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

Yes. Probably everything you say is true. But still you don't address the moral point about discrimination.

It's as bad to discriminate against someone because of place of birth as it is to discriminate against someone because of colour of skin. If you doubt this, consider a small child needing help: would you deny assistance to a child because he or she had a certain skin colour? Some people would, of course; they'd be immoral. Likewise with denying assistance to a child based on his/her place of birth.

(To be clear, the point I'm making is not about children: that's just an example to help you understand. The point is about discrimination and morality.)

The debate about borders and immigration/emigration usually ignores this (moral) point. It's 'naive' to bring it up, we're told. But, actually, it's inescapable. Yes, it makes for hard choices. Doing the right thing often comes with a cost.

I just - naively - wish we could at least try to do the right thing and help people when they need it, no matter what colour their skin, what their crazy religious beliefs or cultural habits ... or where they happen to have been born. So, I insist, borders as they currently function are bad because they're discriminatory.

@yetagai I just - naively - wish we could at least try to do the right thing and help people when they need it, no matter what colour their skin, what their crazy religious beliefs or cultural habits

So you would help societies where the regime oppressed it's citizens (especially women) ?

@yetagai I do understand what you're saying, and it's a genuinely noble sentiment.
However, there does come a point where I think the first policy allegiance should be to existing citizens and residents of a country. If the negatives become too great, then the use of the right-wing term "suicidal empathy" starts to actually sound accurate.

That being said, in the UK the vast majority of recent arrivals are not asylum seekers anyway, Johnson was very very liberal with visas. But in European countries like Germany and Sweden, it clearly has had an overall negative impact for the existing inhabitants.

Perhaps we shouldn't help oppressive societies. But maybe individual citizens of such societies? By offering them asylum, perhaps?

What d'you think, @Daisychainsforme? (Maybe such citizens should be discriminated against because of where they're from? Is that what you think?)

@yetagai What d'you think, ? (Maybe such citizens should be discriminated against because of where they're from? Is that what you think?)

I never said that at all, so please don't put words into my mouth.

However, I would not support helping those who want to come here and bring their negative human rights attitudes with them.

My opinion is give them an NIC number and let them start working, contributing and living their lives.

That idea presupposes that a) they speak English and
b) that they have skills we need.

Asylum seekers have a incredibly small impact on finance and public services in the UK. Most are not eligible for public funds. False asylum claims are a vanishing small issue for this country.

The right wing press like to make what is a very small issue into a huge issue in order to cause division.

The press are careful to ignore all nuance and blame the struggles of our public services and rising economic challenges on "immigrants", while acting like "immigrants" are all people pretending to be asylum seekers and stealing public funds, housing, jobs. All of those things are factually incorrect.

The only reason why the press push the hatred of asylum seekers, "illegal immigrants", "immigrants", "small boats" is because so many people in this country are gullible enough to follow this line of thinking and blame the scapegoat for the collapse of our economy and public services. Rather than looking at what's really happening - the rich are growing richer and public services can't compete. The rich own politics and the media. Elon Musk is a shining example and look how hard he is pushing the hatred of immigrants. It's easy to rile up hatred and division so that everyone blames each other for taking the things they need, rather than looking to the super rich who are endlessly building and hoarding resources and wealth for themselves.

It presupposes that some of them speak English and are able to get jobs. It also presupposes that those that are unemployable are supported into employment and integration while their cases come up.

Yes, the phrase 'suicidal empathy' is used to claim doing the right thing is unrealistic because it can be difficult to do.

It'll be difficult to get rid of borders. Almost impossible, maybe. But it doesn't follow borders aren't bad. They are.

(An example of heroic suicidal empathy? Sophie Scholl. Think about the lessons there.)

People seeking asylum are escaping human rights abuses.

Globally we are one tiny island. We are over populated. The infrastructure cannot cope. We need less people not more. Integration is not a requirement. I can understand why not everyone feels happy about the state of the country. It's very naive to blindly accept all coming here. It doesn't fit the narrative to disagree with liberal thinking and doing so is regarded as far right.

@username299 and some are perpetuating them....

Perhaps we could agree to support helping those with negative attitudes to change their minds?

-- Or do you think people should be discriminated against because of their attitudes or beliefs? (Not that I wish to put words in your mouth, you understand ...)

Then they won't get refugee status. You become a refugee if you are being persecuted not if you're persecuting.

Yes, the phrase 'suicidal empathy' is used to claim doing the right thing is unrealistic because it can be difficult to do.

When there are a string of rapes, stabbings and terrorist attacks, when Sweden has just had a mass bombing campaign, it maybe stops looking like just "difficult to do" though? It starts looking downright undesirable, and I think longer-term it's going to be disastrous in terms of Europe lurching to the right.

@yetagai
Or do you think people should be discriminated against because of their attitudes or beliefs?

If those attitudes cause human rights abuses then, yes.

Perhaps we could agree to support helping those with negative attitudes to change their minds?

In theory a good idea. In practice it's not always feasible.

So that cuts out :

• Benin
• Burkina Faso
• Cameroon
• Central African Republic
• Chad
• Cote D’Ivoire
• Dijbouti
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Gambia
• Ghana
• Guinea
• Guinea-Bissau
• Kenya
• Liberia
• Mali
• Mauritania
• Niger
• Nigeria
• Senegal
• Sierra Leone
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Tanzania
• Togo
• Uganda

Asia

• Indonesia
• Maldives

Middle East

• Iraq
• Yemen

because all those countries support and practice Female Genital Mutilation.

My experience living in Manchester showed that the worst culprits were Somalians.

The problem is that that support, in practice, is really, really expensive.

Welfare state, open borders, sustainable public finances: pick two.

But it's predominantly women who carry out FGM.

OK. Again, you're probably right.

Can we agree, though, that national borders as currently constituted are immoral - and make all reasonable (and feasible) efforts to dismantle them because of that?

National borders are bad so we should work to eliminate them.

Just as

Poverty is bad so we should work to eliminate it.

And

Oppressive regimes ... Oh, enough ...

Contemporary discourse about emigration, asylum and so on so often avoids what's morally clear ... such as that borders are bad. I'd like people to see this.

Why does the sex of the abuser matter? - it's still abuse.

Name a country with no misogyny - I'll pack a bag.

@yetagai Can we agree, though, that national borders as currently constituted are immoral - and make all reasonable (and feasible) efforts to dismantle them because of that?

No we can't.

That's a crackpot idea.

The border of the Isle of Man is the Irish Sea. Are you saying we should remove it by draining said area of water or putting road bridges across it to England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales?

Really?🙄

I disagree with that, but I don't have an issue with a moral framework that rates people close to me as higher in importance / more deserving of my resources than people far away from me. I actually think I have more of an obligation to help them because who else is going to?

There's a distinction between a theoretical "every child is one of God's children" kind of equality, and the actual practical question of who I give my money to. I've spent hundreds or thousands on my own baby this year. Over my whole lifetime I've probably given MAXIMUM that amount to charities for children in Africa.

If I spent an equal amount of money on my child as every other child in the whole world, i.e. let's say £5k divided by however many billion children, I would rightly have my child taken away by social services.