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

Not all people of any type are good or benevolent. That is true of asylum seekers same as anyone else. We should not shy away from protecting our children from harmful behaviour because we are scared to be called racist (eg like in the grooming gangs scandal). Protection of children should be our priority

Maybe have a look at how it rates on here for journalistic credibility compared to the DM.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

Some people on mn don't like the Daily Mail because it sometimes says things they disagree with. Don't pay any attention- it's not any worse than any other news source and better than some

"Maybe have a look at how it rates on here for journalistic credibility compared to the DM."

Lol! As if the "media bias fact checker" is objective!

Then to mention some points posters have raised separate to that question but also on support asylum seekers receive Vs UK citizens.

It is essential to understand that the government’s obligations are set out in law for asylum seekers, under the treaties the UK has (thus far) willingly entered into (and is a founding member of) also this means that if the UK does not meet this minimum standard they can have a claim brought against them and could be forced to give a big payout for not meeting their obligations. If the UK doesn’t support its own citizens for example by not offering more disability support in schools there’s no international body that’s going to financially sanction the UK it’s just crap for the people living there.

Recently this happened in Greece - overall Greece is pretty appalling in hosting asylum seekers and refugees (I say as someone who worked in the system there and worked at the refugee camps) - they were not providing what they should for unaccompanied children, a legal organisation helped those unaccompanied children raise a claim at the international level, it was proven that Greece failed in its duties for minimum level of support and the Greek government had to pay out millions.

Thanks to the “non interference” principle most states abide by, if the UK is treating it’s own people a bit crap by not helping with housing, jobs etc - no one else is going to say anything as there is no international document the UK signed saying “we promise to make sure very UK citizen has a house” so there is no outside pressure to force them to act so governments obvs internally decide what they are ok with and what they want to “fix”

Not to make a moral judgement on if one is better than the other - but I know this isn’t really common knowledge so it might help some people understand why it seems that some people “get” stuff that others don’t.

I’m not sure you actually understand the term ‘objective’.

The best way is to read credible sources from a wide political spectrum and delve deeper to primary sources when available.

For example, yesterday there was a thread citing a Telegraph article on an Opinium poll that purported to say that most Brits supported Trump’s policies. None of us who tried could find the source material on the pollster’s website, and when interrogated, there was a clear bias in the writing of the poll questions - all of which added up to it being a biased article.

But one source you should never trust because it is not credible in any way, is the Daily Mail.

It also had (maybe still does) of not allowing women to be photographed wearing trousers, which is insane.

You are vigilant and knowledgeable, and won't be caught in misinformation and disinformation. As for to assume how much mind anybody has, it's not very nice, is it?! Op only asked a question, everybody's free to answer or not

Practising gay sex in Iran is a capital crime.

Thus being a practising bisexual is an internationally recognised reason to seek asylum.

That is demonstrably false.

The DM has been censured more than any other newspaper by the IPCO numerous times, removed from being an allowable source by Wikipedia, and literally supported the Nazis.

I have higher standards for my reading materials.

There are millions of people living in shitty countries who would be eligible to seek asylum here. Are we supposed to welcome them all to this small island?

I do actually have a problem with people from violent, misogynistic, homophobic countries coming here. As if they shed those attitudes the second they step foot on British soil!

I also take issue with how many asylum seekers seem to be from countries like Albania and Tunisia – which are safe, and are not at war. These people are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

OP, this is Mumsnet, where most posters live in nice, middle-class areas and don't actually have to suffer from the problems of having asylum seekers placed near them (and their kids' schools). So what if poorer people, in areas that are already struggling, have to deal with it? That's the attitude.

Someone in here said they would like to see how many asylum seekers other countries take. As they are obviously unable to use google, this page is extremely helpful

Latest Asylum Trends | European Union Agency for Asylum

A short time on google will also explain that the UK doesn't offer the "best benefits", and that it rarely why the UK is chosen as a destination (language or family already here are the most common reasons). Only 29% of those claiming asylum have come by boat, and the majority of those have come from Afghanistan - and I wonder why that is?

What if you're gay in Tunisia?

@poetryandwine
i do understand @Turbottimes as it’s to do with identifying people at higher risk as there is not enough resource to take in everybody unfortunately.

If I did not agree with the laws of my country and I made a life choice that goes against them, I would simply move to a country that does accept me for who I am without having to hide who I am. If the reason to seek asylum was that you life was in danger as you were identified as bisexual and you were going to be killed for it, and there is a clear threat to your life. I think and it’s just my opinion that is very different.

So being gay is a life choice? OK, says everything we need to know I think.

This

I don't read the daily mail anyway, because I find it virtually unreadable in terms of format and adverts anyway. I don't see it as worse than the Guardian in terms of bias though. They're just biases in different directions.

@Turbottimes @poetryandwine its almost the same as saying you could seek asylum in the UK because you are an unmarried couple from UAE and face jail because you live together… it’s the law of the country, your life is not in danger you just are not following the laws

Let's be honest, abuse of the housing and benefit system is rife with British people.
As a social worker the vast majority of false claimants, tax avoidant and work shy people I meet are British daily mail readers. The UK is falling hugely behind with the educational accomplishments and the work ethic of British people. We are a lazy nation, reliant on hard working people from other countries but yet very quick to hate.
To seek asylum isn't illegal, it's following the process set by this country.

Using the UK as an example, now we're no longer in the UK, how does one just "move to a country that does accept me". As a middle aged woman, without much in my savings account, a chronic illness, and no 'special' skills, what country would give me a visa to live and work there?!

I want to understand your post, @Tryingtoberreasonable

How would you accomplish your move? You need a reason to lawfully emigrate, such as a spouse with citizenship, or the offer of a job that cannot be filled by a citizen, etc

The alternative is to seek asylum

Apologies if I have misunderstood your post. I would appreciate clarification

@justteanbiscuits I think you are missing my point, my point was if you don’t agree with the laws in the country you live in - you move to a different country that does very much accept you…
I don’t really think it’s a ground for seeking asylum no. Because as I said there are people whose lives are at risk and to me that’s a higher priority.
May seem harsh, I am not saying we don’t take asylum seekers at all I’m saying that there unfortunately does need to be a level of priority within the vetting process.

Sorry, @justteanbiscuits , I did not see your post as I was writing

You seeing it that way and it being true isn’t the same thing.

There are organisations that track bias and credibility which you can look at if you want to know the facts, not just rely on your ‘feeling’.

I am wondering if some people on this thread have actually taken the time to speak to an asylum seeker, let alone been friends with one.

A close friend came to this country claiming asylum as a child. They, and their families lives were in serious danger. They were hidden and driven out of their country and again, at each border before finally making it to the UK. They didn't have time to collect and bring belongings, and as they had never left the country, they had no passports and their parents passports as it had been removed from them by "the police". They came to the UK as they had family already here, and all spoke English. I can even begin to imagine the horror of this all.