What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

[Lynds778]

I'm all for offering asylum to those genuinely in need but I've seen a lot of negative media recently around 'fake' asylum seekers; people pretending to be from war-torn countries etc to gain entry to the country. Also videos of men giving advice for future asylum seekers on where to say you're from so that you can get in.

Also seen a lot of uproar from local communities about asylum seekers behaving anti-socially, most recently hanging around outside a primary school in Deanshanger and it's got me worried.
I'm also wondering why the large majority of asylum seekers are men and there are less women and children?

So, what's your opinion?

Also, this isn't a racist post. I would have the exact same concerns if these were white asylum seekers from Germany for example. The worry is the system is being abused by some and that we are a bit too lax when it comes to documentation and monitoring of asylum seekers.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14058597/Fake-asylum-seekers-conning-way-Britain-telling-Home-Office-war-torn-Eritrea-bragging-thousands-followers-TikTok.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14185169/amp/Four-asylum-seekers-costing-taxpayer-estimated-160-000-year-living-575-000-luxury-home-accused-faking-Afghan-nationalities-UK.html

How easy would he have found it in 2025? We're not talking 30 years ago (yes, I know I don't know exactly how many years ago this was, but I presuming you are at least 25 and you weren't conceived the moment he came to the UK). Having the ability to get a scholarship in another country shows he has been educated, has the ability to apply and not living in abject poverty.

Off you go then. You go and talk to a group of young blokes hanging around a street corner. What could possibly go wrong.

@Sunseaandgreys absolutely understand everything you’ve just said and is the point that I was trying to make from the very first comment that was made.

And thank you for understanding that I am not at all saying “god no, don’t let people into our country because they are gay” I’m just stating there are various different methods of emigrating that do not mean having to seek asylum. And that seeking asylum should be prioritised for those who are in life threatening situations.

If your life is at risk, I have absolutely said yes I think this is fair grounds to seek asylum.

My small city has two local hotels now used for asylum seekers. Mostly men

they are better behaved than the local worthies.

@Lynds778 seems to have buggered off after laying down the poison.

My view is, if they made it possible to apply for asylum from abroad they could properly check the genuine nature of people applying, and arrange safe passage for them which would prevent dangerous travel which is probably one of the main things putting off women and children who are unable or unwilling to climb in an illegal lorry or boat transport. It's absolutely nonsensical to force people to travel illegally in order to claim asylum. Often men travel in order to try to send money home to their family, or to set something up to get their family over later.

The skilled worker thing came about from my mention. When you suggested if you don't like the laws because of your "life style" you move to another country. The used it as one example of something I don't have in order to just move to another country. IF I needed to claim asylum I would need to, because I don't have the requirements for standard immigration.

The vast majority are economic migrants coming from France. Strangely there are hardly any small children or women at these hotels or on boats despite the apparent horrors they are leaving behind. They also arrive with smart phones in many cases, but according to the left are fleeing abject poverty.

People wonder why council tax bills are going up, housing coats are sky high with always the focus on supply rather than demand and barely able to get a Dr appointment. The NHS functioned far better before mass immigration, housing costs were more in line with wages. If these people were truly fleeing in fear of their lives, they wouldn't leave their wives and children behind. Of course the bleeding heats say anyone objecting is racist, but they never seem to offer room at their house for these poor souls fleeing in terror. Strange that. There are risks with crossing the channel on a boat, but if you were truly living in fear of your life, you wouldn't leave your wife and children behind unless you were certifiable ( or not actually fleeing in terror)

Blimey. That post is like Daily Mail bingo.

Impressive.

I am the one who brought up Skilled Workers. I never said you did.

To shorten my question: on what grounds do you think you are allowed to emigrate to America or Australia?

@justteanbiscuits apologies, I reread it but I understand the confusion I used America and Australia as an example, which actually isn’t the best as their entry requirements are so strict. However there are plenty of other countries we would be able to move to freely if we followed the right emigration process.
but further to my point, very few countries have an entry requirement that are strict as those two examples making it easier to migrate.

Bravo on the virtue signalling on how awful the British were long before anyone was born on here or in Britain today. Presumably you realise every country on Earth has engaged in wars, invasions, empires, murders, etc etc or is it just Britain to blame. Out of curiosity as you seem to want current Brits to take responsibility for past transgressions, as someone presumably living in Britain now, will you be doing your part to " take responsibility"? How many asylum seekers will be staying at your place ? My guess is 0

I know it's not a popular point of view, but I am against restricting people's rights to move and set up home wherever they wish. I think borders are a bad thing.

Why is this view so unpopular? Most people discriminate against others, on grounds such as religious belief, colour of skin, language, culture ... or place of birth. Me I think you should have the right to come and live next door to me whatever your religion, skin-colour, mother-tongue, culture ... or place of birth.

I know most of you think I'm wrong about this. But really it is just a moral question: who do you discriminate against, and how do you justify this discrimination?

I do understand my own views on this are held by very few others. But, well, we can hope for progress, even in morality; only a few hundred years ago, most people thought slavery was OK. (Torture? Capital punishment? Wife-beating? ...? The same.) Meanwhile, waiting for more moral progress, in answer to OP's question my thoughts on asylum seekers are that they should be welcomed and given as much help as possible to live in my country if they wish to do so.

And your post is a Guardian reader bingo 👏

@justteanbiscuits but again I’m asking on what grounds are you saying you need to seek asylum.

Is this the middle age woman chronic illness that’s life is at risk. Because if we are going back to this point as I’ve mentioned so many times, the original comment was nothing to do with someone’s life being at risk - or facing the death penalty.

It was the they were gay and lives in Iran and it was against the law…

Also along with other poster are increasingly removing the scenario that there was a family facing death by bombing. Which I still stand my ground to me out of the two is a reason for higher priority.

You’ll be attacked for being ‘racist’ because our own U.K. citizens can’t stick together to fight for better for our future.
Genuine people in need should come, although they should find a way to improve their situation. Those coming to work are a positive addition to the U.K. Unfortunately where I live in London many of them turn to crime (fact before anyone comes at me)
I also find it heartbreaking when it’s men and they leave their women and children behind to suffer, this shouldn’t be allowed, they either all come or not at all.
For those who welcome everyone, would you put them up in your house and provide for them?
Would you prefer for the U.K. funds to go on our elderly who have no heating, invest in schools and nhs, keep the homeless off the streets, have more housing for everyone? Sadly those who have had very fortunate lives don’t see the consequences of helping other countries before this one.

What have I said that is Guardian-esque?

I am not massively keen on the Guardian. It is a bit too centrist for me. Though John Crace and Marina Hyde are pretty good.

Do you have data to back up the fact that "the vast majority are economic migrants coming from France". The vast majority don't even come to the UK from France. (Yes, I have already provided links that explain all of this)

So I think thread has explained clearly a few times why men come before their family. I will explain re phones - if you are doing an incredibly dangerous journey away from family, the one thing you want is a phone. Phones are really really helpful, for keeping in touch, enabling you to organise things, check money, book things etc. If you use one you will know, and imagine how important that is for someone without their family. Also often people who are fleeing for their lives may have had money for a phone before they left.

You think borders are a bad thing? If millions of people from the third world arrived in the UK with no borders, what do you think would happen to our economy and living standards? Do you think we could have 200 million here, and we would all be in trees smoking peace pipes like Jeremy Corbyn with roads, housing, social security, councils, education, NHS all ticking along. My God, the naivety of people like you

Where are the small boats coming from then, Mars? If they were genuine people in fear of their lives, they wouldn't leave their families behind no matter how risky a short crossing on a boat is. You've been conned.

If they are gay and live in Iran, then their life is at risk, because gay sex is legally punishable by death.

I am @poetryandwine , by the way. I believe @justteanbiscuits may have the health condition.

But being gay in Iran is subject to capital punishment.

I said I didn't need to claim asylum as I live in a liberal country. But imagine a time where, say, women's rights were stripped from them. Where being a woman didn't mean we were faced with the death penalty, but that we became second class citizens. Should I not be allowed to claim asylum on the base of being a woman? Even though my life wasn't directly at risk.

My point is, that I will never be in a position to be able to "just move to another country". Like many many many others. Asylum would be my only way out.

I think people need to be realistic about why people are coming. The vast majority want to work and provide for a family. They are de facto economic migrants, and often because they can’t make a living at home because of various turmoil. Uk is most desirable because many people learn English. I don’t think there is anything at all wrong with economic migration but it is a bit of an abuse of the asylum system’s purpose. Almost all claims are successful apart from those from a few countries such as Albania. The data is freely available. It’s a valid question from the OP.

You do realise that not all asylum seekers come by boat across the channel right? That the majority of asylum seekers don't come across the channel by boat.