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.

Braverman is disgusting, devoid of decency and compassion. This is a desperate attempt to appeal to the last bastion of the electorate likely to vote for her party-the bigoted and gullible.

It is pointless arguing with such people.

Take heart everyone, Braverman will be gone soon.

Sure you do, as long as they belong to the correct Victim class.

How Sweden became an exporter of jihad - BBC News

We take in women and children from Ukraine, the men have to stay and fight, 99% of people coming in small boats are fighting age men who have left their women and children behind.

You made that statistic up didn't you (because the ONS says it's bullshit)?

Where is the infrastructure for all these people? Schools, hospitals, GPs, dentists, homes? The NHS is at breaking point now.

The u.k allows Ukrainian refugees because it won't take long for those Ukrainians to look the same as any other 'British' person. Their children who are born here won't be asked where they have come from or where their roots are. They will just be accepted as British born. Sad but true. Contrary to popular belief we don't have a disproportionate amount of refugees.

Neglected after 13 years of Tory greed, cruelty and corruption. If we stopped taking refugees tomorrow, we would still be in the shit. You are falling for Tory rhetoric.

Same tired old leftist dogma we've had for over a century now. 'They're trying to divide and rule the global working class to prevent them from seeing their common interests and uniting to overthrow capitalism!' Most of you repeating it genuinely have no idea what the roots of that meme are.

Tory governments take away from what we have to share with others.

Charity begins at home but does anyone seriously think we have any intention of doing that? This is a government that has slashed the foreign aid budget while presiding over a huge drop in living standards, putting more people into poverty, rising homelessness and a rising gap between the richest and poorest. None of these things due to lack of money to sort them but through deliberate government policy. We could sort these things if we wanted and still house plenty of refugees but we choose not to.

So we shouldn't take any refugees? How is that fair? Again, the gullible are swallowing the Tory rhetoric without checking the facts.

Can't see the link between refugees choosing to leave Sweden and my assertion that we don't take in people whose only issue is that they're compassionless whinngers. But you're welcome to try you hand at claiming asylum. I suggest you buy a return ticket though, just in case.

No country on earth, under any political system, can increase its capacities and infrastructure at the rate at which the population can increase through immigration, even if it wanted to.

There probably wouldn't be so many economic migrants if we didn't take the resources of Asian and African countries! The sudden and current interest in Guyana is only because they have found oil reserves there.

You literally just posted a massively long list of refugees who ended up in near neighbouring countries as refugees.

Yet Ukrainians are being housed by near neighbouring countries because racism?

Oh I think you know perfectly well that my point was that you take in jihadists freely. Compassionless? Well they're not the most pleasant people on the planet, bit murderous. Whingeing? They do a lot of that. But, hey, they're not white, so they get a pass from the delightfully compassionate brigade.

Most of them are young and fit, they’re more likely to work in the NHS than make demands of it.

Exactly. Because the government very much opened its arms to white refugees…

• There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim

I'm not falling for Tory rhetoric. I'm asking a question about practicalities. I live in Wales under Welsh Labour. Our NHS is on its's knees and try getting on an NHS dentist list!

So the solution is to end capitalism, imperialism, relative differences in quality of life and wealth, groups of people taking other people's stuff, oppression and exploitation throughout the world? I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere. It went something like 'One Solution, Revolution!'

Ooh, I did not have activist lawyers on my bingo card.

Actually they are on special visas granted to them as refugees

Our NHS is on its's knees and try getting on an NHS dentist list!

I wonder how many dentists are seeking asylum?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/09/trained-medics-who-could-ease-nhs-crisis-stuck-in-asylum-limbo

The refugee convention talks about persecution not discrimination. The two are different things. A person may be discriminated against without being in fear for their life. Many in our own country face discrimination on a daily basis - that would not be enough to get asylum elsewhere. Women still do not have equal pay, for example - that is discrimnatory. Discrimination is horrible and wrong but where there is no accompanying persecution there is no asylum possibility. Discrimination can and should be fought against in situ. Persecution is very different and all who face persecution should be able to claim asylum and be protected.

What is awful about it all is that the government have closed down so many safe and legal routes to claim asylum so that people feel they have no choice but to use dangerous methods to get here. Saying we are open to asylum seekers but not giving them.any way to claim it safely is where the true issues with this government's approach lies.

Then maybe the international community needs to try and deal with the issues that make people want to leave their own country. Unfortunately one then comes up against the chestnut of 'culture'.