Why are we not being encouraged to take in Iranian refugees?

[BeardofHagrid]

Pretty much as soon as the Ukraine war started we were encouraged by the government to take Ukrainian refugees into our homes. Why has this not been mentioned in regard to the war on Iran?

ALL refugee children get school places, regardless of nationality.

It was infinitely cheaper for the government to pay a sponsor £300 a month to house a Ukrainian family, rather than pay the same amount per night to put them in an asylum hotel.

They didn’t get free rail travel. They got ONE free rail journey when they entered the country.

Do I!!
This is funny, do tell.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/corruption-no-1-problem-as-ukraine-heads-for-election-idUSBRE89N0A5/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/viktor-yanukovych-ukraine-corruption-mikheil-saakashvili

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/world/europe/nazi-symbols-ukraine.html

The BBC did a Newsnight report on Ukraines Neo Nazi and deep rooted racism.

Because this country is buckling enough, whose gonna pay for it, where are they going to live. Ffs

If geography was different and the UK was right next door to a country (or multiple countries) that refugees were having to flee, I suspect you might feel differently, and expect other countries to help out.
But of course the vast majority of refugees DO stay in a neighbouring country. But it's incredibly selfish of countries a safe distance away, to expect countries like Turkiye to take everyone fleeing Syria and Iraq.

ETA that the image below needs clicking on to see the statistics

Yes we take a very low number of refugees, but OPs query was about why some refugees and not others, why are some encouraged and not others by central government

The answer is of course, in a planned way rather than coming to claim asylum, because of who are our allies

Thats different again to choosing to house a refugee

No room at the inn.

Well definitely not in my city. We are full to capacity.

Because if Iran is going to remove the regime from power it needs the Persian community in Iran .
waht refugees do you suggest we take from Iran because you que the pro regime that are radical Muslims and the Persians non Muslim ones .

I didn’t say you did though, did I?

As far as I am aware, the Ukraine refugee scheme only offered temporary* *sanctuary on time-limited visas, with the expectation that most refugees would return home when safe to do so - or at least that was how the scheme was presented to the British public.

The time-limited visas can be extended but not designed to offer permanent residence in the UK - time spent under the visa scheme does not count towards indefinite leave to remain. Ukrainians needed a sponsor based in the UK, proof of ID/passport/biometric data and the majority of refugees were women and children, elderly men and families. How many single male Ukrainians have been hosted?

Because in 1994 the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum in which it guaranteed Ukraine’s security in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. The UK has never signed a similar undertaking or treaty with Iran.

Let's hope you never need any help.

@Lemonfrost

Please grow up. And fast.

Given you know nothing about me, that's another duff comment coming from you. This seems to be your speciality.

Ukraine like Russia was very corrupt. Sorry, but it's true.

Zelensky was elected on a ticket of cleaning the country up. He was getting mired down in it and then the invasion happened and actually, weirdly, the invasion's the one thing that's managed to turn things around. Some of the very powerful corrupt people have been given the boot. Some are hanging on, but having to fight hard now and may also be given the boot.

So Ukraine is improving, overall.

Russia on the other hand has become more and more corrupt with more and more information hidden.

2021 Transparency Index : Ukraine was 122/180
Russia was 136/180

2025 Transparency Index : Ukraine 104/182
Russia 157/180.

Russia pushes the corrupt narrative because it suits Russia to make out that Ukrainians are terrible people who don't deserve to rule themselves. While, of course, completely subverting the judiciary and closing down all freedoms.

Oh, about internet freedom too in Russia.

~

Some Ukrainian refugee placements went extremely well. Some didn't. It's a very hard thing to invite strangers to stay in your home for months at a time. There were Mumsnet posts at the time about some problematic ones, yes. Other people are still fondly in touch with their guests.

I believe this (although from google search) that all the former Soviet States struggle/struggled somewhat from corruption and believe it’s a problem that takes time to resolve.

Corruption is a deeply rooted, systemic issue across most former Soviet states, acting as a legacy of the Soviet command system and a major obstacle to democratic development. While the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have successfully curbed corruption, many other former Soviet nations, particularly in Central Asia, continue to struggle with high levels of public-sector bribery.
Canada has a large Ukrainian population and history, although I’m not in the prairie provinces where there were historically more Ukrainian communities I’ve never heard of any problems, some immigrant groups are problematic currently our East Indian population is struggling with an extortion issue.

How do they get here? Many flights from Tehran to Heathrow?

But countries are selfish, and rightly so. Literally the main job of any government is to look after the interests of its own people. Sometimes that will mean undertaking humanitarian work and taking in refugees, because the electorate want it done or because there are selfish advantages (reduced international conflict perhaps or the possibility of future reciprocation). Often it will mean trying as much as possible to avoid getting involved.

But neighbouring countries aren't allowed that same choice that you think our government should have? They're obliged to take everyone fleeing from 'next door' even if it doesn't suit them and it's not at the will of their electorate? They just have to cope with it, with zero help from any other country, because of geography?

Neighbouring countries are within their rights to put whatever limits they can enforce. Neighbouring electorates are more likely to want to help for various reasons (cultural and familial ties, for example) and may have signed agreements to do so, but they can decide to be selective and many are. The rich gulf states are certainly reticent about taking refugees even from close neighbours.

Yes they do. It sucks but that’s life.

The political climate of the last few years means that no political party will now want to be seen to encourage migrants or refugees to make their way to the UK. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Again, I very much doubt whether you'd be so sanguine about it if the UK was next door to Syria. It's very easy to say 'oh well, we'd just have to get on with it' when there's no risk of having to do so.

But it isn’t.

In times of crisis, humans are incredibly selfish and are only concerned with protecting themselves and their loved ones. Covid proved that.

So it’s not really surprising that people are reluctant to welcome large groups of people who need food, shelter, money etc etc when they themselves are dealing with COL etc

“We weren’t an ally of Ukraine until the day they were invaded” is among the dumbest things I’ve read today. And I’ve read all of Trump’s statements. We’ve had a security, trade and development treaty in place with Ukraine since 2020.

The reason we aren’t taking in any Iranian refugees is because there aren’t any - there has not been any external displacement from this war.