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.

The reality is that there is a mass migration of people to western Europe. There's a myriad of reasons including standard of living, opportunities, freedom and so on (maybe even climate?). The UK is a very different place to 50 years, 50 years from now it was have changed even more as a result. Regardless of people complaining, the UK is a very attractive place for many many people.

I work in tech area, and we're seriously short of employees. Many of our new hires are from India, and a significant number from eastern Europe too. Our business needs the people (who bring their families) to survive. Let's not pretend we'll educate our own.

Personally, I'd prioritize migrants from places we have a historic relationship with. In the more recent times, that would include migrants from Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of history in Africa too. We've always went to/from most of the commonwealth countries at different stages in history. I'm not sure of our links with Albania?

Well currently there's 1.5 million refugees in Lebanon, 3.6 in Turkey, 3.7 in Pakistan. These countries aren't rich, and Lebanon is tiny.
Some kids were born in refugee camps at the beginning of the Syrian civil war, they're now 10, and a refugee camp is all they know of the world. Does that sound fair to you?

Well currently there's 1.5 million refugees in Lebanon, 3.6 in Turkey, 3.7 in Pakistan

The Tories also cut the aid budget, another stupid move. We have to support and stabilise countries people are leaving, we have to support and stabilise neighbouring countries.

We can't insulate/isolate ourselves from the world, we have to find ways to make the world work better.

We’re those deleted messages links to Pew research?

Now it's delusional megalomania. The British Empire's been over for a while now, I know it's hard to get your head around, but do try.

Yes. Mumsnet loves deleting my posts.

Welfare payment may well be higher @Fawful but all I can tell you is that my French counterparts consistently raised both the black market here for jobs and our welfare benefits as key pull factors which they thought we should sort before they were prepared to make any more effort on their coastline.

And no one says getting all the EU countries to agree on an approach will be easy - in fact it would be very difficult. But the current separate approach isn't working with every country competing against each other isn't working either.

Ok delightful Mumsnet HQ, we'll try this again. How about this time with zero commentary.

'The survey asked Muslims whether honor killings are ever justified as punishment for pre- or extra-marital sex.29 In 14 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half say honor killings are never justified when a woman stands accused. Similarly, at least half in 15 of 23 countries say honor killings of accused men are never justified. In only two countries – Afghanistan (60%) and Iraq (60%) – do majorities say honor killings of women are often or sometimes justified, while only in Afghanistan does a majority (59%) say the same about executing men who have allegedly engaged in pre- or extra-marital sex.'

Muslim Views on Morality | Pew Research Center

It’s reported by people reading first but it’s interesting if Pew research is deleted

It’s not an extreme source

There could be a number of different solutions @Middlelanehogger - but unless it's done jointly by Europe then I don't think any of them are able to be implemented. But yes, the enforcement of the wider EU borders sont something I'd comment on.

Heard on BBC World this evening that attitudes to women in Afghanistan vary considerably amongst generations - presumably Afghans crossing continents to come here are young and more liberal.

We all know why they're deleting it.

Hi censors! And another tedious quote:

'In all countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Southeast Asia, roughly half or more of Muslims say honor killings of women who have been accused of pre- or extra-marital sex are never justified, including at least eight-in-ten who hold this view in Kazakhstan (84%), Azerbaijan (82%) and Indonesia (82%). With the exception of Uzbekistan, attitudes toward the execution of accused men are nearly identical to opinions about accused women in these countries.

Muslims in South Asia are less likely to say honor killings of both women and men are never justified. In Pakistan, 45% of Muslims say executing accused women is never justified, and 48% say the same about accused men. In Bangladesh, fewer than four-in-ten Muslims reject honor killings for women (34%) and men (38%), while in Afghanistan roughly a quarter say executing a woman (24%) or a man (24%) is never justified.

In four of the seven countries where the question was asked in the Middle East-North Africa region, at least half of Muslims say honor killings of accused men are never justified: Jordan (81%), Morocco (64%), Tunisia (62%) and Lebanon (55%). Smaller percentages share this view in the Palestinian territories (46%), Egypt (41%) and Iraq (33%). But in only two countries in the region – Morocco (65%) and Tunisia (57%) – does a majority reject honor killings of accused women. In the other countries surveyed in the region, the percentage of Muslims who reject honor killings of women ranges from 45% in Lebanon to 22% in Iraq.'

Muslim Views on Morality | Pew Research Center

@Fawful "Some kids were born in refugee camps at the beginning of the Syrian civil war, they're now 10, and a refugee camp is all they know of the world. Does that sound fair to you"

What isn't 'fair' is your knowledge of the timeline.

From 2006 to 2010 Syria suffered its worst drought in modern history. The regime’s harsh military crackdown escalated tensions, and by September 2011 the peaceful protests had become an armed insurgency.

The war began in 2011

So why would women living in an unstable county with a drought problem, choose to have a child??

If my maths are correct and they were born at the beginning of the Civil War they would be 12 now.

So if they are in fact 10 then the mother must have embarked on the pregnancy against a backdrop of a Civil War, which to me is irresponsible.

You really think those women had a choice? Had access to contraception? Weren’t forced or coerced into sex?

Some of the bilge on this thread is absolutely disgusting.

Oh well if BBC World says so...

How about we don't formulate immigration policies based on presumptions from people who discovered the existence of the pew forum research approximately 5 minutes ago.

FYI
In pre-conflict Syria, most primary care and SRH services were free and estimates of contraception use ranged between 54% and 60%

so that was a choice of the women concerned.

When research and statistics from reputable sources are the issue and preferred representation is denied (in Germany if the party is banned) I think it’s fair to say times are starting to change

I doubt it will have the desired outcome impact though

Not much choice for the 40 to 46% that didn’t have access. And what was the contraception available? Because if it was condoms women had no control over their use.

I see you've been to Wikipedia, but that's not quite what happened.
In 2011 in Syria in the context of the Arab spring, three boys aged 10 to 15 were arrested and severely tortured for spraying anti-Assad graffitis on a wall; "the protests for their release grew into the demonstrations and brutal repression that sparked the bloody civil war in Syria."
The war spread and is still spreading, as far as I know.
You think that nowhere in Syria should women have had kids these last 12 years? What about the teenagers who don't remember life before the camps?
You've got to be disingenuous, so I’ll leave you to it.

@Blossomtoes Here's the whole link, look it up for yourself

In pre-conflict Syria, most primary care and SRH services were free [24] and estimates of contraception use ranged between 54% and 60% with approximately 84% of FP needs being Page 3 348 Cur Op Gyn Obs, 2(1):346-353 (2019) met [25-27].

It was Afghans on BBC World saying so. People on the ground tend to know what they're talking about.

*Oh well if BBC World says so...

How about we don't formulate immigration policies based on presumptions from people who discovered the existence of the pew forum research approximately 5 minutes ago.*

Aren't you the one who misspelt the Pew centre a couple of hours ago?

I don’t care what your link says. Your absolutely crass attitude is what I’m taking issue with. You really should be ashamed of yourself. But of course you’ll just double down again.

@Fawful "I see you've been to Wikipedia,"

Excuse me , I've been nowhere near Wiki.

I don't care how the civil war started, I was pointing out the time line, and that that free contraception was available prior to the conflict.

So any woman who has child now aged 10 chose get pregnant against a backdrop of a civil war. That to me is irresponsible.