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.

I rest my case. You’re talking about a third world, misogynist country where women have fuck all choice in anything.

If you don't care about what that valid factual link says then there is no further discussion to be had is there?

And please, don't tell me what I should and should not feel, I'm not answerable to you.

Yes that's no longer a discussion, if it ever was...

They had a choice about contraception.

They had a choice of contraception in Aleppo?

I'll just hide this violently xenophobic thread... Makes me ill.

Oh, sorry, some random Afghans said so to BBC World. Totally different and clearly solid evidence on which to found immigration policies, well done.

You know I'd absolutely love to see this Pew misspelling. What did they/I go with? Pee? Pwe? Takes a lot of effort to misspell a 3 letter word really. Go ahead and find me the quote, you're clearly diligent in your research so no doubt you have it to hand. Then we can join forces to mock their/my ignorance.

It's ok, we all know you just discovered it when I posted the link. You and the overwhelming majority of people. Does it occur to you to wonder why you're so strident in your opposition to the views of people like me when you've never even read something as basic as the pew research? Does that not cause you to pause for even a moment of self reflection?

Prior to the war they did.

Your choice - byeee.

It's odd how selective mumsnet seems to be in their deletions. I've never noticed until recently.

Post loads of statistics about male sex crimes etc alongside a diatribe about men = no problem

Post statistics about asylum seekers' sex crimes = instantly deleted

I feel like you could criticise Christianity pretty harshly and not get deleted in the same way as when criticising Islam.
I mean, I saw a post deleted for linking a study about how over half of UK Muslims believe homosexuality should be an imprisonable crime.

It wasn't even an opinion. Just links to a study that was widely published in the media.

You know I'd absolutely love to see this Pew misspelling. What did they/I go with? Pee? Pwe? Takes a lot of effort to misspell a 3 letter word really. Go ahead and find me the quote, you're clearly diligent in your research so no doubt you have it to hand. Then we can join forces to mock their/my ignorance^

Surely it would've been 'Pugh'.

What is with this random tangent about women daring to have children during a civil war. Life goes on even in horrendous circumstances and sometimes children are one of the few joys... I know I've been all over this thread saying I think we should have tighter controls on immigration but I don't agree that it's irresponsible to have children, even if you did have a completely free choice in the matter.

Yes you’re right. Moderation differs

So you would willingly bring a child into a war zone??

Shame on you.

In UK lots of couples held back on having children because of the uncertainty of war, then after we had the 'baby boomer' generation 1946-1964

In UK lots of couples held back on having children because of the uncertainty of war, then after we had the 'baby boomer' generation 1946-1964

Married men being on active service overseas or dead also dampens the birth rate.

Oh 'Pugh' yes of course! Didn't think of that one. Makes sense too because I think that's a real surname.

"Married men being on active service overseas or dead also dampens the birth rate."

True, but they did get some home leave, even if from overseas.

A lot of women had affairs whilst the husbands were away too.

The British birthrate didn't drop to nothing anyway. My parents were born during the blitz. Were my grandparents reckless or were they just living in the world they found themselves in? There were plenty of kids in my parents' classes at school.

Perhaps it is only 'foreigners' who are being irresponsible if they have babies during wars?

The narrow-minded judgement shown toward those living in wars in other countries makes me

So you would willingly bring a child into a war zone??

Yup, and I'd also probably have more children rather than less if I lived somewhere at high risk of dying from disease, malnutrition, hunger, animal attack etc...

And so would you.

Oh, so now you're a mind reader?

Do you have a crystal ball I can borrow? Thanks.

But surely having more kids reduces the likelihood of being able to feed them all?

The more you have the more likely some/any will survive and the more help to bring in income/food.

The pattern across the world is birth rates drop when childhood mortality rates rise.

It occurs to me I was taught this long ago. If theories have changed I'm happy to be corrected.

The numbers of children that died in some families 150 years ago blows my mind.

Many thanks for your excellent post, AnneElliott - as so often it's very clear when someone actually works in this field as opposed to spouting Twitter nonsense

Thanks too for confirming what I believed, in that decisions are largely based on interviews. Once again I'd suggest it highlights the difference between hearsay and evidence when it comes to a "fear of persecution" - especially since, as you said yourself, applicants' representatives are able to coach them in what to say