate have very valid points and the people who should be solving the problem ie politicians and governments don’t seem to have a clue how to tackle it

They don’t just ‘get a council property’.

Ofc they don’t and they don’t get private medical cover either. Where is this coming from?

Sorry, from my own experience I don’t believe you. Of course they (mostly) want a job and to better themselves and their prospects. It’s not easy getting to the U.K. Nobody is doing it to live on UC. Immigration as a whole is economically a net benefit.
Also - ‘a city filled with them’? Where’s that then? Nowhere has a majority of refugees.

On the topic of solving it - I don’t believe it’s an issue any individual government can solve. The world is getting less stable, creating more refugees. As climate change bites and makes more areas uninhabitable it will only increase. It needs an international response, two pronged. First, helping to politically stabilise and protect against climate damage, and second agreeing who is going to take how many refugees and developing a system to manage that.

I love this

Tbh you can’t really answer because there’s no real reason that most peopel couldn’t put someone up Ona. Sofa or a camp bed in their living rooms

they just don’t want to

also fair enough they don’t know who the heck that is and how much of a danger they can be
and if they come form a culture where rape etc is even more acceptable than it is here

that’s the honest truth
you don’t do it
because you don’t want to

And no one needs to flee France do they

its perfectly safe country as much as here is

Do you care about British homeless people/homeless army veterans?
Do you care about women fleeing domestic violence?

Oh ffs that’s such a stupid argument. They didn’t appear out of the ether 8n France either. The vast, vast majority of asylum seekers stay in countries neighbouring the one they have fled. France takes loads anyway. And they have a right to claim asylum wherever they choose - we’ve just made it impossible for them to do that without actually arriving on our shores.

france is as safe as the uk

Yep it’s fine to be honest, no need to spin it as a good.

Yes, it is. Why is that relevant? Which unsafe countries did they cross to get to France? What if we allowed asylum claims from countries next to the places they are leaving? What if we allowed them from France?
Why should France take all of those who get this far and us none?

The real reason is that it’s not safe for either party. You can’t just put people up in random homes. Plus the fact that it’s a community responsibility, not an individual one - like many other things we contribute to via taxation.
You know all this, Eastern. You’re an intelligent person. Don’t waste your time with silly gotchas.

No need to waste your time with this. The pp has it.

And because of people’s inability to even be able to discuss the situation we will probably end up with farage as the next PM 🙈

we need to be able to deal with and talk about the problems
but so many just can’t and it’s like trying to explain yourself to someone committed to misunderstanding you
basically pointless

They are actually putting their own lives at risk, fleeing France a safe country, to get in a boat and cross the channel

they are putting themselves their lives at risk by doing that, when they are already in a safe county

No I don’t believe it’s an issue any individual government can solve anymore. It’s gone way too far for that, but unless they make a start and if the average Joe in the streets can see how much harm it’s doing to countries and communities and the devide it’s causing predominately in the west then it’s about time they started ,and stopped spouting lies and making promises especially our government present and passed can’t keep

I think much of the political goodwill has been eroded by the gaslighting. Twenty years or so ago a broader system could have been voted in but now you’ve got electorates nearly everywhere in the west saying no.

That means it’s harder for anyone to say we should take x amount per year, vote for us. It is possible to go the other way and limit entirely, hard but not impossible.

"Climate change and rising global conflicts are going to cause even more people to try to cross our borders in future" is surely an argument for strengthening the borders?

The only justification for our current needs-based system (which anyone who talks about "genuine asylum seekers" buys into by default) is that you think there is a natural limit on the numbers of people who will come here, so we should accept anyone who "qualifies" without adding artificial limits.

In the absence of such a natural limit you need an artificial one (either physical or administrative).

I definitely think much political goodwill has been eroded by gaslighting not just on this subject but quite a few others as well the grooming gang case to quote one example.
However I don’t think I could see any government in the west as it stands limit entirely and is that really the way we want to go but I can’t see any rational solution as things stand

@Winter2020covers the Aus approach in pp, it has been successful. It’s hard but not impossible.

We talk about nothing else on social media and on tv. Just because not everyone agrees with your viewpoint doesn’t mean it’s not discussed. As for your description, that’s how it feels talking to the ‘illegal rapists’ brigade.