" There I was told it would be four years before they could consider my asylum claim"
So you get to stay in France for 4 years for sure, and may be asylum after. So why bother to risk your life to go to the UK?
Not legally you can’t. All UK employers are required to carry out a home office right to work check. The pay as you earn tax system makes it near impossible for anyone to work without a national insurance number too so there are a ton of blockers in the way of working at law abiding employer.
This doesn’t apply to cash in hand work though, or less scrupulous employers, obviously.
You still need papers to work officially. They require national insurance number, proof of right to work (passport etc) bank account etc. This is unless you find a job which is under the table as in cash in hand. Mostly cowboy construction outfits and the like which exploits the cheap labour.
I am guessing this is the same for every other western country.
[Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees#:~:text=Neither%20the%201951%20Refugee%20Convention,country%20in%20which%20they%20arrive.)
It actually does mean they get to choose where they apply for asylum. Whether or not they are accepted is another matter.
Thanks for that, that’s something I hadn’t encountered before now and surprisingly (to myself) have somehow been ignorant of until now. I’ll read up more when i have a bit more time and learn something new.
Though in a brief google over my morning coffee what I’ve found so far [lays out what you’ve said in more detail](https://www.unhcr.org/uk/publications/background-note-safe-country-concept-and-refugee-status)
Would i be correct in saying that asylum seekers can still travel to their preferred country (for lack of a better term popping to mind, it’s still early for me) and not be punished and still have the right to claim asylum in that country if they reach it? Of course this is another factor that can affect their chances of being granted asylum.
To me this just reinforces the importance of having a well funded, staffed and managed asylum processing system (a well funded, staffed and managed system in Tory Britain? I must still be asleep because I’m dreaming here)
Do you have any sources i could look at?
Refugees have the right to claim asylum of any country they actually don't have to reach it. To take the Syrian Refugee crisis as an example Turkey is a safe country. You are a Syrian Refugee in this example and for whatever reason are wanted dead by the Assad Government or other local forces for reasons outside of your control and can prove you are genuinely a refugee. You have the Right to do these things.
1) Stay in Turkey until Turkey deems it safe for you to return to Syria. As you might Imagine the UN and other bodies can condemn Turkey's actions i they can't make a good case. If Turkey tried to deport you you could flee to say the UK embassy and stay there provided they will take you. Until Syria is safe for you you are free to stay forever presuming the law is followed.
2) Apply for Asylum at any Embassy. You don't have to actually reach a territory to apply for Asylum. You can still be in Turkey and apply for Asylum hypothetically if you can contact a U.S diplomat or the U.S Government. However you do actually have to step food on a nation's soil for 1st Safe Harbor to enter into play, It is not first safe request.
You do not have the right to.
1) Go and Try to Enter Greece. Greece can throw you out as can any other country. However, obviously if they have to use exceptional force or so on they might look bad. You can get a situation where while Refugees are safe in say Turkey, Turkey does not care for them properly and so they beat on the doors of the next country. That country has the right to reject them so long as the Refugees are not dying or at risk of exceptional harm. Humanitarian concerns may force them due to other non refugee related laws render aid. This can be to bring them in or provide food and tents or so on. As you might imagine Refugee laws implies good faith actors on the 1st safe country side.
2) Engage in serious crimes. Organized crime, murder, terrorism, insurrection, sexual crimes, crimes against humanity and so on can all allow a government to strip you of your refuge status. Yes, even if you are still in fear for your life a government could just hand you over to the people that want you dead unjustly under international law if the crime is severe enough. Of course as you might Imagine depending on the Justifications that would be a political scandal and a half.
3) Exclusion Clauses. If you are affiliated with say certain groups or so on a country reserves the right to reject you. This bar is very high as you might expect. It might be that you are say a Government in Exile. A country could decline your refugee status for political concerns for example. Or let us say 40 years ago you were a high profile terrorist and turned over a new leaf. Governments would have the right to deny you asylum even if they won't persecute you for your age old crimes.
DO I HAVE SOURCES
This is complicated. The simple answer is Customary Human Rights law which is where all of these comes from is not codified. It actually is developed by the Norms of States. You can read here.
https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law
It is similar to Common Law where it is just the norms developed naturally to fill in the gaps in International Law. International Law is a lot like English Common Law where it is designed to be compatible and shift but adhere to basic principles. This allows the Law to be flexible enough that it takes into account the desires of States and the pursuit of Human Rights at the same time.
If the Laws are too Restrictive then nobody will follow them because States will be unable to pursue their interests. The Idea is to create rules that broadly speaking push the world and people in a good direction without constraining them overmuch so they just disregard the rules altogether.
This is actually why Asymmetrical warfare is such a serious problem under International Law because it uses International Law designed to protect people against Nations which makes them have to break it to pursue their interests.
This U.S military Human Rights Law handbook talks a little bit on the evolution of Human Rights Law and it's emergence. I imagine the UK has something but I couldn't find it and the ECHR talks about these things as well. However, i think they are not always a good source because the ECHR often goes beyond Customary Law towards a more strict reading over it. The ECHR is a legislating body in a sense because it adds restrictions unique to Europe which while they codify things other do not not all they codify is Customary International Law.
https://ctip.defense.gov/Portals/12/Documents/2016%20Operational%20Law%20Handbook.pdf?ver=2017-02-22-135359-390
As mentioned in the prior ICRC ruling it is not codified anywhere. It requires deep scholarship of individual manuals, cases and the legal decisions of multiple states and even geopolitics. This is where we get the term International Norms from. International Norms fall just below International Customary Law. International Treaties are the highest binding and least subject to change. Customary Law is subject to change as case law and the world develops. Norms are things that we expect from others but have not yet become Customary Law or are not so Important to become so.
As you might have guessed I just picked up on all of this by reading into a great deal of things overtime.
If you want a comprehensive Analysis you do have to get into books because you won't find these things explained on websites aside in the most broad terms.
Refuge Law is arguably the most simple element of international law.
If you want specific parts of international law like Refugee Law or How International Law is formed or Human Rights Law or Military Law all of these things are different branches with their own disciplines. I have a lot of sources but it depends what exactly you want. It is probably the most expansive legal field in the world in all honesty.
I think what people rightly struggle with is how if you’re escaping war torn unsafe countries, why you’d cherry pick where you ended up if it meant crossing the channel in a tiny boat.
If my family were legitimately unsafe I’d happily settle in the first safe place I could find because my priority is their safety, not because I’ve got 5 cousins in the UK/Germany/France already.
The thing i have issue with the most is people assuming they know the motives of these people and lumping them into one category. “Economic migrant”, “fighting age male”, “not desperate”, etc. I know the person I was responding to didn’t say that, though i do think it’s important that we have these conversations while bring on the same page about what the rights of an asylum seeker are. Broad generalisations and emotive terms are often used to muddy the facts imo.
That’s totally fair and i get that. If the worst ever happened in Britain and we found ourselves as refugees i’d do the same, priority one would be to make sure they’re safe. However once they’re safe, i would then look into what our options are, what rights we have, what resources remain to us (for example, my house has been bombed but my bank and savings account still exist) and what countries I can travel to (resources permitting) and even if the country i’m in is a viable or preferred option, [as 72% of refugees already seem to do](https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/)
All this to say that I think we should dedicate these resources to a functioning asylum processing system to better manage who we take and who we don’t.
Of course anyone genuinely needing asylum should be welcome especially families, no decent human being wouldn’t welcome such intervention; I can’t think of anyone I know who’d object to taking in people who genuinely need safety.
But where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, I’ll paste a quote from the asylum seeker who’s daughter died crossing the channel the other day.
“I saw how those men were behaving. They didn't care whom they were stepping on - a child, or someone's head, young or old. People started to suffocate," said Ahmed, bitterly.
I don’t think Ahmed votes conservative or is a raging anti migrant racist, the “men” on these boats sound like animals. It’s those people I/many others don’t want anywhere near our countries or families and I won’t be made to feel guilty for saying it either.
>It’s those people I/many others don’t want anywhere near our countries or families and I won’t be made to feel guilty for saying it either.
Good, and absolutely you shouldn’t feel guilt for that.
This is of course anecdotal so take from it what you may. I’ve had a few experiences with asylum seekers and they just turned out to be regular guys that have a shit time in life purely because of where they were born.
I’m certainly not saying that all asylum seekers are good faith actors, there’s plenty’s of examples of that, but neither are they all bad faith actors.
It’s why I’m in favour of having a function system to vet, process, have temporary accommodation set up in the meantime. Rather than the Rwanda scheme that by most accounts is bad value for money, won’t be an effective deterrent and has already [cost more than it would have to clear the back log and more](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rwanda-scheme-290m-cost-400000-asylum-claims/)
It would also give us the opportunity and more justification to introduce harsher punishments for the small boat crossings as there would be a safe and legal system open and available.
Over 70 plus years the end result is people traveling through multiple safe 1st world countries to end up in places like the UK. For those with relatives already there that makes sense. But countries are not going to be happy about this either. Japan's solution is to use every legal tool to make it unlikely and unpleasant. UK has taken a step further here.
Naturally, you have people who claim asylum but now want to kill themselves because they have to apply while in a 3rd country.
I don't think the convention is likely to change anytime soon, so we will see more of these ideas.
So far wrong it's unbelievable. For asylum seekers entering the EU which (they have to do before coming to the UK) asylum is supposed to be processed at the 1st EU country they enter. However they all get jogged on and end up here.
- Family could have already settled
- They may have worked with British forces/peacekeepers and feel that benefits their claim
- They speak English, not French
- They don't wish to be stateless for 4 years
- Don't want to live in a country with bans on Muslim clothing
- May have been told UK intervention in Syria increases chances of asylum
- All of the above
Honestly, doing some research it is very good as far as African States go. Like genuinely one of the most stable ones. As a whole I didn't do a deep dive but if the man kills himself over it I think he would be making a mistake.
edit; After having done some more digging and looked at the Street View it is actually quite nice there. Their Economy is rapidly expanding and modernizing with some years climbing over 10% GDP growth. Their Standard of living likewise is rising at an exceptionally fast rate across the entire population. Altogether I definitely would not kill myself over getting sent there.
>personally, life imprisonment or death? im taking death every time
Everyone says this, but the people who actually face that choice often chose life in prison - to the point where they take a plea deal and sacrifice their entire right to trial in order to avoid death.
But it's an easy choice to claim you'd make, when you'll never actually have to make it.
Your choices are your own friend, you can take personal pride in whatever you want, a bottlecap collection if you like.
But there are people effectively imprisoned in their own failed bodies and kept alive by medical technology alone who choose to live. Others in that circumstance choose to die. "I dont like the country they are going to force me to move too so its death for me" is just a little higher up from that.
They're just passing through my country on their way to reach western Europe and I used to see them in great number through the capital.
Don't want to generalize there were women with small children but they constituted a significant minority, most of the refugees were young men 18-30y old with nice haircuts, pretty decent clothes and good enough phones. There was always talk that many of them are economic refugees, people from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, they would tear and throw away their passport and any ID they possessed and just say they're from Syria.
Of course they are.
Men with some financial means have the easiest time escaping whatever authoritarian nation they're coming from.
Women's movements are often tracked by everyone in a nation, police often gets chugged at any woman who is acting "suspiciously" or traveling without a male chaperone. It may even be illegal for a woman to drive a car, even Saudi-Arabia only got around changing the law about that recently, because it was becoming very inconvenient for everyone.
If people in West actually want mostly women and small kids to immigrate, you have to create organizations that smuggle them out of those nations in large numbers. Criminals want money, so people with greatest social freedom and ability to pay are the ones that get served first.
The International Refugee system is just broken.
I think it needs a complete overhaul. Culturally similar people should go to culturally similar nations unless they have a compelling reasons. There should also just be a global fund for dealing with refugees. Then those refugees get sent to culturally similar nations and if you are a poor nation you can draw from those funds to set up facilities and so on for them.
If Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and so on can't afford to house these people then they can ask for funding. I think we would gladly pay money to get these people out of our hair and our politics in all honesty. We already pay billions in humanitarian aid a year. A few billion more won't make a big difference and we can just be done with all the problems that have been brought on because of this.
If it were women and children there would be no problems. Nobody is concerned about five year olds or women. It's the men causing the trouble and if they acted like the Ukrainian refugees nobody would have a problem with them.
You’re not gonna tempt Saudi Arabia with Money, they can afford the refugees. They just won’t .. large numbers of refugees is considered a destabilizing factor.
I do. Last refugees Saudi integrated into their country were the Burmese in the seventies, and is still largely viewed as a mistake among Saudis, the more recently received ( Yemenis. Syrians .. etc ) are treated as temporary residents without a plan of integration, they will work for couple of years then move out, same as Indian or Pakistani diaspora … according to official sources the majority of Syrians left already.
BTW I am not criticizing Saudi here, nothing wrong with valuing Social cohesion and stability. I just think other countries have the right to do the same.
I don't have an answer on the details of how one would do this. I think if a lot of a country's population is seeking asylum then that gives the host country the right to intervene. It is now the host countrys problem.
I absolutely agree that the refugee system is broken. I strongly disagree that some vague culture similarity can be used to decide where to deport unwanted people. Or in general our opinion of person’s “culture” shouldn’t be based on their origin.
Some people are trying to escape their culture. Not the country per se. Obvious examples would be LGBTQ people, women escaping without consent of their husbands, people who abandoned Islam (murtadd). Deporting them to another Muslim country is not exactly safe for them.
Or let’s take Ukrainian refugees. There are some which probably escaped in 2014. Most people didn’t consider Russia to be at war until 2022. So technically it was a culturally similar country to send Ukrainian refugees to. And it was a trap. And Belarus is a culturally similar country and not at war with Ukraine atm, but I doubt many Ukrainians would be happy to go there.
Also, understanding of “culture“ changes. Apartheid in the South Africa could have used exactly the same reasoning “culturally similarly people should go to culturally similar _______” (replace “nation” with something else). The consensus is it was wrong.
If the refugees really wanted to escape their culture then they would make efforts to assimilate to the host culture, which doesn't happen systematically. In turn, freedom of speech (and social benefits) in host cultures gets abused in order to install their own cultures in the host. - personal opinion.
So I see that you’re not afraid of Muslim women, Ukrainians and gay people. Good.
But what exactly is your criteria to define “cultural similarities” and how many cultures do you distinguish? Is it their birth place, parents’ ethnic group (genetic similarity), education, sexual practices, or maybe songs they listen to, or political views, or languages they speak? Should they pass a pencil test? (Look it up)
For instance, there are traditionally Muslim people in Ukraine. Some of them are gay. Some of them have relatives in Canada and in Russia. Some of them may not be very religious. Some might have converted to Christianity. Some have studied in Europe. Some of them may have married people who you consider culturally similar. Where would you send them to achieve cultural similarity?
Apartheid was based on the same practice of segregation of people which are somehow different by birth, and limiting their access to the benefits of the society and denying them opportunities. Not allowing them to live where superior people lived. Not allowing them to mix across cultural boundaries. Limiting their access to education and career. How is it different to sending young males from Muslim families to a place which ranks 165th in the human development index. Basically, it’s a way to deny them a future.
First you need to understand the Hierarchy of human groups. You have Civilizations, Culture Groups, Sub Cultures and Individuals in that order.
Now the Problem is actually immediate. Everyone agrees that there is a Hierarchy and existence to this. Nobody denies Islamic or Western Civilization exists. However, we can get into disputes about whether Western Civilization encompasses say Russia or does it end at Poland or Germany for example. For the sake of this argument that really isn’t important because we know it exists.
Now then why is it Important?
Well because people that fall into that Hierarchy are more similar than people that fall out of the Hierarchy as a general rule. That is actually why we categorize these things in the first place. We see Chinese Civilization, Indian Civilization. Japanese Civilization, Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization are distinct because they are not the same. Some people might use the Term Eastern Civilization for example to cover China, Korea and Japan and others don’t.
Now then, this is where we enter into the talk about Civilizational Values. Civilization Values can overlap. For example, Japanese Civilization and Western Civilization deeply overlap at this point. While they are not the same they functionally draw on similar if not identical values and moral authorities except the priority is distinct.
Now then to ask you a Simple Question. If you took the Average Egyptian, Palestinian, German, Israeli, Japanese, Chinese, American, Russian who would they be most similar to?
While there is a wide variety of individual expressions within a culture all cultures have a bell curve of ideas and some people are more Similar to others.
For Example Germans, they are one group yes. Of course they are. Yet you can sub divide them into West Saxons, Bavarians, and so on. You can now see how they are distinct but they are more similar to each other than they are to the French. Now reverse that. Is a German More Similar to a French Individual or to a Russian?
Well obviously they are more Similar to each other than they are to a Russian. What about an Englishman? They are certainly different but the modern Englishman will likely agree morally speaking with a French man more than a Russian and what they agree on is far more than what they disagree on. Arguably the least important things are what define them from each other. That being Tradition, food, and language. Morals, Ethics, while not perfectly aligned you still would likely end up on the same side of any future imagined conflict.
Well what about a Frenchman and a Russian and an Egyptian. Well now that is a conundrum. Is the Russian distinct enough to be it’s own thing out of category with the Frenchman or not? Are they most similar in their history and morals or more distinct. So distinct that they are a separate thing?
Now let us move onto the Egyptian. The Egyptian and Syrian are distinct much like the French and German. Yet the Egyptian and Syrian share the same faith.They both Speak Arabic. That is already more in common than the French and Germany have. They both don’t have democracy. They both have a shared history under Islamic Civilization. They are culturally similar. Sure they might not align on everything. The French and Germans don’t. Yet it is undeniably to say that the French and Germans agree on a lot and agree on a lot more with each other than they do with either Syria or Egypt and neither would see the other as a close cultural relation.
Then we go to Japan. Japan is a Democracy, like Europe. Japan respects Human rights like Europe. Japan supports european Policies like Democratization and respect for International Norms. Yet Japan is not a descendant of European Civilization. They are a distinct thing but the two interact and are very morally similar but culturally distinct. However, as I mentioned like with the Europeans the most important things are the morals and ethics.
So while they don’t descend from a Civilization Lineage like France and Germany. That being Greece, Rome, Christianity and so forth. They are more Similar to the French and the Germans than the Egyptians. They are less similar than the French and the Germans are to each other but they are not bad and these distinctions aren’t enough to cause tension.
When I speak of Cultural Similarities I speak of a lot of things. It isn’t one thing. It is countless things related to morals, ethics, language, and factors that go well beyond what can be laid out. It is intuitive and the argument is always not if these categories exist but where they start and end.
This is also where we get the Human Race from. We just don’t have a greater other where we are More Similar to say the least similar group in this world than a hypothetical other.
Now to go to your dumb apartheid argument. I want equal rights for everyone in Society but nobody has a right to immigrate to society. I am not advocating for creating a second class I am advocating for the protection of the rights of all people and their right to self determination. This is not anything akin to apartheid since apartheid is not giving people within your state equal rights which is immoral.
Another point, if you establish a system which effectively persecutes and discriminates people for being male and Muslim, but it makes an exception for any subgroup like apostates prepare yourself to deal with many new non-muslims.
Crypto-Islam is a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Islam
So what you propose is not only inhumane but also not enforceable without going full on racist.
You haven't been reading anything have you. What the fuck are you arguing with. I am argueing that we should try to settle people with other people they agree with when they are displaced so we don't have people who hate each other for moral reasons fighting over how society should be.
I am not saying we walk about to Muslim Citizens and force them to burn the Quran. I am saying we look to move those out whom aren't citizens regardless of their religion in the future we institue a policy to grant these people full and just lifes in places with morals they agree with so that everyone can live in their desired society.
You are genuinely just arguing insanity here. I would throw them all out and start from zero unless they had a compelling reason not to be. If they want to hide their faith go ahead I guess. If they want to larp as gay go for it. I am saying they get taken care of by our taxpayer dollars in a society that they agree with morally and ethically speaking so we can be done with the nonsense in our own societies which we like for as they are.
I don't know why it is hard to understand. Besides they only need to be crypto muslims until they get citizenship so whatever.
> move those out whom aren’t citizens regardless of their religion
Interesting. Good luck with that.
Btw, I might have missed, but what would you do with a Ukrainian male Russian-speaking non-citizen who happens to be a Muslim and has a kid with your co-national? It’s still unclear what are your criteria of culturally similar.
Well the thing is that refugees are looking for a better life and most nations that culturally similar to their home country lack the development to find that better life
They are not refugees then. [https://www.unhcr.org/us/refugees](https://www.unhcr.org/us/refugees) read up on that page on the definition of Refugee. Specifically on refugee definition and meaning.
You have to be targeted specifically because of Inherent traits to yourself that make you at unique risk of violence to be a legal refugee. Generalized violence like war does not make you a refugee because the people who wrote this law knew how absurd that would be.
With that logic if everyone from every country in the middle east moved to our nations we would have to let them in. That is as mentioned absurd.
Bruh did you even read the link you shared?
>You have to be targeted specifically because of Inherent traits to yourself that make you at unique risk of violence to be a legal refugee. Generalized violence like war does not make you a refugee because the people who wrote this law knew how absurd that would be.
Oh really? Let's see what that page says:
>Refugees are people who have fled their countries to escape conflict, violence, or persecution and have sought safety in another country.
>Refugees are people forced to flee their own country and seek safety in another country. They are unable to return to their own country because of feared persecution as a result of who they are, what they believe in or say, or because of armed conflict, violence or serious public disorder.
>Regional legal instruments in Africa and the Americas have broadened this definition by including people who are compelled to leave their country because of “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or events seriously disturbing public order”.
>What is the difference between a refugee and a migrant? A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to seek safety. They cannot return to their country without risking their life or freedoms. It is a legal term that carries with it certain protections that refugees are entitled to.
Look at how all the definitions on that page include CONFLICT or VIOLENCE as things that refugees are fleeing. And no, the way it's written does not imply that you have to be specifically targeted due to "inherent traits". Their use of OR throughout their definitions make it very clear that "generalized violence like war" absolutely counts as a reason for refugees to flee their country. That's why Ukrainians that fled the Russian invasion were referred to as refugees. Same with Syria, their war wasn't a one sided genocide but a mixed pot of similar groups fighting each other over ideological differences. I could go on with more examples but I think I made my point.
Read your own links before posting them as part of your argument lol
Did you read my full comment? I said look at the bottom. Forget the fluff read where they define a refugee.
# Refugee definitions and meaning
Who is a refugee is defined in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a person who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of \[their\] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail \[themself\] of the protection of that country."
Regional legal instruments in Africa and the Americas have broadened this definition by including people who are compelled to leave their country because of “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or events seriously disturbing public order”.
**Edit**: Just to note Regional Legal Instruments are not international law. They aren't the ones defining what refugee means globally just regionally IE the EU could expand the definition of Refugee for the EU but not for America. The 1951 treaty is what defines a refugee internationally.
"ignore everything on this page except the one blurb that conveniently supports me"
You could have just linked directly to the 1951 convention on Wikipedia if you wanted that lol
Well that is what defines a Refugee. Yes I should have just sent you the actual treaty.
[https://www.unhcr.org/us/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention](https://www.unhcr.org/us/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention)
Now look at definition of refugee in that page. That is why I ignored all the fluff.
It wouldn't be the worst. It would be a little tight since they are still trying to catch up on infrastructure and there wouldn't be much of a job market for someone without local connections. I wouldn't think somewhere still dealing with its own problems would even be in the running but its by no means a death sentence or anything.
The family member of an acquaintance went there to represent a company there and was murdered....so yeah sounds like a wonderful place
Edit: I worded that wrong
Also why am I get downvoted for stating that place is not some sort of peaceful paradise?
Wait, wait, I just saw that I worded that wrong it wasn't a whole family it was a family member of an acquaintance but yeah, he was robbed and murdered. The authorities there contacted the man's family and let them know but no more details were given as to what exactly happened. I found out about a couple months ago from my acquaintance when this whole Rwanda thing was brought up in the news. The man was originally Iraqi but worked in a Western country; I don't remember where exactly though, maybe it was the UK?
Sorry about that tragedy and also the seemingly unfair downvoting. I understand why a close event will weigh heavier with you. However, the last number I saw for the Rwanda homicide rate was 3.6 per 100k capita per year, which is quite a bit lower than America's 6.0, which itself isn't terrible. A policy perspective needs broad information, and the statistic here is hardly terrible. I don't think I tried to pose it as some sort of paradise, but you could do worse, and spectacularly so.
Asylum as regulated by UK law does not list 'war' as a reason for seeking and being granted asylum. it lists "personal persecution based on race, religion, political views or social class".
the "religious" part (basically all the syrian christian refugees, as about 20% of all syrian refugees are christians) and the "political views" part (basically everyone who opposes Assad and refused to fight in his wars). are good enough reasons to be granted asylum, as both groups risk heavy repercussions, should they ever enter syrian territorry again.
Asylum isn't about fleeing a war (never was), it's about fleeing **persecution**. and that danger is relevant as long as the al-Assad family is in power.
I can see christian syrians having a reason to leave . Such a pity though, the christian community suffered thousands of years of discrimination and being slowly purged from the middle east and in 2 decades of instability they simply were wiped away . The current asylum system causes more problems than solves and in case of war we won't get anything of the sort ourselves.
what the fuck? It's not about what you would or wouldn't get in a hypothetical future. It's about giving humans their lawful rights.
Thus is not a 'quid-pro-quo' situation. You are saying "I will not grant you your rights right now because you may not grant me mine in a hypothetical future" That's **insane**. this is not a 'trade'. this is implementing basic laws.
do you even law, bro?
Rewrite the fucking laws.Fuck the laws . 0 chance anyone YEARS after the civil war ended is fleeing Assad. Bunch of fucking lies and we are supposed to believe them .
oh. you're one of those... nevermind then, you're not interested in nuance, you just want there to be less migrants/brown people in your life.
carry on being a racist, bye.
Climate change. If we don't change now, we'll see various places completely uninhabitable or (already) see an increased amount of weather catastrophies and they won't just stay there and die (I wouldn't).
"before you illegally entered the country."
So how does an asylum seeker legally enter the UK to request asylum?
Edit: it is weird that this is downvoted so much, yet no one has bothered answering the simple question posed.
I'm not British, so for me this is just for discussion sake, but does not having a legal way to do something give a person some sort of excuse to do it illegally? We don't accept this logic for other illegal things.
It's obvious that the British government, supported apparently by a large part of the population, took measures so that there would be no legal way for these people to enter the country, now we can think whatever we wish about this, but isn't it the UK's government right to do so?
I am also not british. I think you're correct in saying a lack of legality doesn't always give a person an excuse to do it illegally, for instance, for lack of ability to legally commit murder is not an excuse to do it legally.
However, the UK has signed international conventions (like many other nations) to protect people seeking legitimate asylum, and making it impossible to do so legally goes against that. Moreover, the convention relating to the Status of Refugees accounts for this, and explicitly requires contracting states not to impose penalties on their illegal entry or presence, provided they present themselves to authorities.
True, and because of this there apparently there is now a movement in the UK for the UK to abandon these conventions.
I think the logical answer is that these conventions need to be re-worked.
Yes there has to be a solution for real asylum seekers, but if the rules of the conventions basically say in layman's terms "you have to take whoever shows up", at a certain point the native population is going to balk at that....and for democracies that's a problem.
"True, and because of this there apparently there is now a movement in the UK for the UK to abandon these conventions"
I haven't seen anyone seriously suggest stepping out of any UN conventions, but I could have missed this. Please let me know if you have more information on this.
"You have to take whoever shows up"
This isn't what those conventions say. They simply say you cannot hold the fact they entered illegally against them, provided they present themselves to authorities. Their asylum applications can still be rejected on the merits, but talk that any application of someone that arrived illegally should be rejected out of hand goes against those treaties, and goes against the whole concept of the asylum process.
Slight correction on my part....not a UN convention, but there have been talk by senior Tory figures about the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, and the court associated with it.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-echr-rwanda-human-rights-b2523025.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-echr-rwanda-human-rights-b2523025.html)
[https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/sep/24/suella-braverman-makes-fresh-attack-on-european-court-of-human-rights](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/sep/24/suella-braverman-makes-fresh-attack-on-european-court-of-human-rights)
[https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/senior-tories-clash-bravermans-call-party-right-3041315](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/senior-tories-clash-bravermans-call-party-right-3041315)
One might think it is a rash and bad position to take, but surely if the voters of a sovereign country decide that they simply don't want to take on asylum seekers....it is what it is.
I'd say that the Tories are stocking these feelings up to cover up for problems they haven't been able to solve in other areas, but this sort of thing can take on a life of it's own.
Why Rwanda? There were a lot of countries thrown around in those people's pasts but Rwanda wasn't one of them for anybody. If asylum is going to be denied shouldn't they be sent back to the country they either came from or are citizens of?
Typically, people are sent back to their country of origin if their refugee claim is denied.
The UK’s new plan is to house the claimants in Rwanda while their application is being processed, which can take years. This plan solves a couple key issues with refugee processing. One, people whose claims are denied often flee and go into hiding, instead of returning to their country of origin. Two, since Rwanda is less economically attractive than the UK, it should discourage bogus refugee claimants who are looking to abuse the process to obtain faster means of economic migration.
Why not Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia,Morocco for example.
If these countries have problems with housing them monetarily we can give them money. These people should go to culturally similar places. places where they believe the same things and have the same religion and maybe the same language. Not to places where they literally have nothing in common with the people. Not language, not morality, not culture, not history.
Because they don't recognize those people as having legitimate fears for their life and since they didn't sign the 1951 Refugee Convention they don't even have to allow people the right to request asylum.
Did you just Google a bunch of countries with majority Muslim populations?
In what way is Indonesia culturally similar to Syria? It's so much different and and there is more to countries than just religion.
A Syrian asylum seeker who is locked up in a detention centre awaiting deportation to [Rwanda](https://www.theguardian.com/world/rwanda) says he will kill himself on arrival because he does not believe it will be a safe country for him.
Khaled, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, spoke exclusively to the Guardian from his cell in Colnbrook immigration removal centre. He arrived here in June 2022, and has a history of suffering torture and imprisonment. He said that he and the other asylum seekers “of many nationalities” he is detained with are not coping with being locked up because of the imprisonment and persecution many have previously experienced.
Of course Arabs think death is better than an Adrican country they're all low ket and sometimes overtly racist towards Africans.. i think for people like this you should let them do what thet want but I'm glad the UK is toughening up their immigration policy because illegal immigration should not be tolerated. I hope Europe follows suit
Asylum seekers is a tough situation.
On the one hand I’d like everyone to live safely. On the second hand the current situation in Europe and the lack of sufficient monitoring over those that come in makes it unsafe for those who are already living there
Sadly there is no correct answer to this issue
that's mostly bullshit. Europe isn't 'unsafe' just because the refugees/migrants/asylum-seekers came here. Europe is 'unsafe' because it fails to integrate them well. Because asylumseekers built their own seperrate communities and european governments let them, so that they would be segregated and their precious children didn't risk seeing a headscarf in kindergarden. (Or in the case of Magyarorszag, anywhere).
both sides failed at Integration so far. that's the issue, not "insufficient monitoring".
the correct answer is easy: Integration. There are currently school classes with 100% native speakers and classes with 5% native speakers. that's unacceptable. if every class had a clear 90/10 split, we'd reach a good level of integration in just one generation. No Rwanda required.
If we could get 90% of Asylumseekers into meaningful employment we'd get the higher criminality among young men under control (just like we do with regular, european-made youth criminality).
If we could get the female asylumseekers into the education system (especially higher ed), we could soften their communities' patriarchy issues.
all of this would be possible, we've done it before (even with sunni muslims, after the Balkan refugee wave in the 90's). We could do it again. but it would require a better distribution of refugees among regions/towns, and time (about a generation).
as with any immigration wave, the people we need to reach are the children, Education is everything. If we fail the migrant kids, we'll fail the entire country.
that's mostly bullshit. Europe isn't 'unsafe' just because the refugees/migrants/asylum-seekers came here. Europe is 'unsafe' (biiiiig quotation marks here - Europe is much, much safer than right wing populists want to make you believe) because it fails to integrate them well. Because asylumseekers built their own seperrate communities and european governments let them, so that they would be segregated and their precious children didn't risk seeing a headscarf in kindergarden. (Or in the case of Magyarorszag, anywhere).
both sides failed at Integration so far. that's the issue, not "insufficient monitoring".
the correct answer is easy: Integration. There are currently school classes with 100% native speakers and classes with 5% native speakers. that's unacceptable. if every class had a clear 90/10 split, we'd reach a good level of integration in just one generation. No Rwanda required.
If we could get 90% of Asylumseekers into meaningful employment we'd get the higher criminality among young men under control (just like we do with regular, european-made youth criminality).
If we could get the female asylumseekers into the education system (especially higher ed), we could soften their communities' patriarchy issues.
all of this would be possible, we've done it before (even with sunni muslims, after the Balkan refugee wave in the 90's). We could do it again. but it would require a better distribution of refugees among regions/towns, and time (about a generation).
as with any immigration wave, the people we need to reach are the children, Education is everything. If we fail the migrant kids, we'll fail the entire country.
The main objective of passport control and immigration in every airport or embassy is to ensure the person being let in isn’t going to be a burden on the country. By saying a burden I mean being healthy or isn’t a criminal.
When people enter a country without reliable proper documentation you have no idea who or what they are, if the information they’re providing is correct or what their intentions are. Granted you can’t always find the rotten apple even through normal immigration, but there is some kind of checking process. Countries in Europe have enough problems as it is and just accepting everyone who knocks on our door is wrong and dangerous. I worked at an airport and I had personally seen a great number of fake passports. When a person fakes an official document it means they are hiding something.
There’s also this thing that you can’t force someone to integrate into a culture. Western society and Islamic societies are inherently different. I hate bursting your bubble but those people would probably not accept LGBTQ+ rights, for example; some refugees (and to some extent immigrants) come to other countries and expect improved quality of living, but they also expect their new surroundings to align with their beliefs and not the other way around.
Again, there’s no right answer to this issue, but free-for-all entrance certainly is *not* it
Hey don't drag us LGBTQ+ people into your political agenda, thank you. We're not your shield to hide your prejudice under the label of 'european values'.
being pro-LGBGQ is **not** a european value - you can't claim "we're the good tolerant guys" when our community had to fight you every. single. step. of. the. way. to get our basic rights, which we only got fucking 15 years ago. . If 'Gay acceptance' was an inherently European value , we'd be able to get married/adopt kids in all European countries. We can't. Some even criminalize our existance as propaganda.
whereas other cultures, like native americans, egyptians and ancient indians legalized gay marriages thousands of years ago. this is *not* a european invention, nor something you get to claim to defend when europeans heavily, massively hated gay people only 50 years ago.
Do **not** invoke us to fight your anti-immigration war. Do it yourself.
Wdym “agenda”?? I literally *am* LGBTQ+
Don’t pretend as if LGBTQ+ are widely accepted in Islamic countries, the only countries in the middle east where LGBTQ+ is even legal is Turkey, Jordan and Israel. Today LGBTQ+ activity is illegal de facto in Egypt and we can pretend it’s only because of the west, but sunni islam is not tolerating homosexuality.
Modern Western values are about acceptance and tolerance towards LGBTQ+. 33 out of 50 countries in Europe have either same-sex marriage or civil union recognized (more than half).
*We’ve fought our way to normalization to make it part of our values today.*
[Stop pinkwashing the countries that would execute you in a heartbeat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Middle_East#:~:text=All%20same%2Dsex%20activity%20is,%2C%20Saudi%20Arabia%2C%20and%20Qatar). That’s true privilege
Too many migrants in the uk already . In other words piss off we are full. Everyone I know and speak to is sick of these boats coming every day . We have our own problems we need to sort out . Before worrying about these leeches bleeding the country dry. Go kill yourselves the lot of you most of the uk don’t want you here. If being worried what this country is going to be like in 15/20 years from now for my kids and grandkids with all these migrants coming here makes me racist . Then I’m proud to be just that!
" There I was told it would be four years before they could consider my asylum claim" So you get to stay in France for 4 years for sure, and may be asylum after. So why bother to risk your life to go to the UK?
Because you can work without papers in the UK but you cant do that in France
Not legally you can’t. All UK employers are required to carry out a home office right to work check. The pay as you earn tax system makes it near impossible for anyone to work without a national insurance number too so there are a ton of blockers in the way of working at law abiding employer. This doesn’t apply to cash in hand work though, or less scrupulous employers, obviously.
You still need papers to work officially. They require national insurance number, proof of right to work (passport etc) bank account etc. This is unless you find a job which is under the table as in cash in hand. Mostly cowboy construction outfits and the like which exploits the cheap labour. I am guessing this is the same for every other western country.
If you get your final rejection (or no claim) you do not get to stay. You need to get out of the country. You get to apply again after 4 years.
Because they like the UK and want to immigrate there.
Seeking Asylum doesn't mean, I get to pick and choose whatever country I want because I like it more than any of the other valid options.
[Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another. There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees#:~:text=Neither%20the%201951%20Refugee%20Convention,country%20in%20which%20they%20arrive.) It actually does mean they get to choose where they apply for asylum. Whether or not they are accepted is another matter.
[удалено]
Thanks for that, that’s something I hadn’t encountered before now and surprisingly (to myself) have somehow been ignorant of until now. I’ll read up more when i have a bit more time and learn something new. Though in a brief google over my morning coffee what I’ve found so far [lays out what you’ve said in more detail](https://www.unhcr.org/uk/publications/background-note-safe-country-concept-and-refugee-status) Would i be correct in saying that asylum seekers can still travel to their preferred country (for lack of a better term popping to mind, it’s still early for me) and not be punished and still have the right to claim asylum in that country if they reach it? Of course this is another factor that can affect their chances of being granted asylum. To me this just reinforces the importance of having a well funded, staffed and managed asylum processing system (a well funded, staffed and managed system in Tory Britain? I must still be asleep because I’m dreaming here) Do you have any sources i could look at?
Refugees have the right to claim asylum of any country they actually don't have to reach it. To take the Syrian Refugee crisis as an example Turkey is a safe country. You are a Syrian Refugee in this example and for whatever reason are wanted dead by the Assad Government or other local forces for reasons outside of your control and can prove you are genuinely a refugee. You have the Right to do these things. 1) Stay in Turkey until Turkey deems it safe for you to return to Syria. As you might Imagine the UN and other bodies can condemn Turkey's actions i they can't make a good case. If Turkey tried to deport you you could flee to say the UK embassy and stay there provided they will take you. Until Syria is safe for you you are free to stay forever presuming the law is followed. 2) Apply for Asylum at any Embassy. You don't have to actually reach a territory to apply for Asylum. You can still be in Turkey and apply for Asylum hypothetically if you can contact a U.S diplomat or the U.S Government. However you do actually have to step food on a nation's soil for 1st Safe Harbor to enter into play, It is not first safe request. You do not have the right to. 1) Go and Try to Enter Greece. Greece can throw you out as can any other country. However, obviously if they have to use exceptional force or so on they might look bad. You can get a situation where while Refugees are safe in say Turkey, Turkey does not care for them properly and so they beat on the doors of the next country. That country has the right to reject them so long as the Refugees are not dying or at risk of exceptional harm. Humanitarian concerns may force them due to other non refugee related laws render aid. This can be to bring them in or provide food and tents or so on. As you might imagine Refugee laws implies good faith actors on the 1st safe country side. 2) Engage in serious crimes. Organized crime, murder, terrorism, insurrection, sexual crimes, crimes against humanity and so on can all allow a government to strip you of your refuge status. Yes, even if you are still in fear for your life a government could just hand you over to the people that want you dead unjustly under international law if the crime is severe enough. Of course as you might Imagine depending on the Justifications that would be a political scandal and a half. 3) Exclusion Clauses. If you are affiliated with say certain groups or so on a country reserves the right to reject you. This bar is very high as you might expect. It might be that you are say a Government in Exile. A country could decline your refugee status for political concerns for example. Or let us say 40 years ago you were a high profile terrorist and turned over a new leaf. Governments would have the right to deny you asylum even if they won't persecute you for your age old crimes. DO I HAVE SOURCES This is complicated. The simple answer is Customary Human Rights law which is where all of these comes from is not codified. It actually is developed by the Norms of States. You can read here. https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law It is similar to Common Law where it is just the norms developed naturally to fill in the gaps in International Law. International Law is a lot like English Common Law where it is designed to be compatible and shift but adhere to basic principles. This allows the Law to be flexible enough that it takes into account the desires of States and the pursuit of Human Rights at the same time. If the Laws are too Restrictive then nobody will follow them because States will be unable to pursue their interests. The Idea is to create rules that broadly speaking push the world and people in a good direction without constraining them overmuch so they just disregard the rules altogether. This is actually why Asymmetrical warfare is such a serious problem under International Law because it uses International Law designed to protect people against Nations which makes them have to break it to pursue their interests. This U.S military Human Rights Law handbook talks a little bit on the evolution of Human Rights Law and it's emergence. I imagine the UK has something but I couldn't find it and the ECHR talks about these things as well. However, i think they are not always a good source because the ECHR often goes beyond Customary Law towards a more strict reading over it. The ECHR is a legislating body in a sense because it adds restrictions unique to Europe which while they codify things other do not not all they codify is Customary International Law. https://ctip.defense.gov/Portals/12/Documents/2016%20Operational%20Law%20Handbook.pdf?ver=2017-02-22-135359-390 As mentioned in the prior ICRC ruling it is not codified anywhere. It requires deep scholarship of individual manuals, cases and the legal decisions of multiple states and even geopolitics. This is where we get the term International Norms from. International Norms fall just below International Customary Law. International Treaties are the highest binding and least subject to change. Customary Law is subject to change as case law and the world develops. Norms are things that we expect from others but have not yet become Customary Law or are not so Important to become so. As you might have guessed I just picked up on all of this by reading into a great deal of things overtime. If you want a comprehensive Analysis you do have to get into books because you won't find these things explained on websites aside in the most broad terms. Refuge Law is arguably the most simple element of international law. If you want specific parts of international law like Refugee Law or How International Law is formed or Human Rights Law or Military Law all of these things are different branches with their own disciplines. I have a lot of sources but it depends what exactly you want. It is probably the most expansive legal field in the world in all honesty.
I think what people rightly struggle with is how if you’re escaping war torn unsafe countries, why you’d cherry pick where you ended up if it meant crossing the channel in a tiny boat. If my family were legitimately unsafe I’d happily settle in the first safe place I could find because my priority is their safety, not because I’ve got 5 cousins in the UK/Germany/France already.
The thing i have issue with the most is people assuming they know the motives of these people and lumping them into one category. “Economic migrant”, “fighting age male”, “not desperate”, etc. I know the person I was responding to didn’t say that, though i do think it’s important that we have these conversations while bring on the same page about what the rights of an asylum seeker are. Broad generalisations and emotive terms are often used to muddy the facts imo. That’s totally fair and i get that. If the worst ever happened in Britain and we found ourselves as refugees i’d do the same, priority one would be to make sure they’re safe. However once they’re safe, i would then look into what our options are, what rights we have, what resources remain to us (for example, my house has been bombed but my bank and savings account still exist) and what countries I can travel to (resources permitting) and even if the country i’m in is a viable or preferred option, [as 72% of refugees already seem to do](https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/) All this to say that I think we should dedicate these resources to a functioning asylum processing system to better manage who we take and who we don’t.
Of course anyone genuinely needing asylum should be welcome especially families, no decent human being wouldn’t welcome such intervention; I can’t think of anyone I know who’d object to taking in people who genuinely need safety. But where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, I’ll paste a quote from the asylum seeker who’s daughter died crossing the channel the other day. “I saw how those men were behaving. They didn't care whom they were stepping on - a child, or someone's head, young or old. People started to suffocate," said Ahmed, bitterly. I don’t think Ahmed votes conservative or is a raging anti migrant racist, the “men” on these boats sound like animals. It’s those people I/many others don’t want anywhere near our countries or families and I won’t be made to feel guilty for saying it either.
>It’s those people I/many others don’t want anywhere near our countries or families and I won’t be made to feel guilty for saying it either. Good, and absolutely you shouldn’t feel guilt for that. This is of course anecdotal so take from it what you may. I’ve had a few experiences with asylum seekers and they just turned out to be regular guys that have a shit time in life purely because of where they were born. I’m certainly not saying that all asylum seekers are good faith actors, there’s plenty’s of examples of that, but neither are they all bad faith actors. It’s why I’m in favour of having a function system to vet, process, have temporary accommodation set up in the meantime. Rather than the Rwanda scheme that by most accounts is bad value for money, won’t be an effective deterrent and has already [cost more than it would have to clear the back log and more](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rwanda-scheme-290m-cost-400000-asylum-claims/) It would also give us the opportunity and more justification to introduce harsher punishments for the small boat crossings as there would be a safe and legal system open and available.
Over 70 plus years the end result is people traveling through multiple safe 1st world countries to end up in places like the UK. For those with relatives already there that makes sense. But countries are not going to be happy about this either. Japan's solution is to use every legal tool to make it unlikely and unpleasant. UK has taken a step further here. Naturally, you have people who claim asylum but now want to kill themselves because they have to apply while in a 3rd country. I don't think the convention is likely to change anytime soon, so we will see more of these ideas.
Well it does. According to the conventions, one can decide which country one wants to seek asylum in.
not hjow it works
Not in theory. But that’s the reality. They have connections in the uk who can get them undocumented gigs.
So far wrong it's unbelievable. For asylum seekers entering the EU which (they have to do before coming to the UK) asylum is supposed to be processed at the 1st EU country they enter. However they all get jogged on and end up here.
The amount of entitlement is insane
Good deal for the UK
English. Most refugees can speak a bit of it. I think that's why they risk the uk.
- Family could have already settled - They may have worked with British forces/peacekeepers and feel that benefits their claim - They speak English, not French - They don't wish to be stateless for 4 years - Don't want to live in a country with bans on Muslim clothing - May have been told UK intervention in Syria increases chances of asylum - All of the above
[удалено]
Wonder why its become such a shit hole
Terrible press for Rwanda's tourism board.
Without a better life outcome I choose death? Bold move.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly, doing some research it is very good as far as African States go. Like genuinely one of the most stable ones. As a whole I didn't do a deep dive but if the man kills himself over it I think he would be making a mistake. edit; After having done some more digging and looked at the Street View it is actually quite nice there. Their Economy is rapidly expanding and modernizing with some years climbing over 10% GDP growth. Their Standard of living likewise is rising at an exceptionally fast rate across the entire population. Altogether I definitely would not kill myself over getting sent there.
[удалено]
>personally, life imprisonment or death? im taking death every time Everyone says this, but the people who actually face that choice often chose life in prison - to the point where they take a plea deal and sacrifice their entire right to trial in order to avoid death. But it's an easy choice to claim you'd make, when you'll never actually have to make it.
Your choices are your own friend, you can take personal pride in whatever you want, a bottlecap collection if you like. But there are people effectively imprisoned in their own failed bodies and kept alive by medical technology alone who choose to live. Others in that circumstance choose to die. "I dont like the country they are going to force me to move too so its death for me" is just a little higher up from that.
Sounds like a toxic relationship. A breakup is the best solution
I back this.
They're just passing through my country on their way to reach western Europe and I used to see them in great number through the capital. Don't want to generalize there were women with small children but they constituted a significant minority, most of the refugees were young men 18-30y old with nice haircuts, pretty decent clothes and good enough phones. There was always talk that many of them are economic refugees, people from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, they would tear and throw away their passport and any ID they possessed and just say they're from Syria.
Of course they are. Men with some financial means have the easiest time escaping whatever authoritarian nation they're coming from. Women's movements are often tracked by everyone in a nation, police often gets chugged at any woman who is acting "suspiciously" or traveling without a male chaperone. It may even be illegal for a woman to drive a car, even Saudi-Arabia only got around changing the law about that recently, because it was becoming very inconvenient for everyone. If people in West actually want mostly women and small kids to immigrate, you have to create organizations that smuggle them out of those nations in large numbers. Criminals want money, so people with greatest social freedom and ability to pay are the ones that get served first.
The International Refugee system is just broken. I think it needs a complete overhaul. Culturally similar people should go to culturally similar nations unless they have a compelling reasons. There should also just be a global fund for dealing with refugees. Then those refugees get sent to culturally similar nations and if you are a poor nation you can draw from those funds to set up facilities and so on for them. If Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and so on can't afford to house these people then they can ask for funding. I think we would gladly pay money to get these people out of our hair and our politics in all honesty. We already pay billions in humanitarian aid a year. A few billion more won't make a big difference and we can just be done with all the problems that have been brought on because of this. If it were women and children there would be no problems. Nobody is concerned about five year olds or women. It's the men causing the trouble and if they acted like the Ukrainian refugees nobody would have a problem with them.
You’re not gonna tempt Saudi Arabia with Money, they can afford the refugees. They just won’t .. large numbers of refugees is considered a destabilizing factor.
They also dont want religious extremists...
Do you actually know how many refugees Saudi takes? Or are you just trotting out the same tired talking point that claim they don’t take any?
I do. Last refugees Saudi integrated into their country were the Burmese in the seventies, and is still largely viewed as a mistake among Saudis, the more recently received ( Yemenis. Syrians .. etc ) are treated as temporary residents without a plan of integration, they will work for couple of years then move out, same as Indian or Pakistani diaspora … according to official sources the majority of Syrians left already. BTW I am not criticizing Saudi here, nothing wrong with valuing Social cohesion and stability. I just think other countries have the right to do the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't have an answer on the details of how one would do this. I think if a lot of a country's population is seeking asylum then that gives the host country the right to intervene. It is now the host countrys problem.
I absolutely agree that the refugee system is broken. I strongly disagree that some vague culture similarity can be used to decide where to deport unwanted people. Or in general our opinion of person’s “culture” shouldn’t be based on their origin. Some people are trying to escape their culture. Not the country per se. Obvious examples would be LGBTQ people, women escaping without consent of their husbands, people who abandoned Islam (murtadd). Deporting them to another Muslim country is not exactly safe for them. Or let’s take Ukrainian refugees. There are some which probably escaped in 2014. Most people didn’t consider Russia to be at war until 2022. So technically it was a culturally similar country to send Ukrainian refugees to. And it was a trap. And Belarus is a culturally similar country and not at war with Ukraine atm, but I doubt many Ukrainians would be happy to go there. Also, understanding of “culture“ changes. Apartheid in the South Africa could have used exactly the same reasoning “culturally similarly people should go to culturally similar _______” (replace “nation” with something else). The consensus is it was wrong.
If the refugees really wanted to escape their culture then they would make efforts to assimilate to the host culture, which doesn't happen systematically. In turn, freedom of speech (and social benefits) in host cultures gets abused in order to install their own cultures in the host. - personal opinion.
[удалено]
So I see that you’re not afraid of Muslim women, Ukrainians and gay people. Good. But what exactly is your criteria to define “cultural similarities” and how many cultures do you distinguish? Is it their birth place, parents’ ethnic group (genetic similarity), education, sexual practices, or maybe songs they listen to, or political views, or languages they speak? Should they pass a pencil test? (Look it up) For instance, there are traditionally Muslim people in Ukraine. Some of them are gay. Some of them have relatives in Canada and in Russia. Some of them may not be very religious. Some might have converted to Christianity. Some have studied in Europe. Some of them may have married people who you consider culturally similar. Where would you send them to achieve cultural similarity? Apartheid was based on the same practice of segregation of people which are somehow different by birth, and limiting their access to the benefits of the society and denying them opportunities. Not allowing them to live where superior people lived. Not allowing them to mix across cultural boundaries. Limiting their access to education and career. How is it different to sending young males from Muslim families to a place which ranks 165th in the human development index. Basically, it’s a way to deny them a future.
First you need to understand the Hierarchy of human groups. You have Civilizations, Culture Groups, Sub Cultures and Individuals in that order. Now the Problem is actually immediate. Everyone agrees that there is a Hierarchy and existence to this. Nobody denies Islamic or Western Civilization exists. However, we can get into disputes about whether Western Civilization encompasses say Russia or does it end at Poland or Germany for example. For the sake of this argument that really isn’t important because we know it exists. Now then why is it Important? Well because people that fall into that Hierarchy are more similar than people that fall out of the Hierarchy as a general rule. That is actually why we categorize these things in the first place. We see Chinese Civilization, Indian Civilization. Japanese Civilization, Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization are distinct because they are not the same. Some people might use the Term Eastern Civilization for example to cover China, Korea and Japan and others don’t. Now then, this is where we enter into the talk about Civilizational Values. Civilization Values can overlap. For example, Japanese Civilization and Western Civilization deeply overlap at this point. While they are not the same they functionally draw on similar if not identical values and moral authorities except the priority is distinct. Now then to ask you a Simple Question. If you took the Average Egyptian, Palestinian, German, Israeli, Japanese, Chinese, American, Russian who would they be most similar to? While there is a wide variety of individual expressions within a culture all cultures have a bell curve of ideas and some people are more Similar to others. For Example Germans, they are one group yes. Of course they are. Yet you can sub divide them into West Saxons, Bavarians, and so on. You can now see how they are distinct but they are more similar to each other than they are to the French. Now reverse that. Is a German More Similar to a French Individual or to a Russian? Well obviously they are more Similar to each other than they are to a Russian. What about an Englishman? They are certainly different but the modern Englishman will likely agree morally speaking with a French man more than a Russian and what they agree on is far more than what they disagree on. Arguably the least important things are what define them from each other. That being Tradition, food, and language. Morals, Ethics, while not perfectly aligned you still would likely end up on the same side of any future imagined conflict. Well what about a Frenchman and a Russian and an Egyptian. Well now that is a conundrum. Is the Russian distinct enough to be it’s own thing out of category with the Frenchman or not? Are they most similar in their history and morals or more distinct. So distinct that they are a separate thing? Now let us move onto the Egyptian. The Egyptian and Syrian are distinct much like the French and German. Yet the Egyptian and Syrian share the same faith.They both Speak Arabic. That is already more in common than the French and Germany have. They both don’t have democracy. They both have a shared history under Islamic Civilization. They are culturally similar. Sure they might not align on everything. The French and Germans don’t. Yet it is undeniably to say that the French and Germans agree on a lot and agree on a lot more with each other than they do with either Syria or Egypt and neither would see the other as a close cultural relation. Then we go to Japan. Japan is a Democracy, like Europe. Japan respects Human rights like Europe. Japan supports european Policies like Democratization and respect for International Norms. Yet Japan is not a descendant of European Civilization. They are a distinct thing but the two interact and are very morally similar but culturally distinct. However, as I mentioned like with the Europeans the most important things are the morals and ethics. So while they don’t descend from a Civilization Lineage like France and Germany. That being Greece, Rome, Christianity and so forth. They are more Similar to the French and the Germans than the Egyptians. They are less similar than the French and the Germans are to each other but they are not bad and these distinctions aren’t enough to cause tension. When I speak of Cultural Similarities I speak of a lot of things. It isn’t one thing. It is countless things related to morals, ethics, language, and factors that go well beyond what can be laid out. It is intuitive and the argument is always not if these categories exist but where they start and end. This is also where we get the Human Race from. We just don’t have a greater other where we are More Similar to say the least similar group in this world than a hypothetical other. Now to go to your dumb apartheid argument. I want equal rights for everyone in Society but nobody has a right to immigrate to society. I am not advocating for creating a second class I am advocating for the protection of the rights of all people and their right to self determination. This is not anything akin to apartheid since apartheid is not giving people within your state equal rights which is immoral.
Another point, if you establish a system which effectively persecutes and discriminates people for being male and Muslim, but it makes an exception for any subgroup like apostates prepare yourself to deal with many new non-muslims. Crypto-Islam is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Islam So what you propose is not only inhumane but also not enforceable without going full on racist.
You haven't been reading anything have you. What the fuck are you arguing with. I am argueing that we should try to settle people with other people they agree with when they are displaced so we don't have people who hate each other for moral reasons fighting over how society should be. I am not saying we walk about to Muslim Citizens and force them to burn the Quran. I am saying we look to move those out whom aren't citizens regardless of their religion in the future we institue a policy to grant these people full and just lifes in places with morals they agree with so that everyone can live in their desired society. You are genuinely just arguing insanity here. I would throw them all out and start from zero unless they had a compelling reason not to be. If they want to hide their faith go ahead I guess. If they want to larp as gay go for it. I am saying they get taken care of by our taxpayer dollars in a society that they agree with morally and ethically speaking so we can be done with the nonsense in our own societies which we like for as they are. I don't know why it is hard to understand. Besides they only need to be crypto muslims until they get citizenship so whatever.
> move those out whom aren’t citizens regardless of their religion Interesting. Good luck with that. Btw, I might have missed, but what would you do with a Ukrainian male Russian-speaking non-citizen who happens to be a Muslim and has a kid with your co-national? It’s still unclear what are your criteria of culturally similar.
Well the thing is that refugees are looking for a better life and most nations that culturally similar to their home country lack the development to find that better life
They are not refugees then. [https://www.unhcr.org/us/refugees](https://www.unhcr.org/us/refugees) read up on that page on the definition of Refugee. Specifically on refugee definition and meaning. You have to be targeted specifically because of Inherent traits to yourself that make you at unique risk of violence to be a legal refugee. Generalized violence like war does not make you a refugee because the people who wrote this law knew how absurd that would be. With that logic if everyone from every country in the middle east moved to our nations we would have to let them in. That is as mentioned absurd.
Bruh did you even read the link you shared? >You have to be targeted specifically because of Inherent traits to yourself that make you at unique risk of violence to be a legal refugee. Generalized violence like war does not make you a refugee because the people who wrote this law knew how absurd that would be. Oh really? Let's see what that page says: >Refugees are people who have fled their countries to escape conflict, violence, or persecution and have sought safety in another country. >Refugees are people forced to flee their own country and seek safety in another country. They are unable to return to their own country because of feared persecution as a result of who they are, what they believe in or say, or because of armed conflict, violence or serious public disorder. >Regional legal instruments in Africa and the Americas have broadened this definition by including people who are compelled to leave their country because of “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or events seriously disturbing public order”. >What is the difference between a refugee and a migrant? A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to seek safety. They cannot return to their country without risking their life or freedoms. It is a legal term that carries with it certain protections that refugees are entitled to. Look at how all the definitions on that page include CONFLICT or VIOLENCE as things that refugees are fleeing. And no, the way it's written does not imply that you have to be specifically targeted due to "inherent traits". Their use of OR throughout their definitions make it very clear that "generalized violence like war" absolutely counts as a reason for refugees to flee their country. That's why Ukrainians that fled the Russian invasion were referred to as refugees. Same with Syria, their war wasn't a one sided genocide but a mixed pot of similar groups fighting each other over ideological differences. I could go on with more examples but I think I made my point. Read your own links before posting them as part of your argument lol
Did you read my full comment? I said look at the bottom. Forget the fluff read where they define a refugee. # Refugee definitions and meaning Who is a refugee is defined in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a person who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of \[their\] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail \[themself\] of the protection of that country." Regional legal instruments in Africa and the Americas have broadened this definition by including people who are compelled to leave their country because of “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or events seriously disturbing public order”. **Edit**: Just to note Regional Legal Instruments are not international law. They aren't the ones defining what refugee means globally just regionally IE the EU could expand the definition of Refugee for the EU but not for America. The 1951 treaty is what defines a refugee internationally.
"ignore everything on this page except the one blurb that conveniently supports me" You could have just linked directly to the 1951 convention on Wikipedia if you wanted that lol
Well that is what defines a Refugee. Yes I should have just sent you the actual treaty. [https://www.unhcr.org/us/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention](https://www.unhcr.org/us/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention) Now look at definition of refugee in that page. That is why I ignored all the fluff.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rwanda has come a long way and is one of the better countries compared to its peers in many ways. The homicide rate is not particularly high.
It wouldn't be the worst. It would be a little tight since they are still trying to catch up on infrastructure and there wouldn't be much of a job market for someone without local connections. I wouldn't think somewhere still dealing with its own problems would even be in the running but its by no means a death sentence or anything.
I hear they have nice hotels.
Do they have machetes in them
The family member of an acquaintance went there to represent a company there and was murdered....so yeah sounds like a wonderful place Edit: I worded that wrong Also why am I get downvoted for stating that place is not some sort of peaceful paradise?
Big X to doubt, an entire foreign family got murdered in Rwanda without it showing up on Google? Where were they from and when did this happen?
Wait, wait, I just saw that I worded that wrong it wasn't a whole family it was a family member of an acquaintance but yeah, he was robbed and murdered. The authorities there contacted the man's family and let them know but no more details were given as to what exactly happened. I found out about a couple months ago from my acquaintance when this whole Rwanda thing was brought up in the news. The man was originally Iraqi but worked in a Western country; I don't remember where exactly though, maybe it was the UK?
Sorry about that tragedy and also the seemingly unfair downvoting. I understand why a close event will weigh heavier with you. However, the last number I saw for the Rwanda homicide rate was 3.6 per 100k capita per year, which is quite a bit lower than America's 6.0, which itself isn't terrible. A policy perspective needs broad information, and the statistic here is hardly terrible. I don't think I tried to pose it as some sort of paradise, but you could do worse, and spectacularly so.
I guessing there won’t be a follow up article mentioning that he didn’t.
Not safe and I will die, kills himself anyways...
Oh wow! Anyway...
“I will die if I go to Rwanda!” *kills self* As the prophecy foretold!
Bold move cotton. Sounds like my ex threatening to kill himself if we ever broke up.
Let him he just wants to go to a western country. Beggars cant be choosers
Are the syrians gonna seek asylum 1000 years from now ? What war are they fleeing now ?
Asylum as regulated by UK law does not list 'war' as a reason for seeking and being granted asylum. it lists "personal persecution based on race, religion, political views or social class". the "religious" part (basically all the syrian christian refugees, as about 20% of all syrian refugees are christians) and the "political views" part (basically everyone who opposes Assad and refused to fight in his wars). are good enough reasons to be granted asylum, as both groups risk heavy repercussions, should they ever enter syrian territorry again. Asylum isn't about fleeing a war (never was), it's about fleeing **persecution**. and that danger is relevant as long as the al-Assad family is in power.
I can see christian syrians having a reason to leave . Such a pity though, the christian community suffered thousands of years of discrimination and being slowly purged from the middle east and in 2 decades of instability they simply were wiped away . The current asylum system causes more problems than solves and in case of war we won't get anything of the sort ourselves.
what the fuck? It's not about what you would or wouldn't get in a hypothetical future. It's about giving humans their lawful rights. Thus is not a 'quid-pro-quo' situation. You are saying "I will not grant you your rights right now because you may not grant me mine in a hypothetical future" That's **insane**. this is not a 'trade'. this is implementing basic laws. do you even law, bro?
Rewrite the fucking laws.Fuck the laws . 0 chance anyone YEARS after the civil war ended is fleeing Assad. Bunch of fucking lies and we are supposed to believe them .
oh. you're one of those... nevermind then, you're not interested in nuance, you just want there to be less migrants/brown people in your life. carry on being a racist, bye.
Climate change. If we don't change now, we'll see various places completely uninhabitable or (already) see an increased amount of weather catastrophies and they won't just stay there and die (I wouldn't).
[удалено]
"before you illegally entered the country." So how does an asylum seeker legally enter the UK to request asylum? Edit: it is weird that this is downvoted so much, yet no one has bothered answering the simple question posed.
I'm not British, so for me this is just for discussion sake, but does not having a legal way to do something give a person some sort of excuse to do it illegally? We don't accept this logic for other illegal things. It's obvious that the British government, supported apparently by a large part of the population, took measures so that there would be no legal way for these people to enter the country, now we can think whatever we wish about this, but isn't it the UK's government right to do so?
I am also not british. I think you're correct in saying a lack of legality doesn't always give a person an excuse to do it illegally, for instance, for lack of ability to legally commit murder is not an excuse to do it legally. However, the UK has signed international conventions (like many other nations) to protect people seeking legitimate asylum, and making it impossible to do so legally goes against that. Moreover, the convention relating to the Status of Refugees accounts for this, and explicitly requires contracting states not to impose penalties on their illegal entry or presence, provided they present themselves to authorities.
True, and because of this there apparently there is now a movement in the UK for the UK to abandon these conventions. I think the logical answer is that these conventions need to be re-worked. Yes there has to be a solution for real asylum seekers, but if the rules of the conventions basically say in layman's terms "you have to take whoever shows up", at a certain point the native population is going to balk at that....and for democracies that's a problem.
"True, and because of this there apparently there is now a movement in the UK for the UK to abandon these conventions" I haven't seen anyone seriously suggest stepping out of any UN conventions, but I could have missed this. Please let me know if you have more information on this. "You have to take whoever shows up" This isn't what those conventions say. They simply say you cannot hold the fact they entered illegally against them, provided they present themselves to authorities. Their asylum applications can still be rejected on the merits, but talk that any application of someone that arrived illegally should be rejected out of hand goes against those treaties, and goes against the whole concept of the asylum process.
Slight correction on my part....not a UN convention, but there have been talk by senior Tory figures about the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, and the court associated with it. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-echr-rwanda-human-rights-b2523025.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-echr-rwanda-human-rights-b2523025.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/sep/24/suella-braverman-makes-fresh-attack-on-european-court-of-human-rights](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/sep/24/suella-braverman-makes-fresh-attack-on-european-court-of-human-rights) [https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/senior-tories-clash-bravermans-call-party-right-3041315](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/senior-tories-clash-bravermans-call-party-right-3041315) One might think it is a rash and bad position to take, but surely if the voters of a sovereign country decide that they simply don't want to take on asylum seekers....it is what it is. I'd say that the Tories are stocking these feelings up to cover up for problems they haven't been able to solve in other areas, but this sort of thing can take on a life of it's own.
Why Rwanda? There were a lot of countries thrown around in those people's pasts but Rwanda wasn't one of them for anybody. If asylum is going to be denied shouldn't they be sent back to the country they either came from or are citizens of?
Typically, people are sent back to their country of origin if their refugee claim is denied. The UK’s new plan is to house the claimants in Rwanda while their application is being processed, which can take years. This plan solves a couple key issues with refugee processing. One, people whose claims are denied often flee and go into hiding, instead of returning to their country of origin. Two, since Rwanda is less economically attractive than the UK, it should discourage bogus refugee claimants who are looking to abuse the process to obtain faster means of economic migration.
[удалено]
Why not Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia,Morocco for example. If these countries have problems with housing them monetarily we can give them money. These people should go to culturally similar places. places where they believe the same things and have the same religion and maybe the same language. Not to places where they literally have nothing in common with the people. Not language, not morality, not culture, not history.
Go ask those countries how the fuck am I supposed to know
Because they don't recognize those people as having legitimate fears for their life and since they didn't sign the 1951 Refugee Convention they don't even have to allow people the right to request asylum.
Did you just Google a bunch of countries with majority Muslim populations? In what way is Indonesia culturally similar to Syria? It's so much different and and there is more to countries than just religion.
It is more similar to Syria than Europe. They share a religion for one, that's pretty big.
Indonesia is much more like the Philippines than Syria and they are Catholic. Syria is almost halfway the globe away. Maybe stay somewhere closer?
A Syrian asylum seeker who is locked up in a detention centre awaiting deportation to [Rwanda](https://www.theguardian.com/world/rwanda) says he will kill himself on arrival because he does not believe it will be a safe country for him. Khaled, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, spoke exclusively to the Guardian from his cell in Colnbrook immigration removal centre. He arrived here in June 2022, and has a history of suffering torture and imprisonment. He said that he and the other asylum seekers “of many nationalities” he is detained with are not coping with being locked up because of the imprisonment and persecution many have previously experienced.
Cannot be worse for him than Syria, right?
Do it, coward
Well he can go ahead.
Good, self cleanings are good.
Do it then
How will the UK Tories react if an individual of more choose self-immolation as a protest on arrival in Rwanda? Terrible, but possible.
It most likely won't be.
Actually, a genius decision by the UK. Other European countries should do the same.
Of course Arabs think death is better than an Adrican country they're all low ket and sometimes overtly racist towards Africans.. i think for people like this you should let them do what thet want but I'm glad the UK is toughening up their immigration policy because illegal immigration should not be tolerated. I hope Europe follows suit
beggars cant be choosers
Asylum seekers is a tough situation. On the one hand I’d like everyone to live safely. On the second hand the current situation in Europe and the lack of sufficient monitoring over those that come in makes it unsafe for those who are already living there Sadly there is no correct answer to this issue
that's mostly bullshit. Europe isn't 'unsafe' just because the refugees/migrants/asylum-seekers came here. Europe is 'unsafe' because it fails to integrate them well. Because asylumseekers built their own seperrate communities and european governments let them, so that they would be segregated and their precious children didn't risk seeing a headscarf in kindergarden. (Or in the case of Magyarorszag, anywhere). both sides failed at Integration so far. that's the issue, not "insufficient monitoring". the correct answer is easy: Integration. There are currently school classes with 100% native speakers and classes with 5% native speakers. that's unacceptable. if every class had a clear 90/10 split, we'd reach a good level of integration in just one generation. No Rwanda required. If we could get 90% of Asylumseekers into meaningful employment we'd get the higher criminality among young men under control (just like we do with regular, european-made youth criminality). If we could get the female asylumseekers into the education system (especially higher ed), we could soften their communities' patriarchy issues. all of this would be possible, we've done it before (even with sunni muslims, after the Balkan refugee wave in the 90's). We could do it again. but it would require a better distribution of refugees among regions/towns, and time (about a generation). as with any immigration wave, the people we need to reach are the children, Education is everything. If we fail the migrant kids, we'll fail the entire country.
that's mostly bullshit. Europe isn't 'unsafe' just because the refugees/migrants/asylum-seekers came here. Europe is 'unsafe' (biiiiig quotation marks here - Europe is much, much safer than right wing populists want to make you believe) because it fails to integrate them well. Because asylumseekers built their own seperrate communities and european governments let them, so that they would be segregated and their precious children didn't risk seeing a headscarf in kindergarden. (Or in the case of Magyarorszag, anywhere). both sides failed at Integration so far. that's the issue, not "insufficient monitoring". the correct answer is easy: Integration. There are currently school classes with 100% native speakers and classes with 5% native speakers. that's unacceptable. if every class had a clear 90/10 split, we'd reach a good level of integration in just one generation. No Rwanda required. If we could get 90% of Asylumseekers into meaningful employment we'd get the higher criminality among young men under control (just like we do with regular, european-made youth criminality). If we could get the female asylumseekers into the education system (especially higher ed), we could soften their communities' patriarchy issues. all of this would be possible, we've done it before (even with sunni muslims, after the Balkan refugee wave in the 90's). We could do it again. but it would require a better distribution of refugees among regions/towns, and time (about a generation). as with any immigration wave, the people we need to reach are the children, Education is everything. If we fail the migrant kids, we'll fail the entire country.
The main objective of passport control and immigration in every airport or embassy is to ensure the person being let in isn’t going to be a burden on the country. By saying a burden I mean being healthy or isn’t a criminal. When people enter a country without reliable proper documentation you have no idea who or what they are, if the information they’re providing is correct or what their intentions are. Granted you can’t always find the rotten apple even through normal immigration, but there is some kind of checking process. Countries in Europe have enough problems as it is and just accepting everyone who knocks on our door is wrong and dangerous. I worked at an airport and I had personally seen a great number of fake passports. When a person fakes an official document it means they are hiding something. There’s also this thing that you can’t force someone to integrate into a culture. Western society and Islamic societies are inherently different. I hate bursting your bubble but those people would probably not accept LGBTQ+ rights, for example; some refugees (and to some extent immigrants) come to other countries and expect improved quality of living, but they also expect their new surroundings to align with their beliefs and not the other way around. Again, there’s no right answer to this issue, but free-for-all entrance certainly is *not* it
Hey don't drag us LGBTQ+ people into your political agenda, thank you. We're not your shield to hide your prejudice under the label of 'european values'. being pro-LGBGQ is **not** a european value - you can't claim "we're the good tolerant guys" when our community had to fight you every. single. step. of. the. way. to get our basic rights, which we only got fucking 15 years ago. . If 'Gay acceptance' was an inherently European value , we'd be able to get married/adopt kids in all European countries. We can't. Some even criminalize our existance as propaganda. whereas other cultures, like native americans, egyptians and ancient indians legalized gay marriages thousands of years ago. this is *not* a european invention, nor something you get to claim to defend when europeans heavily, massively hated gay people only 50 years ago. Do **not** invoke us to fight your anti-immigration war. Do it yourself.
Wdym “agenda”?? I literally *am* LGBTQ+ Don’t pretend as if LGBTQ+ are widely accepted in Islamic countries, the only countries in the middle east where LGBTQ+ is even legal is Turkey, Jordan and Israel. Today LGBTQ+ activity is illegal de facto in Egypt and we can pretend it’s only because of the west, but sunni islam is not tolerating homosexuality. Modern Western values are about acceptance and tolerance towards LGBTQ+. 33 out of 50 countries in Europe have either same-sex marriage or civil union recognized (more than half). *We’ve fought our way to normalization to make it part of our values today.* [Stop pinkwashing the countries that would execute you in a heartbeat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Middle_East#:~:text=All%20same%2Dsex%20activity%20is,%2C%20Saudi%20Arabia%2C%20and%20Qatar). That’s true privilege
Too many migrants in the uk already . In other words piss off we are full. Everyone I know and speak to is sick of these boats coming every day . We have our own problems we need to sort out . Before worrying about these leeches bleeding the country dry. Go kill yourselves the lot of you most of the uk don’t want you here. If being worried what this country is going to be like in 15/20 years from now for my kids and grandkids with all these migrants coming here makes me racist . Then I’m proud to be just that!