Afghan women may be offered "safe route" to resettle in the UK as refugees

[IwantToRetire]

Shabana Mahmood has announced the reopening of a scheme to resettle refugees in the UK, as she hopes that offering "safe and legal" routes will deter small boat crossings.

The home secretary said the UK wants to "live up to our international obligations" by helping those who are fleeing war and persecution, but the process must be "capped and controlled".

The Home Office said the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS) will reopen immediately and expects that around 25% of arrivals will be Afghan women and girls and Palestinians.

The Home Office expects arrivals to increase to the "low thousands" as levels of illegal migration fall.

A cap will be set for each year although details of the number have yet to be provided.

People arriving in Britain under the safe and legal routes will be be put on a five-year path to permanent settlement.

Full article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5vgyj8k3dzgo

Well it does seem particularly unfair that the default of refusal to Afghani refugers requesting asylum includes women. In my opinion women fleeing Afghanistan should have a route to claim asylum and it should not be a prohibitively difficult route . So much as I disagree with a lot that Shabana Mahmood says and does, I think this makes a lot of sense to me.

Also I'm never sure of what the point is of saying "illegal" arrivals should not be allowed to claim refugee status, when there are no available legal ways to do this at the moment

Why the cap on numbers though? These women absolutely should be allowed to leave the regime they are living under.

Good....Afghanistan is a hell hole for women.

As it is a HUGE male majority coming from a variety of countries arriving in the boats, I am failing to see how this will stop the illegal crossings?

Providing the women are not then able to bring in any number of men then great - but I can absolutely see that women could be used as a commodity by men here.

This needs serious safeguarding considerations to ensure the safety of women.
However I'd like to see a safe homeland for them rather than them having to flee. There's probably no way of achieving that.

An American soldier noted on entering Germany as victory was declared that it'd been full of Nazis and suddenly there were none.

Wrt Afghan women - not sure how these women are going to leave the country if they're not even able to leave their homes. It would surprise me if the Taliban are facilitating their womens emancipation, maybe Shabana has some sort of underground railroad via Pakistan?
Lets hope there can be a happy equilibrium between the culture they escape and the culture they arrive into.
Wrt palestinian refugees, the ones who escape tend to do it by the grace of, or connections to hamas, that sort of obligation has already caused problems in the UK. Some evidence suggests these issues haven't been considered in the past.
Apparently several universities are planning marches in support of palestine....on October 7th.

Ah well, to paraphrase Tony Blair, ' integration, integration, integration.'

I haven't had time to check but I think this refers to women who have somehow already left Afghanistan and are surviving in some sort of camp or temporary shelter.

The problem for them and in fact all refugees, and this isn't just the UK, countries do not as they did in the past, have a process whereby a refugee in say France would go to the British Embassy and start the application process.

So not in any condoning the boats crossing the channel, but in the dumb stupidity of Government, having not provided any means to apply from any other country, if you can get into the UK you can then apply! Many many people have pointed out this as being an logistical issue which if solved would help the situation.

I think this is more like the Ukrainian system ie in advance they are saying which refugees would be considered rather than saying everyone apply.

Why are they restricting numbers. I suspect to avoid tabloid headlines. Because although some might say these women are welcome, there is an element that would say the UK is full, the UK cant afford anybody from another country to come here even if they are vulnerable women.

But suspect we will have to wait until we see the detail.

But it does raise the issue, if any of the women from Afghanistan do get settled status, they are more than likely to want to have some family members join them. Or are the expected to accept, it they get settle status, they will never have any family members able to live with them.

A bit late to may have misheard, but just on the news now. Apparently this process seems to be that someone has to be sponsored or put forward by a charity to able to make an application.

Will it be one of those charities that has a reputation of male workers using the power of their position to exploit vulnerable women and girls?

Aye a home from home for the men that cannot be tolerated in any way.

Considering the mess we left in Afghanistan after our invasion and everything this country has done to harm the Palestinians since WW2, offering their women somewhere safe to go is the least we should be doing.

I imagined something like Linda Norgrove which has already been bringing Afghan women medical students here to finish their training. In small numbers.

Seems reasonable to create a safe and legal route that is capped. One would hope the 'skilled worker' scheme is looked at and tightened up.

All in favour of offering Afghani women and girls asylum provided they’re not bribing men with them. Iranian women also

Palestinians I have more reservations about - how do we know they’re not Hamas? How do we know they’re not the civilians who flooded through the border on October 7th kidnapping and murdering? That they didn’t hold hostages or dance with joy around the Bibas children’s coffins?

As others have said, if the woman have their right to stay here approved, then they will have a legal right to bring their men.
No thanks.
I think it must be one of the most cloth-eared pieces of policy ever (and I used to admire Mahmoud).

I think the rationale is that a legal route will reduce net immigration.

I think the rationale is that a legal route will reduce net immigration
Why?

Palestinians I have more reservations about - how do we know they’re not Hamas? How do we know they’re not the civilians who flooded through the border on October 7th kidnapping and murdering? That they didn’t hold hostages or dance with joy around the Bibas children’s coffins?
They f**k up the countries that grant them asylum. Why else has Egypt built a wall?

The problem is though, that once here, they will be able to apply for their husbands and family to come under current laws. Afghan men have unfortunately shown themselves to be disproportionately involved in sex crimes in the UK. Of course I am sympathetic to the plight of women living in Afghanistan, but they will almost certainly prove a drain on public finances, and I am more than a little concerned about male family members coming to join them.

They will have the right to bring any relations including men for "family reunification". Afghan men are 14 to 20 times more likely to commit sexual offences than British men. Which is obvious I suppose.

Not so long ago, a Palestinian woman was allowed to stay. And brought in her family.
All 17 of them

Labour are opening the doors to "Palestinians". Not just women and children.

Presumably because the women will then bring those men over under the right to family life. See the post above about 17 family members - each woman will be able to bring many men.

This explains the process. I imagine this thread will reveal how honest the “I wouldn’t object if the refugees were Afghan women” posters were being.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-resettlement-scheme-reopens-for-new-referrals

Family reunion has been suspended.

https://www.gov.uk/settlement-refugee-or-humanitarian-protection/family-reunion