Should the right to asylum be stopped?

[Esceptico]

Someone asked recently in the lounge if anyone had changed their mind. One example for me is asylum.

Forty years ago I was a firm believer, now I’m not so sure. Back then I had a naive view that asylum was for people like exiled politicians from strife torn countries that needed protection and a temporary home.

For many years asylum seems to have become an enabler of illegal immigration. Not that I blame the migrants. Huge numbers of people live in war torn, corrupt or simple poor countries with few opportunities. Hardly surprising that a small percentage try to escape those situations to give them and their families a chance of a better future. But even a small percentage of billions living in poverty is a large number. The problem isn’t going away as most of the world’s projected growth in population is in those poor countries and the worst projected impacts of climate change are also in those areas with large and growing populations.

I assume that because of international obligations the UK couldn’t unilaterally stop the right to asylum but if we could, should we?

[biggbn]

No.

[InitialDave]

Absolutely not.

[Jonathan27]

I'm genuinely disappointed that anyone would suggest this. Please try to avoid conflating immigration with asylum, if this isn't what your doing, the please take along hard look at yourself!

[Dog Star]

I’ve long been of the opinion that the vast majority of asylum seekers these days are simply taking the piss. As you say it’s just an enabler of illegal immigration.

I’ve a number of bugbears with all this. First of all it might change a lot of folks opinion if their town had to house them, if their local services and schools (in an already “deprived” town) had to support them (with no additional funding. I live in the borough in the U.K. which is housing the most asylum seekers. Southerners (and many on this forum) will say it’s because housing is cheaper. Don’t care. Every town in the U.K. should take a share based on X asylum seekers per Y population. We are all in this together, right? See how the rest of you like it, and having your town sneered at by the rest of the population. We would soon see the likes of Patel actually doing something proper about it if her (or other Tory) constituents got their borough housing flooded with them and might see something proper being done.

There’s a raving leftist I know - lives in a village near York - “let them in” “give them passports” he bellows! Won’t affect him, will it. The cock.

There’s an injustice here too - these economic migrants come here and get everything on a plate. Housing, health, right to remain etc etc. my sisters husband is Turkish. He came here and abides by the rule of law. My sister had to have a fairly hefty amount of money in the bank so he would be granted a visa. Every year he has to renew his visa (they have just done the last one after several years). They’re over £3k a year. This is for a hard working couple (no kids) on minimum wage (he has a full time job and a part time bar job). You tell me it’s fair that these boatloads of people just rock up and are let in, yet a legitimate immigrant obeying the law has to jump through hoops and graft his heart out just to stay.

I’ve no truck with “asylum seekers”.

Just to clarify: I’m not remotely in favour of not taking on asylum seekers or stopping the asylum system. It’s “asylum seekers” (in quotes) that I have an issue with, and these have undermined a lot of peoples faith and trust in the system.

Edited by Dog Star on Tuesday 21st December 18:08

[anonymous-user]

Presumably this would come at the cost of British people permanently losing their own right to asylum in other nations? Things are very stable for me and people like me in the UK now, but not sure I'd want to trade that particular human right away forever.

[coppernorks]

MrMan001 said:

Presumably this would come at the cost of British people permanently losing their own right to asylum in other nations? Things are very stable for me and people like me in the UK now, but not sure I'd want to trade that particular human right away forever.

Are there many Brits fleeing the UK because of human rights violations and seeking asylum in a safe country ?

[valiant]

Absolutely not.

[cayman-black]

Dog Star said:

I’ve long been of the opinion that the vast majority of asylum seekers these days are simply taking the piss. As you say it’s just an enabler of illegal immigration.

I’ve a number of bugbears with all this. First of all it might change a lot of folks opinion if their town had to house them, if their local services and schools (in an already “deprived” town) had to support them (with no additional funding. I live in the borough in the U.K. which is housing the most asylum seekers. Southerners (and many on this forum) will say it’s because housing is cheaper. Don’t care. Every town in the U.K. should take a share based on X asylum seekers per Y population. We are all in this together, right? See how the rest of you like it, and having your town sneered at by the rest of the population. We would soon see the likes of Patel actually doing something proper about it if her (or other Tory) constituents got their borough housing flooded with them and might see something proper being done.

There’s a raving leftist I know - lives in a village near York - “let them in” “give them passports” he bellows! Won’t affect him, will it. The cock.

There’s an injustice here too - these economic migrants come here and get everything on a plate. Housing, health, right to remain etc etc. my sisters husband is Turkish. He came here and abides by the rule of law. My sister had to have a fairly hefty amount of money in the bank so he would be granted a visa. Every year he has to renew his visa (they have just done the last one after several years). They’re over £3k a year. This is for a hard working couple (no kids) on minimum wage (he has a full time job and a part time bar job). You tell me it’s fair that these boatloads of people just rock up and are let in, yet a legitimate immigrant obeying the law has to jump through hoops and graft his heart out just to stay.

I’ve no truck with “asylum seekers”.

Just to clarify: I’m not remotely in favour of not taking on asylum seekers or stopping the asylum system. It’s “asylum seekers” (in quotes) that I have an issue with, and these have undermined a lot of peoples faith and trust in the system.

Edited by Dog Star on Tuesday 21st December 18:08

Hopefully Dog your post will make some folk think!

[anonymous-user]

No! asylum seekers and illegal immigrants/economic migrants are not the same thing. Proper controls on the latter is needed, but to stop the right to genuine asylum is crazy and sad its being suggested. If the asylum systems around the world are being abused, or not properly controlled it is not the fault of those in genuine need.

[anonymous-user]

coppernorks said:

Are there many Brits fleeing the UK because of human rights violations and seeking asylum in a safe country ?

Not recently, but historically there have been. The old idea of a right to sanctuary was developed significantly within England. Seems a bit shortsighted to assume things will always be fine here, and not fine elsewhere.

[Dog Star]

MonkeyMatt said:

No! asylum seekers and illegal immigrants/economic migrants are not the same thing. Proper controls on the latter is needed, but to stop the right to genuine asylum is crazy and sad its being suggested. If the asylum systems around the world are being abused, or not properly controlled it is not the fault of those in genuine need.

Hence my use of asylum seekers in quotes.

[Jonathan27]

Dog Star said:

I’ve long been of the opinion that the vast majority of asylum seekers these days are simply taking the piss. As you say it’s just an enabler of illegal immigration.

I’ve a number of bugbears with all this. First of all it might change a lot of folks opinion if their town had to house them, if their local services and schools (in an already “deprived” town) had to support them (with no additional funding. I live in the borough in the U.K. which is housing the most asylum seekers. Southerners (and many on this forum) will say it’s because housing is cheaper. Don’t care. Every town in the U.K. should take a share based on X asylum seekers per Y population. We are all in this together, right? See how the rest of you like it, and having your town sneered at by the rest of the population. We would soon see the likes of Patel actually doing something proper about it if her (or other Tory) constituents got their borough housing flooded with them and might see something proper being done.

There’s a raving leftist I know - lives in a village near York - “let them in” “give them passports” he bellows! Won’t affect him, will it. The cock.

There’s an injustice here too - these economic migrants come here and get everything on a plate. Housing, health, right to remain etc etc. my sisters husband is Turkish. He came here and abides by the rule of law. My sister had to have a fairly hefty amount of money in the bank so he would be granted a visa. Every year he has to renew his visa (they have just done the last one after several years). They’re over £3k a year. This is for a hard working couple (no kids) on minimum wage (he has a full time job and a part time bar job). You tell me it’s fair that these boatloads of people just rock up and are let in, yet a legitimate immigrant obeying the law has to jump through hoops and graft his heart out just to stay.

I’ve no truck with “asylum seekers”.

Just to clarify: I’m not remotely in favour of not taking on asylum seekers or stopping the asylum system. It’s “asylum seekers” (in quotes) that I have an issue with, and these have undermined a lot of peoples faith and trust in the system.

Edited by Dog Star on Tuesday 21st December 18:08

Two things that stand out to me here;

1- If you think that the system is being abused, then the answer is to fix the system, not to stop taking asylum seekers.

2 - "these economic migrants come here and get everything on a plate. Housing, health, right to remain etc etc" the same could be said of the people who were born here. Personally if someone is being persecuted in their home country, or staying in their home country represent s a threat to their lives, then I'm all for offering them health care, safety and housing on a plate. I would willingly do so ahead of may home grown brits, who are born in to safety, freedom and opportunity and instead decide to freeload.

[Esceptico]

Jonathan27 said:

I'm genuinely disappointed that anyone would suggest this. Please try to avoid conflating immigration with asylum, if this isn't what your doing, the please take along hard look at yourself!

I emigrated to NZ a couple of years ago. It was a difficult and very expense process. Recently I’ve been doing some voluntary English teaching. I was teaching an asylum seeker from a South American country. South America in general isn’t great but not like it is war torn. This person’s daughter had managed to get to NZ and stayed long enough to get a permanent residence visa. Her parents would not have qualified (over 70, no job, insufficient qualifications). So they got a plane ticket and tourist visa then claimed asylum when they landed. Hardly seems fair on those that have tried legally to get to NZ but failed or were working and were forced to leave after losing their jobs (or like an Indian friend who went to visit her mother who had just had a mastectomy and chemo before Covid to find that she couldn’t get back in as she wasn’t a permanent resident).

[anonymous-user]

Esceptico said:

I emigrated to NZ a couple of years ago. It was a difficult and very expense process. Recently I’ve been doing some voluntary English teaching. I was teaching an asylum seeker from a South American country. South America in general isn’t great but not like it is war torn. This person’s daughter had managed to get to NZ and stayed long enough to get a permanent residence visa. Her parents would not have qualified (over 70, no job, insufficient qualifications). So they got a plane ticket and tourist visa then claimed asylum when they landed. Hardly seems fair on those that have tried legally to get to NZ but failed or were working and were forced to leave after losing their jobs (or like an Indian friend who went to visit her mother who had just had a mastectomy and chemo before Covid to find that she couldn’t get back in as she wasn’t a permanent resident).

Didn't this part of the World end up the way it is because of people moving away from economic/political stresses and uncertainties at home? Perhaps not 'asylum seekers' in the modern sense, but not a million miles away either.

[coppernorks]

Esceptico said:

I emigrated to NZ a couple of years ago. It was a difficult and very expense process. Recently I’ve been doing some voluntary English teaching. I was teaching an asylum seeker from a South American country. South America in general isn’t great but not like it is war torn. This person’s daughter had managed to get to NZ and stayed long enough to get a permanent residence visa. Her parents would not have qualified (over 70, no job, insufficient qualifications). So they got a plane ticket and tourist visa then claimed asylum when they landed. Hardly seems fair on those that have tried legally to get to NZ but failed or were working and were forced to leave after losing their jobs (or like an Indian friend who went to visit her mother who had just had a mastectomy and chemo before Covid to find that she couldn’t get back in as she wasn’t a permanent resident).

Interesting.

NZ with a piffling population density of 47 to a sq. mile is hugely more stringent re immigrants and asylum seekers compared to
the " come in, the benefits are lovely, bring your entire extended family as well " attitude of the UK with a stonkingly high population density of 727 persons per sq. mile.

Maybe that Jacinda lass is more canny than she makes out.

[Esceptico]

Jonathan27 said:

Two things that stand out to me here;

1- If you think that the system is being abused, then the answer is to fix the system, not to stop taking asylum seekers.

2 - "these economic migrants come here and get everything on a plate. Housing, health, right to remain etc etc" the same could be said of the people who were born here. Personally if someone is being persecuted in their home country, or staying in their home country represent s a threat to their lives, then I'm all for offering them health care, safety and housing on a plate. I would willingly do so ahead of may home grown brits, who are born in to safety, freedom and opportunity and instead decide to freeload.

How do you fix the system? There are probably hundreds of millions if not billions of people on the planet would could legitimately claim they don’t live in a safe country and so have a right to asylum. Are you proposing that the richer countries should take them all? If not then who should be allowed? Those with enough resources (and willing to break enough laws) to physically arrive and so force us to give them asylum?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Not done away with completely but certainly narrowed in focus. It should be a temporary measure for people who are facing real persecution and have some genuine reason to be here. It seems to be used as a migration route for people who think they can do better here, and for people who have trekked across Europe to get here, which is totally unacceptable to my mind, and obviously a few others.

I would like to see a two pronged approach to make it easier and quicker to apply from outside the country on the one hand, and on the other make sure that the people smuggling and illegal entry method never work.

[2xChevrons]

coppernorks said:

Interesting.

NZ with a piffling population density of 47 to a sq. mile is hugely more stringent re immigrants and asylum seekers compared to
the " come in, the benefits are lovely, bring your entire extended family as well " attitude of the UK with a stonkingly high population density of 727 persons per sq. mile.

Maybe that Jacinda lass is more canny than she makes out.

New Zealand has exactly the same policy to asylum seekers as the UK does and is signatory to the same treaties - anyone can claim protected person/refugee status if they are in NZ and fear returning to their home country, and NZ will not deport anyone while their claim is processed.

That's not the same as NZ's requirements for emigration/permanent residency.

Equally, for the UK the standard requirement for a family visa is to prove a combined annual income of at least £18,600, with extra income for each child. Even applying for a visa costs over £1500 per person. Then there's the healthcare surcharge and the cost of the various background checks and documents from your home country etc. And that's on top of the new points system which adds further standards to meet.

So NZ and the UK's approaches to asylum seekers and immigrants are not all that different at all.

But immigrants and asylum seekers are entirely different cases.

[StevieBee]

Dog Star said:

You tell me it’s fair that these boatloads of people just rock up and are let in, yet a legitimate immigrant obeying the law has to jump through hoops and graft his heart out just to stay.

In about a year from now, maybe 18 months, the northern coast of France will be overwhelmed with thousands and thousands of Afghans seeking entry into the country that sought their help in return for the promise of a safe, secure and prosperous future only to ps off when it mattered the most and leave them to it. These will not be unskilled chancers. They will be mostly educated, middle class. They will have left their BMWs and Mercedes on the drives of their nice homes.

I say this not to disagree with your post or opinions which have merit. Only to demonstrate that the issue is more complex and nuanced that it may first appear.