Refugees

[InayaWoo]

Am I wrong to feel the people of this country are using the "Cost of Living" narrative to justify not helping migrants and refugees who seek refuge for themselves? Neglecting our British values, passing the buck to Rwanda and European countries. The attitude towards those fleeing war zones and risking everything to come to this country on harsh waters is outrageous!

I was in the corner shop today and over heard a couple of women making digs about foreigners. To make unjustified claims such as "it makes us unsafe", "we don't have jobs" or my personal favourite - "they don't integrate into society." What on earth has happened to our British values? To make others feel welcome and to help others in need of help!

Every human has a right to safety, affordable housing, food, water, education and a healthcare system. Those are all things our wonderful country can provide and quite frankly has a moral obligation to provide for those coming from other parts of the world that aren't as fortunate as us.

I know we are coming from all over
Iirc stats show that most come from India, Pakistan and few others. ME is low.

Well clearly they don't or there wouldn't be people living on the streets.

@InayaWoo "I don’t support dictatorships."

No? But you support Sharia Law which is the same thing with religion thrown in.

• Nationals of five countries – Iran, Albania, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria – made up 71% of those crossing in small boats between 2018 and March 2023.

(From Migration Observatory).

Looks like the ME to me 🙄

They don’t care, at all.

That’s a part of the religion so to ask them to completely veto that seems unfair. It’s not the religion, it’s more the cultural aspect.

There is a difference between immigrants and migrants....
And just to add, there is also difference bewtween the above and people crossing on boats

So they should follow the part that says a man can beat his wife ?

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”

What is the difference?

I’m saying If we preach acceptance and fairness for all then we have to tolerate that they do have different backgrounds and not everyone thinks identically to you. I’m not saying it’s right and I’m not saying I agree but I am saying we should lead by example and be tolerant.

You can google that. @Grannysmithsfrisbee

The post was about immigrants voting for something. Only specific immigrants can vote in refs and GEs. Not the migrants/asylum seekers (these are now used basically interchangeably) and not the people from countries which are prominent in channel crossing.
Do you people think that Syrian just rocks up and can vote???

We should be 'tolerant' of man beating his wife ?? I've heard it all now.

I'm surprised the feminists aren't all over this 🙄

Just have ;

"The word migrant refers to someone who moves to other places in search of work or better living conditions.
The word immigrant refers to those who have moved to foreign countries permanently for work or for better living conditions."

@Grannysmithsfrisbee and npw google where most of immigrants to UK come from

IApparently, India tops the list, followed by Poland, Pakistan, Romania, China, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Italy, the US, and Lithuania

That's what I said!

Op said "many immigrants here" hence I took it as she was talking about immigrants here, especially considering asylum seekers (alongside many immigrants) can't vote! As much as we immigrants know how hard starts can be, no way would most of us (eligible to vote) vote for whatever that brainfart was.

I do think there is lots of confusion about asylum seekers/ illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. It’s the legal immigrants more than anything which is a problem. Simply because of the volume. 600k net incoming volume can’t be absorbed- where is everyone going to live/ go to school/ hospital etc??? The government is wrong to allow this volume. Refugees is a completely different question and needs different policies.

Yes they are unjustified, on the whole. Obviously there are exceptions, and it is hardly surprising if people who have been forced out of their homes and countries and have had to start again struggle with things like learning the language and following customs which may seem alien to them. However, we can't exactly claim that non-immigrants are innocent of crime or failure to work.

We are very much a mongrel country, going right back to the days of Viking and Roman invasions, and with a proud tradition of taking in refugees going back to French Huguenots in the 16th century and beyond. You simply cannot generalise and say that immigrants never assimilate, because demonstrably that is just not true.

What one asylum seeker does says nothing about others. I know you aren't suggesting that, @Meadowfinch, but it does annoy me when people use these cases as some sort of evidence that all refugees are dangerous thugs. Again, it's not as if we don't have more than our share of home-grown thugs and murderers.

That seems to be overall migration not refugees. The majority of those will have come in on visas which are likely to mean that they will not be dependent on social housing. In the year to June 2023, it's worth noting that the percentage arriving on humanitarian routes decreased from 19% to 9%. The largest contributor to non-EU immigration (39%) was study, and the vast majority of students leave within five years. Of those who don't, most transition to work visas.

It is often the case in unstable countries that male refugees are in more danger than women and children because, for example, political opponents perceive that they constitute more of a danger to them, and therefore they need to get out quickly. It also often makes sense for the young male members of the family to go first so that, if their asylum claim is accepted, they will be able to start working, earning money to enable them to set up a home for the rest of the family.

Obviously I am not naive and I accept that there are a number of non-genuine asylum seekers, inevitably. However, generalising that no young man can possibly be a genuine refugee is just folly.

I would love to emigrate from the uk, however try getting into another country as a Brit is difficult. Unfortunately you can’t just choose what country you want to live but that’s what people expect when they come to the UK.

If you really think any British family is worse off that someone who has been bombed out of their home in the Ukraine, you have some strange perceptions.

Well, no, it isn't. Legal migrants, who make up the vast majority of the immigration figures, know perfectly well that they have to comply with our immigration requirements. Refugees also know that they will have to satisfy the Home Office that they have a genuine claim to asylum.

No, there are plenty of refugees for whom their home country is extremely dangerous, but they are not fleeing war.

To take an obvious example, if a Jewish refugee from Germany or Austria had turned up here in 1938, they would not have been fleeing war. According to you, they should have been sent back to the concentration camps because they were just here to milk the system.