People facing a fear of discrimination should not be able to claim refugee status apparently.

[cakeorwine]

Women fleeing countries where they could be stoned to death, treated as second class citizens. For example, women from Afghanistan.

LGBT people who live in countries where you can be arrested and face the death penalty for being LGBT.

I'm surprised that this Government allow Ukrainian refugees in. Their country has only been invaded but I guess that's their tough luck

"Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, Ms Braverman is expected to say: “I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as in need of protection.
“However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’.
“And a similar shift away from a ‘well-founded fear’ toward a ‘credible’ or ‘plausible fear’.
“The practical consequence of which has been to expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the threshold for doing so.

“Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

“Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.
“But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

So you have to wait until you actually get persecuted, till you get arrested, tortured etc before you can flee a country.

Oh - and apparently she has an issue with coming through safe countries?

Does she know how many refugees actually come to the UK compared to the rest of the world?

We take very few.

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics

Turkey has 3 million
Germany has 2 million
1 in 5 refugees are Syrians fleeing the war there.

I have a strong dislike of braverman and her inhumane policies. But I don't think being gay and living in a country where there's a death sentence for homosexuality can be considered grounds for an asylum claim. It's reasonable to need some evidence of actual persecution. In lots of countries being homosexual is tolerated as long as it's not too public. Similarly being discriminated against for being female or whatever other reason. It needs to be a life-threatening level of risk and even then it's going to be an awful lot of people.

Interesting you should mention 1930s Germany...the fact that no one allowed Jewish refugees in even when it was common knowledge that there was a plan to exterminate them was the reason for the current day asylum rules.

I guess the current rules would mean Jewish refugees, homosexuals, etc allowed into Britain from the mid 1930s.

As you don't live in the UK, are you also campaigning for all Afghan woman to be taken in to The Netherlands?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23815997.suella-braverman-comments-condemned-un-refugee-agency/

Facts are so inconvenient when they don’t suit you, aren’t they?

You're still at this? You're a walking argument that tests should be required to obtain the right to vote. I oppose that, but I swear to god it's tempting sometimes.

You are really objectionable, aren’t you?
Got that info on how judges make laws yet?

But I don't think being gay and living in a country where there's a death sentence for homosexuality can be considered grounds for an asylum claim.

What do you think should be considered grounds? Because I can’t see how that could be anything else.

There's this other thing that just happens in human history. It's called people preventing other groups from migrating into their territories. You'll find it's just as common as people migrating, quirkily enough. All your ancestors have done both.

You misunderstood the article. It doesn’t back up your argument

‘If the government can stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats (some 45,000 arrived last year in this manner) voters will not care about the larger numbers of migrants arriving through official channels. There are few benefits of Brexit. But Britain’s immigration policy could be one.’

It’s pro Brexit and talks about voters wanting greater control

You linked something against your own views 🫣

I don’t mind. I didn’t have to google it. If you want to link pro Brexit and greater border control articles knock yourself out.

I think you’ll find it’s not me who’s misunderstood it.

The number of people who cite immigration as the number-one problem facing the country has plunged, while issues such as lousy health care and high inflation top the worry-list.

That people increasingly want to split asylum seekers from work visas migration isn’t a plus for those arguing we need to do more.

It means people will accept higher skilled workers for example and would prefer boats to stop.

So it’s not just mn but articles that have been linked also back up the shift against uncontrolled migration

I believe the woke answer to that is something like 'So you're saying there's no intolerance of homosexuality in the UK?! OMG like this racism is soooo disturbing.'

Another good one is 'Wow, like just wow, don't you know that refugees and asylum seekers are the ones FLEEING PERSECUTION!!'

I also like 'Don't you know that intolerance of homosexuality in the developing world is the result of centuries of western imperialism, meddling and oppression. Educate yourself pleb.'

The slightly less insane, on a good day, will tell you that the laws of the host country are explained to new arrivals and/or that education about cultural norms in the west will do the trick. This provides a lot of people with a good income. And on the very off chance that that brilliant and novel plan doesn't work, well that's your own fault for not providing your betters with enough government money to do enough education. Education is a magical talisman/monetary black hole in post-Enlightenment cultures.

People accept higher immigration. Fine it is pretty high as it goes

But the shift is away from seeing all migration in the same way.

Towards wanting more control

Im going to play devil's advocate here op.

Economic migrants exist (of course they do).

If you start to say that anyone "possibly being at risk of discrimination' has legitimate case to apply for asylum as a refugee, its quite a vast proportion of people who can claim they feel this applies.

In reality the unspoken point here is probably that the likes of Suella Braverman feel a lot of economic migrants lie, exaggerate etc to make a claim to stay here as refugees, and so they want to make that more difficult to do.

It needed saying .

It's rhetoric designed to garner support for her leadership bid in 2024.
Braverman knows not even the Conservatives wholly support withdrawal from ECHR. But I'm sure it goes down well with wealthy US right wing think tanks.

In reality -

Persecution has a specific meaning, which is properly applied by the UK Courts. It is not the same as discrimination and never has been (see last tweet in thread for Lord Hope on this).

x.com/jmpsimor/status/1706669661226766647?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

Unless of course some on MN can provide evidence of persecution being interpreted differently?

I don't think being gay and living in a country where there's a death sentence for homosexuality can be considered grounds for an asylum claim. It's reasonable to need some evidence of actual persecution

(My italics above.)

You don't think somebody's sexuality being cause for the death penalty is "evidence of actual persecution"?

😲

What needed saying?

Same here, and over 40 different first languages in a local primary school (sometimes without English being a second language). Bit of a challenge for the teachers.

I agree, we should definitely plan for it - let's go ahead and build up that European navy for the Med ;)

To provide safe passage?

Safe passage back somewhere...

What a disgusting, ignorant post.

You are incorrect about the 'rules' for a start.

And as for the rest of the xenophobic excuses ...well, it's just pathetic.

I absolutely hate that there's people like you in this country.

Just not the UK?

Several posters have mentioned that people do not have to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. Whilst this is true, it can be a perfectly legal reason to reject asylum in subsequent countries.

Criteria to reject asylum applications:
i) Passage via “safe" third country (except under bilateral agreement/prior arrangement with that third country)
ii) Safe Country of Origin (a list maintained by the government, and this also applies where only part of the country of origin is safe).
iii) Serious threat to public order and safety
iv) Fraudulent Application.

If these seem like Cruella Braverman rules, think again. They are the current asylum rules for France and obey all EU and UN rules.

Note that under applicable international law, asylum is granted for life. If asylum is not granted the person becomes a (potential) immigrant, but it does not necessarily lead to deportation. The principle of non-refoulement still applies and you can't send someone to their country of origin if it is unsafe. You can give them some type of temporary visa (eg Ukrainians) or you can send them to a safe country from where they arrived (this happens with people who arrive by air - as has been shown on several of the TV docusoaps where the airline is obliged to take them back), or a third (safe) country which has agreed to take them (eg. Rwanda).