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. I’m not trying to divert attention. I’m trying to point out that paying attention to only one group is ineffective and short sighted. It also suggests there’s something else about that group you don’t like. It’s also been blown up by the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Farage for their own benefit and is pretty despicable. Yes, asylum seekers sometimes commit offences. That’s not a reason to be devoid of compassion and to want to renage on decades old legal obligations, most of which were put together by the U.K. in the first place.

The vast, vast majority of U.K. homeless do get support and accommodation. Some keep moving and avoid it. Their help comes from a different budget from asylum support and is unconnected with it.

Because their is a finate pot of money and those with a right to be here should get priority.
Maybe they could go abroad and claim persecution if a first World country leaves them to live on the streets.
You are aware that once given right to remain asylum seekers have 28 days to find work, accomodation etc. Guess where many end up.

And how to do that? Do you think the Taliban keep diligent criminal records?

This is not what happens. There is support for all homeless if they want it.

@persephonia I just picked this up in your post I replied to above
To use a less emotive subject, let's say you were allergic to mushrooms. If you tried to tell me this and I interrupted with "other people are allergic to different things. It's wrong of you to single out mushrooms" that's an inappropriate response. If you tried to argue that mushrooms were uniquely dangerous allergens and should be banned, then talking about all the other allergens that exist would be relevant.
It seems to me that this is exactly what people railing about asylum seekers are doing. They are claiming asylum seekers are uniquely dangerous and we shouldn’t talk about other types of danger.

Not just in this country.

Globally, women and girls are more likely to be raped and murdered by someone already known to them according to the United Nations.

No it's not. It's utterly disingenuous. Part of the point of society is that we can do things together that we cannot do individually. I want people who are out of work to be housed and able to live, but I'm not personally funding the full living costs of another family. I want someone who is frail and elderly and can no longer live alone to be cared for, but I'm not offering my home or time. I want people who are legitimately claiming asylum to be treated with dignity and compassion and if they need it to be offered safety long term. I don't want to live with strangers of any age, ethnicity or gender.

I'm not aware they all have Taliban origins

She never said all men rape

If an Afghan man arrived on a small boat how would you know?

You realise it’s the Taliban and their views Afghan asylum seekers are running from? Before the Taliban Afghanistan was pretty liberal - it’s not Islam causing the issue. The pictures below are from Afghanistan in 1970

They’re not ‘running from the Taliban’ they’re running towards benefits and an easy life at our expense. Hence not stopping in the first safe place and leaving their wives and daughters behind.

I think there probably was a view that since lots (not all) men might do that, then vetting and supervision needed to be better. As for asylum seekers, really.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t differences between countries for women and girls.

Theses threads are always so disheartening

I think most people are pointing out that it’s the fact the countries are unsafe that is causing the flow of asylum seekers. Saying, for eg, that Afghanistan isn’t a safe place for women is not the same as saying all Afghan men are a danger to women. But that seems to be the view on here.

And that is precisely why we shouldn't be importing more of them 😡

And you’ll get back ‘Wow, you must be coining it in courtesy of the Home Office!’

Of course we can. Were the - what is it now? 5th or 6th richest country in the world. The money is just in too few hands, that’s all.

This is perfect.

Because living with me wouldn’t be good enough.

We’re talking about people who are fleeing persecution and all sorts of difficult situations, they need more than just bed and board. They need to be placed in safe long term accommodation where their sometimes very complex needs can be properly supported.

Who on earth thinks it’s a good idea to match often traumatized people fleeing persecution with some random member of the public who happens to have a spare bunk in the box room. Their needs are far greater.

You also need to protect them from exploitation. You can’t house them with any old random who could be a colossal deviant.

The fighting age men comment is ridiculous. A relative of mine is convinced that Muslims are coming in droves to take over the UK, and he sees himself, despite being 60, as just the man to meet them “on the beaches and in the streets”. Bless .

That’s a really good response

Mate, I wouldn't even let my mum move in with me, what kind of a question is this. Home is your private place, no?