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.

Apparently empty houses are crucial going by repetition in pp on U.K. empty houses

They're absolutely desperate to prevent you from noticing such things. If you made the mistake of listening to them you'd probably end up with the impression that it's space aliens who are preventing Afghan girls from going to school. Although attempts to pin the blame on imperialism/capitalism/white men in some form or another is always option number 1.

It is when you keep repeating we don't have enough houses to accommodate asylum seekers.

You can use the French number when a French person claims the same.

Just in case someone still hasn’t seen this comment of yours on other threads.

It can be used by whomever, I don’t believe you are the keeper of what others can post.

And going by numbers they have x 4.so it’s a valid point 🤷‍♂️

Those rights are conferred on them by laws which have never in their history been subject to a democratic vote, and that's not an accident. The right to asylum was never intended to be a right to asylum in the country of your choice. If western countries were actually democracies those laws would not still exist. They are absolutely illegitimate and immoral.

True. They still wouldn’t swap.

I think it was Serbians that Angela Merkel invited in - the Serbians are mainly Orthodox Christian. Not sure what that is but it isn't as likely to clash with the present majority of Germans' religion

It's not a race to the bottom, saying British women suffer from sexism shows nothing about what I think of Afghan womens circumstances.

There are 33 million men in the UK. Even if all of the 21,000 Afghan asylum seekers were men, that's 0.06%of the male population. Their attitudes towards women are going to have a negligible impact.

If you are genuinely worried about UK women, focus on the issues that are affecting them. Rather than scaremongering about immigrants and sharia law.

Or is it OK when it's British mens attitudes causing the problems?

Merkel's invitation was to people from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. That annoyed other countries because the asylum seekers were moving through their countries to get to Germany and by extension it opened up the whole of the EU. Merkel made a unilateral decision for all of the countries in the EU without consulting them.

'Rape is effectively decriminalized' - I sincerely hope that in your next life you come back as an Afghan woman.

Maybe I wrongly assumed that by linking my statement about rape to Afghan women, that the poster was saying that Afghan women are more likely to be raped.

I wonder what point that poster was intending to make then? Is it that because I don't live in poverty in a terrorist run country, I should be happy that women in the UK can be raped with impunity?

https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-are-there-more-men-in-calais/

In the countries where they are from, such as Sudan, young men may be killed to stop them rebelling against the government or used as child soldiers. In Afghanistan, young men are often primary targets for recruitment by radical groups like ISIS and the Taliban, and in Eritrea they can be conscripted for what is effectively a life sentence. For all these reasons, boys as young as 13 and 14 have to run away from their homes and their families.
In Calais we see more women and children from countries such as Syria or Iran, but they are prioritised for social housing and not as often seen on the street.
Moreover, the journeys to Calais are incredibly harsh. From Africa they might cross the Sahara which takes many lives, then Libya, which is lawless and no woman could cross without being raped. From the Middle East the journey is across the Balkans where night-time temperatures can be minus 20 and the borders are rife with beatings and human rights abuses. Few women and children would survive theses horrors.
Many families will not risk their daughters safety on a journey to Europe. People trafficking, sexual abuse, exploitation and violence is far more prevalent for a female travelling as a refugee, so the males of the family take on the duty, claiming asylum if they survive to bring their family over safely.
So the young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters.
How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well these guys are putting it into practice. Let’s hope and pray that our sons, husbands, partners, nephews and brothers never have to have their love tested like this.

Where do you get that from?

And the right to asylum applies to you too.

'Afghan women's circumstances'. Beautiful use of the passive voice. That'll be the space aliens again, no doubt.

The calculations are a nice touch too, very scientific sounding. But to remind you where this actually started, we're talking about immigration policy and Afghanistan was being used simply as one example. You've been provided with a very easy read of research into similar attitudes in other Islamic countries. And of course such attitudes aren't limited to muslims by any means. South American men, for example, don't need sharia to have far more sexist attitudes to women on average than the average English man.

So, since you're the one advocating for the immigration of men from countries like these, show me some lovely percentages for just how much more dangerous and less free the UK has become and will continue to become as a result of your chosen policies.

You don't get to decide what issues do or don't affect British women. Of course what you actually mean is that you don't want anyone pointing out the problems that you and your fellow travellers have been busily causing for British women. If forced to acknowledge any, the next step in the playbook is to minimize them. Taking responsibility is kryptonite, I know. But no amount of passive aggressive insinuations of racism are going to silence this discussion. That game works on fewer and fewer people every year.

Where do I get what from?

I'm aware the right to asylum applies to me. What's your point?

Yep and looking at that yanbu vote is still the majority now, even on mn where politically Labour gets glowing posts.

I doubt that would’ve been the case even a couple of years ago.

That’ll keep changing until the vocal few remain. Probably the couple who don’t mind swapping with Afghan women.

I do get to have my own opinion on the biggest issues facing the country. And immigration doesn't feature for me.

Why don't you show me some "lovely percentages" on how immigration has made the UK less safe for women? Rather than spouting a load of misinformed, islamophobic claptrap.

'I wonder what point that poster was intending to make then? Is it that because I don't live in poverty in a terrorist run country, I should be happy that women in the UK can be raped with impunity?'

You don't wonder that at all, and you know it. Nor do you actually believe that women in the UK can be raped with impunity.

I do wish the concern for Afghan women refugees was shared by those in this country who are safe and settled - My lived experience of being a friend of a female Afghan immigrant is that when asked about those still in their home country and/or trying to leave - she replied that it was not her concern re those less fortunate than her - and she said she was irked that all ‘Afghan’ people were referred to as a homogenous mass - she said there are many divisions and antipathy between them -

Nor do you actually believe that women in the UK can be raped with impunity.
I do actually

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/rape-effectively-decriminalised-in-the-uk-labours-steve-reed-says_uk_63b7f51fe4b0b2e15066db9f/

There have been loads of reports over the last 5 years saying rape has effectively been decriminalised because the justice system is not able to prosecute effectively.

If there are no consequences for rapists, then yes they can rape with impunity. And they do. You only have to look at posts on here from women being raped in their sleep, coerced into sex they don't want, stealthed, to see how many women are raped and don't even realise it, let alone report it.

To me, this is the top womens rights issue in the UK at the moment. Not a hypothetical Muslim bogeyman.

You can disagree, that's your right, but you have no right to tell me what I think

@AdamRyan Fair enough. I always underestimate the genuine gullibility of the true believer.

People do think immigration is a ‘distraction’ and will do the reverse and post about anything else bar that.

I can’t think of much more pressing in my lifetime than climate crisis and the resulting movement of people.

It’s parochial and lack of ability to think ahead that means posters get stuck spiralling around our issues instead.

The EU will face it, NY had protests last week against a new tent city, these tensions will increase. The men are bad in the U.K. posters let’s divert to them are going to see it eventually. Far after non allies have used it to destabilise societies. Or maybe not.

This

The right to asylum was never intended to be a right to asylum in the country of your choice.

Where is your evidence?

And even if it wasn't intended that way, the right is there.

I can see what you mean, OP.

If we had a processing centre in Afghanistan or Turkey, there would be a lot of Afghan women (and men) who would be more able to apply (and appeal) since the journey would be dramatically easier and cheaper for them and all of them would be able to say that their lives are shit and they are persecuted by western standards. So you would need a limit. How would that be applied? By ballot?

If we had processing in France, you'd also make it easier again - you'd destroy the business of the people smugglers from France, but you'd make it cheaper for those getting to France and applying from there (because no channel fees). So you would increase the pool of people who might be able to pay smugglers to get to France. What sort of conditions should people be under in France when they are waiting? If we make conditions better, becomes easier again for women and kids to travel there = more migrants again. Would all people arriving in France who made a good claim get asylum, or according to our ability to cope?

If both the above routes were "full", you'd still have people destroying their documents and travelling.

I personally think that we should only grant temporary asylum as a matter of course (with options to earn residency) and that asylum should end if you choose to travel back to your home country. If you argue you are persecuted at home, you don't go on holiday at home....

And how many appeals would you get if you applied via a safe route from Afghanistan? You would need a massive massive processing system if you would allow more people to apply and appeal from outside the U.K.