To think people who want "safe routes to migration" into the UK are hopelessly naive

[ForestGoblin]

We could spend every penny of public money on bringing refugees to the UK in comfy and safe boats and planes. We could make it mandatory for every home to provide accommodation and food. We could ban healthcare for anyone except refugees.

And there would still be thousands and thousands of boat crossings every year and millions more people languishing in bad situations and trying to figure out how to get here or elsewhere in northern Europe.

It's a crap situation. Life is bad. I feel dreadful for them.

But "safe routes" is a load of glib nonsense that can't work.

Anyone who claims to believe that 22% of English men believe women should not be educated is, now how should I put this to not upset the censors again, somewhat confused. Yes, let's go with confused. And everyone reading this knows it, as do you.

And you know what's most ironic about this? This kind of thing is so incredibly offensive to the Afghan women who have to live with the reality of their society. To pretend English women live under the same conditions is absolutely disgusting.

Your article also says that they think Sharia law should only apply to Muslims, so your irate posts are a lot of froth over not very much.
It also says Muslims' opinions on sharia law mirrors their own country's set up...

It likely comes from a place of privilege and comfort. I can see why you post as you have.

To pretend English women live under the same conditions is absolutely disgusting.

Nobody’s pretending anything of the sort. My flippant response was exactly what your question deserved. It’s disingenuous to attempt to compare two cultures so different in history, religion and attitude. It was the equivalent of the perpetual and tiresome “but why don’t men ….?” that clutters up MN. There’s no point in attempting false equivalence.

This isn't a thread about some academic cultural comparison exercise, as you know perfectly well. It's a thread about immigration policy. And anyone advocating for the immigration of Afghan men had better have an answer for why it would be of benefit to English women, or indeed Afghan women who have been given refuge in England, to allow the immigration of men whose views of women are on average vastly more misogynistic and sexist than those of the current inhabitants. Given the fact that it's not possible to screen those immigrants for their beliefs, anyone advocating such a policy is making England a more dangerous and less free place for women, obviously enough. But you know all of that, you just don't want to discuss it.

Not remotely what 'safe routes' means. It means claiming asylum outside our borders so they don't have to risk life and limb. Do the research before sounding off.

Why did we have a Ukrainian scheme to house those victims of war but not Syrian or Iraqi..oh yes, because Ukrainians are more like "us".

Well, no shit sherlock lol.

I don't know why people are continually surprised that the populace would rather live with people from countries sharing similar values, rather than people from patriarchal cultures who believe gay people should be imprisoned, women should always obey their husbands, and where the majority of men admit to sexually harassing women in public (all of the latter statements are from studies on either Islamic or middle eastern male attitudes which I'll happily post tomorrow when I have time).

And let's not forget the 1200 women sexually assaulted on one NYE by largely middle eastern men in a recreation of the cultural practice Taharrush Gamea, roughly translating as 'The Rape Game'.

@CloudyMcCloud

Yeah, we can see why she posts like it too...🙄

We know what safe routes means, don't play dumb.

We are saying it isn't workable without a corresponding massive decrease in the acceptance rate, to compensate for the massive increase in the application rate.

The thing is, we, like many other countries, have bound ourselves to various treaties that require us to accept refugees on the basis of criteria that don't include their sex and whether their views are deemed acceptable. Probably because, going right back to the formulation and signing of the EHRC by Churchill, we could see (and indeed history has demonstrated) that that is a very slippery slope with potentially even more dangerous consequences..

So you agree with the pp who believes it’d be the same 22% here then?

People know what safe routes are it doesn’t make it any more viable. Unless you’re going to say how many, which countries and if you’ll cap numbers

And how you’ll deal with boats arriving in accordance with international law outside those routes

And who decides what a "fair share" is ??

We have lost, sadly, 228,000 people to Covid to date.

We still have about 20 people a week who have 'Covid' listed on their death certificates.

I haven't seen any marked increase in job availability, any more houses available or a reduction in taxation.

I don't know how many people we would need to 'loose' before there was any improvement in the situation?

Turkey defends it's borders aggressively

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/27/turkish-border-guards-torture-kill-syrians

Yes yes, shrieking self righteousness is a lot easier than reading isn't it. You're getting people killed but, hey, whatever. Shriek more.

@JanieEyre Treaties are man-made laws. Laws change continually from year to year. The only reason all western countries are bound by laws which the majority of their population oppose is because they all have a decades long cross-party consensus for mass immigration.

The 'slippery slope' is literally the propaganda they use to pacify those majorities into thinking that it's the status quo or the gas chambers. They know that social primates have very fragile capacities to think, and are constantly falling into false binaries. So you hand them the false binaries you want them to have and off they go, happy.

The fact they've been able to pull that one over even on countries like the UK who have living memories of how many people they lost fighting fascism is an incredible testament to the sophistication of psychological warfare. Of course it's extremely emotionally rewarding to believe you're fighting the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and if little girls need to get blown up at concerts in service of that feeling, well, stuff happens. After all, the gas chambers would be worse.

Conveniently ignoring the fact the Uk takes less than most places in Europe.
Conveniently blaming the last labour government... when was that again... if it was their fault why have the current crowd been so incompetent that they can't sort it out in nearly 15 years

Judging by some of the posts today I am expecting the announcement of an election in the next few months ... oh hang on....

Mn has typically been quite removed with a layer of privilege and comfort. On one hand you have leaders using movement of people as a destabilising factor but on here some will only post the positives.

It shows how removed many are. People seem to be realising though, going by the vote on this thread with majority yanbu

It will continue to switch as climate crisis ramps up

Mass immigration has been for decades, and continues to be, a cross-party policy consensus among the main political parties in all western countries, whether they claim to be left right or right wing. Attempts to frame it as Tory vs Labour, as an election issue, as a UK problem, or a Brexit problem, or a UK vs rest of Europe competition, are efforts to prevent people from noticing the nature of the issue by keeping their eyes fixed on the parochial level.

Polly, the person I quoted initially said 99% of Afghan men believe in Sharia law. Then couldn't back it up.

Well done for finding that posters reference.

It says "Indeed, the survey finds that support for making sharia the law of the land is often higher in countries where the constitution or basic laws already favor Islam over other religions.2 Majorities in such countries say sharia should be enshrined as official law, including at least nine-in-ten Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and Iraq (91%). By comparison, in countries where Islam is not legally favored, roughly a third or fewer Muslims say sharia should be the law of the land. Support is especially low in Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%).3"
Afghanistan legal system is already based on sharia. So that backs my second point. Afghans who support sharia, may in fact be demonstrating they are law abiding citizens.

There are a lot of things that need to happen to make Britain safer for women. Asylum seekers are not the problem here, just like they aren't the cause of the crumbling NHS, our lack of social housing, the coat of living crisis etc.

When we have a justice system where rape isn't effectively decriminalised, when misogyny is treated as a hate crime like racism or homophobia, then I'll be more concerned about the putative attitudes of asylum seekers.