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

If they had money for a phone and other things ( which some Brits can't even afford) they aren't in abject poverty compared to the lowest rung already in society on these shores so why would they be prioritised.

If my family was in serious danger, I would consider a channel crossing far less risky than apparently being murderd wherever they are " fleeing in terror " from.

Yes, and I don’t think it should be a reason to seek asylum. We can’t take in all asylum seekers of the world. Homosexuality was illegal here too, and gay people went about their lives in a more clandestine manner. Terrible yes, but no where near as bad as having bombs dropped on you or being forced into a burqua for your whole life.

Like it or not there is a hierarchy of asylum nedd and I think with the far right rising in many Western European negations we need to revisit who can claim asylum so we ensure those being bombed are still welcomed with open arms here.

Their life may be at risk but they have a phone. Asylum is for safety. What they want is safety.

No one is asking the UK to take in all the asylum seekers of the world. We don't even take the most in Europe - even per capita or by land size. We don't give them "best benefits" as people claim.

If their life was truly at risk, they wouldn't leave their children and wives behind. What man would leave his family behind if the risks were so great unless of course they weren't at the risks you claim.

@justteanbiscuits I think @Turbottimes has reiterated my point so I will leave the conversation here. I feel you are just arguing for arguments sake.

There are people homeless in the UK, living in abject poverty, unable to access medical treatment due to chronic waiting lists, barely able to heat their homes with soaring food bills. The majority suggesting we should fund hotel, and then social housing for economic travellers prioritising over our own citizens is why more are moving away from the left and its deluded utopia of welcome everyone. Many would soon change their tune, if their own personal circumstances changed instead of talking about their latest 40 grand car.

I think in the UK and this thread is a good example, there’s just not a clear understanding of the legal requirements.

The legal processes we have in place (and what a claimant can prove beyond reasonable doubt) is what currently differentiates an individual between “asylum seeker” and “economic migrant”

There is no “poor” scale to be an asylum seeker, also it’s not a requirement to be a woman or child. If someone puts an asylum claim in they are an asylum seeker while the claim goes through and if it is successful at the refugee determination process they get refugee protection or subsidiary protection.

A British ngo claim looked at the success rate of those travelling via small boat and a high % around 65% of those were granted refugee status on first decision….. of the 35% denied…. The overall UK appeal rate was anywhere from 30% up to just under 45% were granted refugee status on 1st appeal.

So factually we can’t really say that “the vast majority of economic migrants” as actually the vast majority met the UK requirements for refugee status.

As I mentioned earlier, government and news outlets depending on their goal will choose what elements to report and how to frame people, but to say the vast majority are economic migrants ONLY. I don’t think is factual.

Well the answer to this is the “Family reunification process” and as an individual who spends the majority of their life living and working in refugee generating countries I can answer confidently to your question - Many men would do and do this for the long term safety of the family.

I could travel to the UK and receive a positive decision on my case, then I can apply for family reunification for my partner and children under 18 to come and join me (legally)

The stats as you claim, may be correct, but that's down to previous government incompetence. If a government official stamped a sheep born in a stable as a horse, it doesn't mean it is. The tories were useless and it looks set to continue . If a male in his 20s and 30s ( which the vast majority are) is not as you say in poverty or in imminent risk of death, why should he be prioritised over dying pensioners and homeless people here?

If a man leaves his family on danger, he isn't a man. Your comments make no sense and completely illogical to any right thinking person. No man would just " set off" leaving women and children of they were in danger of being murdered. It's a ridiculous argument

They shouldn’t be prioritised as both needs are just as important but if you read my previous comment I answered this. These are under different laws.

I don’t think the government cares at all about asylum seekers, (also don’t really think they care about much but that’s just my opinion 🤣)

However, as the UK is currently a signatory to relevant refugee and asylum legislation they have a legal obligation (which is enforceable at the international level) to provide a minimum standard to people in the asylum process.

As countries generally abide by the “non interference” process, as long as one country isn’t committing war crimes, generally countries leave domestic policy up to each other and stay out of it, so as you mentioned - policy on British homelessness, it’s up the the UK and no international treaty is going to make sure British homeless receive a minimum standard of living, so if the government don’t care - unfortunately we’re all a bit stuffed.

They only provide the minimum for asylum seekers as if they don’t the international court system can make them pay compensation.

100% this ☝️

Wealthier areas are generally much more 'pro' asylum seekers as the asylum seekers don't generally get housed in those areas.

Wealthy rural areas too are devoid of asylum seekers generally.

But less wealthy areas are impacted much more negatively because of pressure on services.

So try to think around the why. For example - perhaps a man who leaves his wife and young children in their home with their elderly grandparents where they are 'safe enough' from the bombing, where they have grown up in bombing and perhaps can stay a little longer while can do the journey and then get them over by safe route through reunification.

<shrug>

Think what you like.

Read a couple of history books - you can't argue with it.

You seem to keep going back to mentioning backward legislation as a guide for what is morally right. Regardless of what a few stuffed shirts in an international or domestic setting think " we should be doing", no country should be prioritising young males arriving here often having thrown away their documents over women and children living as natives here. It's wrong, and should be called out. The utopian paradise of everyone being prioritised and housed etc isn't the real world I'm afraid. A basic economics course wouldn't go amiss

l mean that’s your personal opinion of the nature of a man, which you’re perfectly entitled to hold.

It’s not a ridiculous argument at all - you asked “why would someone do this” so I answered to you “this is why someone would do this”

If you then say “well any man who does that is not a man” I accept your opinion, but it doesn’t change the answer that that is a reason why many families choose to send a minor son or husband first.

Also other families choose not to, which is why there are women and children claiming asylum at point of entry too.

Absolutely, well said

Sorry I think you misunderstood. At no point have I made a moral judgement or argument based on legislation - I’m simply providing an answer of why things happen now.

You mentioned prioritisation, so I answered that currently it’s under different legislation which is why the two aren’t comparable. I’ve never stated if I think this is good or bad or right or wrong.

We spent £4.7bn last year on supporting and accommodating asylum seekers.

No-one in their right mind can think this can continue, despite some of the responses on this thread.

There's too much bleeding heart liberalism when it comes to asylum/migrants. We need a robust and fair asylum policy, we need ID cards and we need them both yesterday.

The way certain people talk, you'd think that asylum seekers farted rainbows. They're just people. Some good, some bad. Putting a system in place that ensures we accept the right people is neither racist or right wing. And it needs to happen fast.

This is one of the most repulsive, hate-filled posts I have seen on MN. 🤮

Very good points. 🎯
Other European countries have also got much tougher at repelling undocumented migrants- we definitely need to be vetting people coming in to make sure they are 'safe' and that they will integrate well.

So it's safe enough for elderly grandparents but not for them. You're desperate to defend an utterly ridiculous position. The elderly grandparents have survived to old age in some quaint cottage like a scene from little red riding hood housing the family whilst the young males flee in terror. Righto

No youve misunderstood me. Never mind, I dont think youl get it anyway.