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

When the asylum claim is based on a forced conscription that amounts to becoming cannon fodder, young to middle aged fit men are the most vulnerable. This is a big problem in several African countries in the midst of civil wars.

I haven't misunderstood you, you're talking utter nonsense which I think you know deep down

What percentage of asylum claims are based on " forced conscription" then?

Maybe you can understand this example Hedgehog. The family unit is a different matter to the head of the family. Its that a wife and young children may be safer at home than making the journey, but the man if safer making the journey for them. But i dont want to argue, I think maybe we have to agree to differ.

you could google it.

So more made up rubbish like staying at Grandma's house- fair enough

Is forced conscription even covered??
Article 1 of the 1951 Convention defines a refugee as someone who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of [their] former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Thank you for your suggestion,@tonyhawks23 .

When people respond with cheap put downs rather than an interest in data I think we all know they are not interested in constructive debate.

Good point, it probably isn't, but the usual suspects are desperately thrashing around to explain why young fighting age males are rocking up to Britain leaving their wives behind as asylum seekers fleeing in terror. The most ridiculous reason given so far was because the family left behind are staying at their grans house perfectly safe.

I really don’t think forced conscription should be a cause for asylum
though. If it was there would’ve entire African countries of young men who would be entitled to seek safe haven here and that’s simply too many people. We have to be realistic. Not being realistic leads to resentment and the rise of populism. There should be other ways of addressing the issue. Have UN peacekeepers waded in to try to stop the fighting? Have all diplomatic efforts of every UN country been exhausted?

Women, children under 10 and the elderly….maybe.

Young men in sportswear with iPhones….hell nah.

again, not perfectly safe, just safer than coming over illegally in a boat. We are incredibly fortunate we dont have to make that choice.

It isn't a cheap put down. You said that many young males are coming here because of forced conscription. I asked for the data and the response was " Google it" which loosely translates to you are posting nonsense with no stats to back it up.

Realistically - and again just to highlight - not setting any moral view of this…. But literally just answering your question of “is it even covered?”

I think you’d probably have to argue the “member of a political or social group” element to show that due to your differing political beliefs of the conscription forcing faction….you would refuse forced conscription and would therefore be persecuted.

Because no “forced conscription” is not word for word written in the refugee convention.

Stop all immigration of those with misogynist religions, those from regions that practice >50% FGM, those that appear pro rata massively ahead in the crime tables.
Life here is bad enough without adding in all the above.

If it is safer for old people to live in a country than crossing a channel on a boat, perhaps young males in their prime of life age wise should also remain their with their old folk instead of coming here. Your posts are illogical and increasingly daft

I’ll tell you why it’s women and children fleeing from Ukraine and not other countries.

a) Men under the age of 60 are not allowed to leave Ukraine.
b) There are mostly no visa requirements for Ukrainian women and children to seek safety in Europe. Where they do need a visa (e.g. UK) they can apply for one and have it granted swiftly. They can then get on a plane or ferry and come here SAFELY.

No other nationality has the ability to do this. The journeys are perilous. It makes sense to send the men. Once they are given leave to remain they can secure visas for their families who can then travel here safely. It’s preferable to putting your children into a blow up dinghy to cross the Med. It’s not bloody rocket science.

No, many here just have to make a choice between heating and eating

A genuine, demonstrated respect for women’s and girl’s rights and freedoms in our society will solve a lot of our problems and sooth fears. It starts with government.

No, it precisely translates to the fact that we are not professionals in this area and do not have all the data at our fingertips.

If you are coming from a fact based stance, you can strengthen your arguments substantially by providing objective sources (eg from gov.uk or migration watch) for them.

Immigration is set to push the UK’s population above France’s for the first time in a generation, official figures show.

James Robards, from the ONS, said: “The UK population is projected to grow by almost five million over the next decade. The driver of this growth is migration, with natural change – the difference between births and deaths – projected to be around zero.

The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The UK population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9 million increase in net migration, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The projections, for the decade from 2022, show that the UK’s population exceeded France’s in 2023 at 68.5 million against 68.2 million, the first time since at least 1997 that Britain has done so.

The population gap between the UK and France is set to widen with France projected by the Eurostat, the European statistical agency, to increase to just 70 million in 2035, some 2.5 million behind the UK.

Over the decade, net migration – the number coming to the UK minus those emigrating – will increase the UK’s population by 7.3 per cent, compared with an increase of 6.1 per cent over the previous 10 years.

The ONS projects that between 2022 and 2032 some 9,914,000 people will immigrate long term to the UK, while 4,978,000 are anticipated to emigrate. The non-immigrant population will remain flat with 6.8 million births and 6.8 million deaths'.

Stop reading the DM for starters

Also.. you could ask either:

What are your thoughts? Or:
What is your opinion?

Not what's your thoughts

Asylum seekers make up only a small percentage of immigration though - 7% in 2023 - so that’s not really something you can blame on them. Most are coming in visas. The last government could have stopped it but chose not to. Whether they had good reason not to is another discussion.

Immigration is a difficult issue; we need enough people who are both productive and compatible with our culture, in order for the country to function smoothly and to keep population levels up to a viable level.

As a civilised country, we also have a moral obligation to offer asylum to a sustainable number of those who need it, providing they do not have a harmful effect on society.

Whether 'compatible with our culture' is a bit iffy or not depends on how we want our country to look in the future. If we want it to be more or less as it is now, we need people who will integrate and adapt to our ways. If we don't mind change, and/or a fragmented society then that is not important.

Of course, change is not always good - I feel that we're doing quite well as a secular society with broadly Christian tolerant values. If enough people with strongly held views based, say, on a different religion settle here, it is inevitable that they will maintain their identity and begin to exert an influence. There is now a fair degree of power in the 'muslim vote', for instance, and it's arguable that we now effectively have blasphemy laws.

As climate change worsens, there is likely to be a large increase in the number of people migrating from, say, Africa to northern Europe. Either they all have to go somewhere, bringing significant societal changes to their host countries, or they must be denied entry, neither of which are appealing options.

Nothing racist here, if we differentiate (as I do) between race and culture, although obviously most likely immigrants will be brown, but others will, of course, see things differently.

Interesting times.......