Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask if you think the prime minister has a democratic duty to house asylum seekers in middle class areas

1000 replies

CurdinHenry · 13/08/2026 10:22

By which I mean, would most voters support this as opposed to a change in policy to refuse in greater numbers? I honestly can't tell what "the majority" actually wants. I would prefer fewer having seen how things went in Germany thanks to the Merkel wave but I am willing to believe I'm a backwards old boomer and a majority would be more welcoming.

They (UK governments) tend to say they have no choice due to the echr but this isn't true. There are a lot of operational choices they could make (eg sometimes when people are denied entry at the border they are actually allowed into the country for a few days and instructed to report back to the airport when it's time for the removal flight).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 10:48

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 10:46

That’s hilarious - what have figures from 2002 got to do with it? Irrelevant.

Are you aware of when Brexit happened. All this hilarity is a bit odd. Your laughing emojis etc. You haven’t got it right.

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 10:52

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 10:01

Net migration is work visas not asylum process.

This thread is focusing on the asylum process. Brexit or not isn’t relevant for Danish system either.

The countries which say no and are in the EU include Hungary and Poland and that’s due to dismissing EU regulation.

Countries in the EU currently not accepting refugees are North Macedonia, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro.

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 10:57

bestchooseanother · 15/08/2026 10:28

Most men of any origin don't rape, but all men should nonetheless be considered potential rapists. Annoyingly, rapists look just like non-rapists, so you can't just tell by looking. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking it's better to be too cautious and unfairly discriminate against a man, than not cautious enough and let women and girls be raped and murdered. Hence why women aren't keen on them in female spaces. There has obviously been a huge fight against males in female toilets, though we're statistically vastly more likely to be attacked by an illegal immigrant than by a man in the loo. I absolutely don't think men should be allowed in female spaces, but am a bit bewildered why we're not anything like as animated by the risk of immigrant males as we are by homegrown males in dresses.

It’s about perception of risk by the public vs actual risk. If public fear alone determined policy, we might reduce some dangers, but it would also mean more innocent people being treated as potential threats, more restrictions on freedom, and more discrimination based on perceived risk rather than evidence.

Men are a rape and SA risk to women - if we placed even more restrictions on them, it might get the rape and SA figures down a bit, but society deems that it isn’t fair to lock them all away.

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 10:59

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 10:52

Countries in the EU currently not accepting refugees are North Macedonia, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro.

Edited

This isn’t true at all.

Also, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro are not EU members!

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:01

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 10:52

Countries in the EU currently not accepting refugees are North Macedonia, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro.

Edited

.

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:03

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 10:48

Are you aware of when Brexit happened. All this hilarity is a bit odd. Your laughing emojis etc. You haven’t got it right.

Brexit was voted for in 2016 and legally took effect from 2020 - your figures from 2002 are irrelevant.

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 11:03

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:01

.

Edited

I think you've tagged the wrong person, I'm not arguing with you.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:03

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 10:57

It’s about perception of risk by the public vs actual risk. If public fear alone determined policy, we might reduce some dangers, but it would also mean more innocent people being treated as potential threats, more restrictions on freedom, and more discrimination based on perceived risk rather than evidence.

Men are a rape and SA risk to women - if we placed even more restrictions on them, it might get the rape and SA figures down a bit, but society deems that it isn’t fair to lock them all away.

Your assumption on who is checked isn’t correct. Men who have committed crimes do enter. Are you sure you would take that risk?

Or if you have DDs you would take that risk.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:04

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:03

Brexit was voted for in 2016 and legally took effect from 2020 - your figures from 2002 are irrelevant.

Yes so in the EU we had high figures still. I didn’t think it needed the explanation. Brexit isn’t the factor on numbers you think it is.

Nuthatch26 · 15/08/2026 11:05

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:03

Brexit was voted for in 2016 and legally took effect from 2020 - your figures from 2002 are irrelevant.

Pre-brexit figures are irrelevant when trying to prove that brexit increased small boat crossings? Err, ok.

You could just admit that you're wrong to save time?

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:06

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:03

Your assumption on who is checked isn’t correct. Men who have committed crimes do enter. Are you sure you would take that risk?

Or if you have DDs you would take that risk.

I haven’t posted any assumptions on checks. For sure they exist. Read up on the asylum claim process. I’m getting on with my day now.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:07

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:06

I haven’t posted any assumptions on checks. For sure they exist. Read up on the asylum claim process. I’m getting on with my day now.

Yes good idea. Your post on ‘security services’ checking was incorrect. Best not to think of what the Taliban don’t record. Enjoy your day.

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:13

Nuthatch26 · 15/08/2026 11:05

Pre-brexit figures are irrelevant when trying to prove that brexit increased small boat crossings? Err, ok.

You could just admit that you're wrong to save time?

I’ll do the maths simply for you.

2002 is a full 18 years before Brexit was implemented. Irrelevant.

If you’re trying to assess the impact of Brexit, the relevant comparison is what happened in the time windows before and after 2020, not what was happening nearly two decades earlier.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:19

Bikenutz · 15/08/2026 11:13

I’ll do the maths simply for you.

2002 is a full 18 years before Brexit was implemented. Irrelevant.

If you’re trying to assess the impact of Brexit, the relevant comparison is what happened in the time windows before and after 2020, not what was happening nearly two decades earlier.

If anyone claims high figures are due to Brexit earlier high figures show it’s not the case.

But more than this you believe men are checked before entering. If you know that’s not the case and you can see the outcome in Belfast and elsewhere are you sure you’d be so keen on having men nearby?

It’s ok to change your mind btw and say maybe not then.

geniusinajar · 15/08/2026 11:29

Taken to its logical conclusion, once they have run out of HMOs in middle class areas, I wouldn't be surprised if the Government mandates that all homes be handed over to the state as it is the "right and kind thing to do" to house people in more need of a home than privileged, middle-class home owners, or people with unused rooms get taxed into oblivion unless they house strangers because "...widest shoulders/right thing to do/be kind" etc,

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 11:31

geniusinajar · 15/08/2026 11:29

Taken to its logical conclusion, once they have run out of HMOs in middle class areas, I wouldn't be surprised if the Government mandates that all homes be handed over to the state as it is the "right and kind thing to do" to house people in more need of a home than privileged, middle-class home owners, or people with unused rooms get taxed into oblivion unless they house strangers because "...widest shoulders/right thing to do/be kind" etc,

Yup, Communism in action. Or "equal opportunity for uniformity."

NotNowBernardNotEver · 15/08/2026 11:32

Australia has a fairly sensible system. We cannot turn boats around in the way they can for obvious reasons (geography, origin of migrants, size of boat involved etc) but they remove all migrants arriving without prior agreement/ visa/ papers to remote processing centres on separate islands. The UK has many such uninhabited island territories. There is also a law that nobody arriving by illegal methods without a visa will ever be granted entry to Australia to live or even visit as a tourist. Such rules make attempting to enter without prior arrangement far less attractive.

They take a quota which they determine per year who arrive with permission (around 20k per year I think) and thoroughly background check them first, check criminal records, check basis for asylum claims to ensure these are people in genuine need, then allow those granted asylum via the quota to come to Australia after their claim is granted, by normal means of transport, and they can then integrate and work immediately with accommodation/ employment having been arranged in advance rather than them being a drain on resources and contributing nothing for years. This is also far better for the refugees.

It also means they know who the people are so if they subsequently break the law they can be deported to their country of origin far more easily. The granting of a place can be made conditional upon taking up work set up for them in advance in occupations that the UK requires according to their level of skill so there is a clear expectation that they contribute and it can be made clear in advance what is expected regarding compliance with our cultural norms and laws.

As a result, people trying to enter Australia without a visa or pre-approved asylum having been granted is now rare.

Denmark has sensible policies in place now: limiting asylum claims which are granted to 2-3 years and then reviewing periodically whether their home countries/ areas are now safe for them to be returned. Refugee status is temporary and is not a route to permanent residence/ citizenship.

They also have strict criteria for family reunification: if you wish to bring other family members at a later date you must show you are able to support them financially, provide housing for them etc, that you have stable employment and have passed language competency tests. You have to show you have been self-sustaining and not accessing any kind of welfare for several years before this will be considered.

Since such a low percentage of refugees in the UK (with claims granted) work (or at least, not in legal employment paying tax) let alone are self-sustaining this would prevent most from subsequently applying to bring here to join them multiple family members who speak no English and have zero work prospects and no intention of integrating.

One of the big pulls to the UK and why so many men arrive alone is because they can then bring extended family later. If we imposed rules like the above the incentive to come here would be far lower because the chances would be very low of most of those arriving currently being able to meet the criteria for family reunification i.e. demonstrate sufficient earnings to support extended family members as well as themselves and the employment record and language competency required to meet these criteria.

This would also discourage black market working because if working in the black market they could never demonstrate their income to meet the criteria to bring family to the UK, and it would also encourage those genuinely trying to build a new life here to work hard, pay tax and integrate. Plus, we need ID cards to stamp out black market working in general.

While the plight of many around the world is terrible, there is obviously a limit to how many people the UK can sustain so sensible measures have to be taken to make coming here without permission far less attractive, and to provide a sensible way to integrate a smaller number coming here with permission in advance, ensuring these are people with genuine claims and who are not violent/ criminal and do actually intend to integrate and work to provide for themselves.

LuckyHazelFox · 15/08/2026 11:36

BeatrizBoniface · 15/08/2026 08:18

I've just seen an item on the BBC news about a young Afghan woman refugee who is rebuilding her life and working in the UK. She's not trafficking, abusing, stealing or predating on society.
Almost as if she values living in a liberal democracy where she has equality and opportunities.
That's the kind of refugee we should be supporting.

💯

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:36

NotNowBernardNotEver · 15/08/2026 11:32

Australia has a fairly sensible system. We cannot turn boats around in the way they can for obvious reasons (geography, origin of migrants, size of boat involved etc) but they remove all migrants arriving without prior agreement/ visa/ papers to remote processing centres on separate islands. The UK has many such uninhabited island territories. There is also a law that nobody arriving by illegal methods without a visa will ever be granted entry to Australia to live or even visit as a tourist. Such rules make attempting to enter without prior arrangement far less attractive.

They take a quota which they determine per year who arrive with permission (around 20k per year I think) and thoroughly background check them first, check criminal records, check basis for asylum claims to ensure these are people in genuine need, then allow those granted asylum via the quota to come to Australia after their claim is granted, by normal means of transport, and they can then integrate and work immediately with accommodation/ employment having been arranged in advance rather than them being a drain on resources and contributing nothing for years. This is also far better for the refugees.

It also means they know who the people are so if they subsequently break the law they can be deported to their country of origin far more easily. The granting of a place can be made conditional upon taking up work set up for them in advance in occupations that the UK requires according to their level of skill so there is a clear expectation that they contribute and it can be made clear in advance what is expected regarding compliance with our cultural norms and laws.

As a result, people trying to enter Australia without a visa or pre-approved asylum having been granted is now rare.

Denmark has sensible policies in place now: limiting asylum claims which are granted to 2-3 years and then reviewing periodically whether their home countries/ areas are now safe for them to be returned. Refugee status is temporary and is not a route to permanent residence/ citizenship.

They also have strict criteria for family reunification: if you wish to bring other family members at a later date you must show you are able to support them financially, provide housing for them etc, that you have stable employment and have passed language competency tests. You have to show you have been self-sustaining and not accessing any kind of welfare for several years before this will be considered.

Since such a low percentage of refugees in the UK (with claims granted) work (or at least, not in legal employment paying tax) let alone are self-sustaining this would prevent most from subsequently applying to bring here to join them multiple family members who speak no English and have zero work prospects and no intention of integrating.

One of the big pulls to the UK and why so many men arrive alone is because they can then bring extended family later. If we imposed rules like the above the incentive to come here would be far lower because the chances would be very low of most of those arriving currently being able to meet the criteria for family reunification i.e. demonstrate sufficient earnings to support extended family members as well as themselves and the employment record and language competency required to meet these criteria.

This would also discourage black market working because if working in the black market they could never demonstrate their income to meet the criteria to bring family to the UK, and it would also encourage those genuinely trying to build a new life here to work hard, pay tax and integrate. Plus, we need ID cards to stamp out black market working in general.

While the plight of many around the world is terrible, there is obviously a limit to how many people the UK can sustain so sensible measures have to be taken to make coming here without permission far less attractive, and to provide a sensible way to integrate a smaller number coming here with permission in advance, ensuring these are people with genuine claims and who are not violent/ criminal and do actually intend to integrate and work to provide for themselves.

Edited

Australia has successfully stopped crossings. We could do this but they are not part of an external court system, and currently that is our stumbling block.

suburburban · 15/08/2026 11:44

NotNowBernardNotEver · 15/08/2026 11:32

Australia has a fairly sensible system. We cannot turn boats around in the way they can for obvious reasons (geography, origin of migrants, size of boat involved etc) but they remove all migrants arriving without prior agreement/ visa/ papers to remote processing centres on separate islands. The UK has many such uninhabited island territories. There is also a law that nobody arriving by illegal methods without a visa will ever be granted entry to Australia to live or even visit as a tourist. Such rules make attempting to enter without prior arrangement far less attractive.

They take a quota which they determine per year who arrive with permission (around 20k per year I think) and thoroughly background check them first, check criminal records, check basis for asylum claims to ensure these are people in genuine need, then allow those granted asylum via the quota to come to Australia after their claim is granted, by normal means of transport, and they can then integrate and work immediately with accommodation/ employment having been arranged in advance rather than them being a drain on resources and contributing nothing for years. This is also far better for the refugees.

It also means they know who the people are so if they subsequently break the law they can be deported to their country of origin far more easily. The granting of a place can be made conditional upon taking up work set up for them in advance in occupations that the UK requires according to their level of skill so there is a clear expectation that they contribute and it can be made clear in advance what is expected regarding compliance with our cultural norms and laws.

As a result, people trying to enter Australia without a visa or pre-approved asylum having been granted is now rare.

Denmark has sensible policies in place now: limiting asylum claims which are granted to 2-3 years and then reviewing periodically whether their home countries/ areas are now safe for them to be returned. Refugee status is temporary and is not a route to permanent residence/ citizenship.

They also have strict criteria for family reunification: if you wish to bring other family members at a later date you must show you are able to support them financially, provide housing for them etc, that you have stable employment and have passed language competency tests. You have to show you have been self-sustaining and not accessing any kind of welfare for several years before this will be considered.

Since such a low percentage of refugees in the UK (with claims granted) work (or at least, not in legal employment paying tax) let alone are self-sustaining this would prevent most from subsequently applying to bring here to join them multiple family members who speak no English and have zero work prospects and no intention of integrating.

One of the big pulls to the UK and why so many men arrive alone is because they can then bring extended family later. If we imposed rules like the above the incentive to come here would be far lower because the chances would be very low of most of those arriving currently being able to meet the criteria for family reunification i.e. demonstrate sufficient earnings to support extended family members as well as themselves and the employment record and language competency required to meet these criteria.

This would also discourage black market working because if working in the black market they could never demonstrate their income to meet the criteria to bring family to the UK, and it would also encourage those genuinely trying to build a new life here to work hard, pay tax and integrate. Plus, we need ID cards to stamp out black market working in general.

While the plight of many around the world is terrible, there is obviously a limit to how many people the UK can sustain so sensible measures have to be taken to make coming here without permission far less attractive, and to provide a sensible way to integrate a smaller number coming here with permission in advance, ensuring these are people with genuine claims and who are not violent/ criminal and do actually intend to integrate and work to provide for themselves.

Edited

Sounds like a good plan

geniusinajar · 15/08/2026 11:48

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 11:31

Yup, Communism in action. Or "equal opportunity for uniformity."

Well, at least in return the middle classes will get the hotel experience...I'm quite looking forward to not having any bills to pay.

Nomoreicecream · 15/08/2026 11:49

geniusinajar · 15/08/2026 11:48

Well, at least in return the middle classes will get the hotel experience...I'm quite looking forward to not having any bills to pay.

😆

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:55

Blondiebeachbabe · 15/08/2026 10:36

Third, it’s racist to treat all young male migrants as potential rapists or terrorists. Most people arriving by small boat never commit an offence. Security services assess individuals based on evidence and intelligence, not stereotypes

And there we have it! ☝You're so scared to be called a racist, that you would throw our own women and girls under the bus. If some are raped and attacked, at least we can't be called racist.

SOFT.

Coming back to this because it’s quite incredible how successfully the gov has convinced many on here to accept the risk.

Labour are stuck currently on what to do about crossings so go for the misleading idea men are checked and that if women don’t want their DDs near any extra risk then it’s their failing.

It’s quite something it’s so prevalent and accepted.

Nuthatch26 · 15/08/2026 12:04

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:55

Coming back to this because it’s quite incredible how successfully the gov has convinced many on here to accept the risk.

Labour are stuck currently on what to do about crossings so go for the misleading idea men are checked and that if women don’t want their DDs near any extra risk then it’s their failing.

It’s quite something it’s so prevalent and accepted.

Yes it is incredible how some see this. I don't accept being collateral damage.
Do we really believe that the taliban keep and share records of men who rape and abuse women?

NotNowBernardNotEver · 15/08/2026 12:08

EasternStandard · 15/08/2026 11:36

Australia has successfully stopped crossings. We could do this but they are not part of an external court system, and currently that is our stumbling block.

Not really. As I said, various countries have taken effective measures not just Australia.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.