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

Because England is already the most densely populated country in Europe and cannot feed itself already without adding another 25 million women (who will then be allowed to bring in at least as many men). More housing and solar farms for energy means we are even less able to feed ourselves and dependent on imports in a world where food will be an increasingly valuable commodity. The idea that we can support anyone who would like to come here is just a fantasy.

Plus when you have that many members of the Taliban in the UK (and Hamas from Palestine) how long before they exert political control that will see the same oppressive regimes introduced here?

One of my concerns is the involvement of charities etc. The government has been reluctant to do anything about misogyny in mosques, they have failed to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. Many charities are full on Hamas supporters. What is there to stop forced marriages being arranged undercover of this.
There are no robust safeguards.

A Dedicated Community Sponsorship Route: Starting in October 2026, UK charities, non-profits, faith groups, and grassroots community organizations can officially apply to become sponsors. Under this framework, local groups directly host and support arriving refugees.

Well. Eighth, according to this table.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Let's not quibble. There are still far too many people on this small island. And not enough houses for everyone here. And Id rather our landscape not be wrecked any more. No need to import large numbers.

I’m interested where you pick up ‘facts’ like ‘the most densely populated country in Europe’. Does it just feel true or did you hear it somewhere and not bother to check?

People make claims about stats or data, I check them.

My point still stands though. We are overcrowded and don't need to import more people. People who can't look after themselves and who will be able to bring in their families. It's not a good idea

Well, the poster did say England, not the UK, and like it or not England is what we're not unlikely to be left with within our lifetimes.

If you exclude the tiny micro/city-states, which inevitably dominate these rankings and don't really 'count' for these purposes because they weren't ever set up to be on a viable scale of self-sufficiency in terms of food, energy, etc, then, yes, Enland is the most densely populated in Europe, more so than all of the Benelux countries.

My take on letting "Afghan women" in is that it'd be a superb idea if we were somehow targeting women whose lifestyles had fallen foul of Taliban strictures, e.g. women who wanted to play sport, have a career, get an education, marry another woman, etc, & who wanted to embrace life in a secular democracy.

If we were simply talking about 'typical' Afghan woman, whose immedate priority could easily be to import one or more 'typical' Afghan men to live with them in an Afghan lifestyle/in a UK Afghan enclave, then it'd be clearly be an awful idea. Larger numbers of Afghan men, unless somehow hand-picked from the very most educated and enlightened end of the population, can only bring yet more problems.

To be fair, out of all the countries listed as more densely populated than the UK in that table, only four actually take in refugees (Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Malta).

The rest are tiny islands and micro-states like the Vatican and Monaco.

It sounds good in theory. From what I have seen on documentaries, Afghanistan is one of the worst places to be a woman or girl in this day and age. If they came and assimilated in British culture, they could be educated equally to their male counterparts, perform in front of men and women, play sports, protest and speak openly, be openly homosexual if that was their orientation, and so many other things that would sadly be prohibited in their own country.

However, aren't most of those Afghan women likely to be married, and if they are permitted to settle in the UK, won't that give their husbands a legal right to live here, too? That would still mean thousands of Afghan men coming to live in a country and culture that is very different to the one that they've grown up in... and I'd have reservations about the conflict that would be likely to create.

the inclusion of Turkey is fairly meaningless, they're only counting the tiny Western edge of Turkey, the small part of it which is inside Europe, the rest being in Asia, i.e. they're more or less only counting Istanbul and its surrounding region, which of course has a high population density.

A friend lives near a house in another country where Afghan women have been put by the government. They don't assimilate. They don't leave the house. They can't speak the language. They speak to no one. They have all bills paid for by the state as they cannot work. All food is delivered. They leave their bin bags out to rot as they either don't know how to put their bins out for collection or don't want to. Afghan men visit occasionally.

That table doesn’t give data for England

Overcrowded is pretty vague, though. Based on what metrics/

Can you prove otherwise (excluding micro or city states)? The population of England is around 440 people per km2, Netherlands is next at 424.

No, because the relevant country is 'UK', not England. We don't have meaningful borders within the UK.

one that basis you must exclude all of the Schengen area including Netherlands and Belgium.

Policy on immigration and asylum is made at a U.K. level. If you meant just England that would be irrelevant. Did you mean to be wrong or just irrelevant?

Based on 72 million on a small landmass. Thats an awful lot of people. It shows by long traffic jams on our roads, thousands of tiny houses being built all over the countryside and long waiting lists. And an inability to get away from people everywhere! There are very few empty spaces left sadly. Its changed significantly in the south East for example.

Busily shifting the fence posts there I see.

I would say based on ability to sustain ourselves - with water, food and energy.

While I can absolutely sympathise with the wish to help Afghani women, I wonder how effective it will be in deterring irregular arrivals from Afghanistan, who are currently predominantly males.

The Labour government aims to reduce the number of Afghan men arriving via irregular routes—such as small boat crossings—by offering a stark contrast in legal status and settlement security.
^^
Refugees who are resettled via the reopened UKRS will receive a direct, 5-year path to permanent citizenship (Indefinite Leave to Remain).

Conversely, those who arrive irregularly via the English Channel will face severe restrictions. The government plans to subject irregular arrivals to a constant review of their refugee status, meaning it could take up to 20 years to secure permanent settlement.

But how will it stop men who won’t qualify under the new scheme (as someone’s husband or underage son) from trying their luck via boat crossing anyway?

The government plans to subject irregular arrivals to a constant review of their refugee status, meaning it could take up to 20 years to secure permanent settlement.

What's the difference really? If they are here for 20 years? That doesn't look particularly dissuasive.

Exactly.
And we should be taking women from Iran who are being subjected to
appalling fates for protesting.
We do NOT need hijab/clad submissive Afghan women who do not speak English with several dependent children who will in any case be used by their menfolk to get them across too.