On gay asylum seekers

Good, sensible decision.

This intrigues though:

Not only would he not be able to indulge openly in the mild flirtations which are an enjoyable part of heterosexual life,

So where do we get asylum from the harpies who insist that flirting is oppression/rape/patriarchy/whateverthey\’recallingitthisweek?

19 thoughts on “On gay asylum seekers”

  1. If the UK makes it clear that offering asylum to people from persecution is something we very much believe in, but that it is not a ticket to a life on benefits, then the incidence of bogus asylum seekers would drop away naturally. It is the abuse of the system that (rightly) angers the Daily Mail readers. The danger of this ruling is that if declaring oneself gay allows every benefit tourist to claim asylum status, the backlash against the genuine gay community could become a problem.

  2. They’ll take all our jobs and their children will fill up our schools………

    …..Perhaps not…….

    We are currently not allowed to send failed asylum seekers back to countries that torture, despite the fact that, as they are not actually fleeing from persecution (as decided by the courts) they will not actually be tortured should they go back (unless torture is a completely random event, in which case we should accept everyone from such a country).

    Someone who is gay, from a country where such activity is illegal, is however, definitely at risk of abuse if sent home, even if they have never before come to the attention of the local authorities or vigilantes.

    Its just a shame that you know that the system will be abused.

  3. BTW, are we really sure that “indulging openly in the mild flirtations which are an enjoyable part of heterosexual life” is really such an acceptable behavioural pattern in Iran?

    I mean, I’m sure some people do it, at least in a mild way, but as far as I’ve read the news, they do it at the risk of being flogged, or worse.

  4. Will there be a test? And what would it be?!!!

    Or can anyone from certain countries now claim they are gay and get asylum?

  5. “Good, sensible decision.”

    Bad, utterly senseless decision.

    Look, there are many, many places where the laws are such that some people live miserable lives.

    In African countries, albinos live in fear of being chopped up for their spare parts to use in ‘muti’. In China, women cannot have as many children as they wish. I’m sure there are some parts of the Amazon rainforest harbouring tribes where to fancy a change of blue parrot feathers in your hair from the more usual red is to invite a lynch mob.

    We can’t be expected to house them all.

  6. ‘ang on!

    I can’t speak for the Cameroons, but where in Iran can heterosexuals indulge openly in the mild flirtations which are an enjoyable part of heterosexual life?

    The place is a chuffing mediaeval theocracy where it’s considered a mortal sin to catch a glimpse of a woman’s ankle let alone engage in slightly sexually charged banter (for that is what flirting is)!

    If we follow their Lordships’ logic every Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Other Arabian, Pakistani, Kyrgyzistani, Othastani and every other citizen of a represive moralistic regime immediately qualifies for asylum in Britain.

    Now that may be a nice librull, or even liberal, ideal, but there are a few realities to consider: First of all there are a few practical things. Can Britain actually accomodate all these people? Educate their kids? Give them light and warmth? Feed and water them and deal with all their sewage?

    Then there’s the social issues: Are the Brits prepared to have yet more foreigners foisted upon them? I know that’s a distasteful question to ask, but that doesn’t remove from its importance – the consequences if they aren’t could be quite nasty.

  7. “Then there’s the social issues: Are the Brits prepared to have yet more foreigners foisted upon them?”

    Well, one thing’s for sure. We’ll never get a referundum on it, will we?

  8. “Bad, utterly senseless decision.”

    Shoot the cunts, that’s what I say. Why should I…hard earned taxes…overcrowded schools…country full of arseholes already…twats commenting on blogs etc…

  9. I have to say, I’m inclined to agree with Mark T here. If we take in people from places where the average income (and hence poverty line) is a lot lower than here, then we give them a living that will lift them out of what would have been poverty in their homeland without costing us a fortune (obviously this would have to be capped at the UK poverty line – if they don’t like that, they’re free to go elsewhere).

    Take for example Iran. I can’t find median income data, but GDP per capita should be close. GDP per capita for Iran was $12,900 in 2009 (link below). That’s about £8,500 at current exchange rates. We know that the “poverty level” is 60% of the median income, 60% of £8,500 is £5,100 so we just have to give an Iranian asylum seeker £5,100 per year and he’ll be living at a level above the poverty line in his original country.

    Cameroon had a GDP per capita of $2,300 in 2009. This gives an annual payment of £910 to keep someone above the Cameroon poverty line.

    If they want to work (and hence pay taxes and contribute to the economy) then great, I’m all for it. I do think we should take in people who face persecution, but I don’t think we should give (what must seem to them to be) massive benefits just for coming over here and claiming persecution – that would just encourage people to game the system.

    Iran figures from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
    Cameroon figures from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cm.html

  10. Zelazny, to me it looks like you are comparing incomes without purchasing parity adjustments, which makes things pretty meaningless. £5,100 in Britain is quite different from £5,100 in Iran or Cameroon.

  11. Not the point. Why should they get anything?

    I’m also of the opinion that people in the uk who’ve never worked should be given a rather dramatic wake up call – why should some people be given all they need to live without having to work for it, whereas those who do work struggle.

    Brief example: My wife and I both earn over £20k, yet all we can afford is to live in a studio flat in one of the worst areas in the country for crime. I know one young lady who’s never worked, got pregnant by an ex-con at the age of 17 (adn the father’s now back in jail) and has now had the kid. She gets a lovely 2 bedroom flat (admittedly not in a “nice” area, but it’s better than where we are), all paid for by the state. She gets benefits that are enough that she’s saved up over £3k in the last year, whereas I and my wife are forced to count the pennies, literally (I’ve got £15 to last me until I get paid, in two weeks time).

    We’d probably be massively better off if my wife gave up work, we had a kid and pretended to split up – and there’s something deeply wrong with that, if you ask me.

    Benefits should be a safety net, not a way of life.

  12. Zelazny: “Not the point. Why should they get anything?”

    That is an understandable position, but it is rather incompatible with calculations on what is the medium income and poverty line here and there. If you think they should get nothing, then just say so, and forget the income calculations.

  13. I have two views really… In my ideal world, you’d get nothing for nothing. Those who can’t contribute to society would not get hand outs at a cost to those who do – why reward bad behaviour. This is a rather harsh view, however, and I don’t really expect we’ll end up with anything like that in the next few centuries. It also brooks little room for compromise and hence leads to rather short discussions.

    So, taking a more moderate tack (assuming that the government is going to take money from me and give to others, I at least may as well state my case on who I think deserves some of it). I think it’s right to offer asylum to genuine cases that need it, just as I think it’s right to offer a safety net to those who suddenly lose their job, or are struck ill. But a safety net is all that it should be.

    My issue with Asylum is that we’re basically saying: if you can sneak through a bunch of other safe places (because let’s face it, how do you get to the UK from Iran with no money, other than by going through a bunch of other places?) and convince us to let you stay then we’ll give you something worth £250k (see link below). It seems that convincing them to let you stay is rather easy (I’d kiss a man for £250k – I’m not proud :p), so all you have to do is get here.

    (as Timmy pointed out here (http://www.adamsmith.org/think-piece/welfare/wealth-inequality-and-the-hills-report%3A-a-critical-assessment/), even a pauper in this country has assets worth around £250k.)

    Tie it to poverty levels in the places that they have come from and you make things a lot less attractive (unless they’re from wealthy countries, and there’s less chance of them wanting to leave in that case) and save the taxpayer a bundle. It’d be a start, anyway.

  14. The obvious solution to the entire illegal immigrant/bogus asylum seeker question is this: pass (and rigorously enforce) a law stating you can only claim asylum if you have come DIRECTLY from the state you are claiming asylum from. So if you step off a boat or plane that has come directly from Iran (for example) you can claim to be a gay asylum seeker. Arrive in the back of a lorry via the Channel Tunnel, and its back on the next train to France sonny Jim, batty boy or not.

    Would this law stand up in court though? Or are we so far down the loss of sovereignty road that we cannot even do that now?

    Tim adds: This is the current law. You can only, under the various international agreements, claim asylum in the first safe country you reach. For example, the Chinese hand North Koreans back. So a N Korean would not have to try and claim asylum in China, fair to go through China to somehwere that doesn’t hand people back. But France is a safe place so a Somali asylum seeker cannot enter the UK from France and then claim asylum in the UK. Should be done in France.

    Enforcing this is a little different of course.

  15. “Enforcing this is a little different of course.” But it needn’t be; just pass a law saying that if we can’t determine where these asylum-shoppers have popped in from, we deem it to be the Republic of Ireland.

  16. So if we stop being a safe country altogether, we don’t have to accept any asylum seekers, and there is no penalty on us?
    After all, China is not penalised, Burma isn’t, Sudan isn’t.

    And all we need to do is start a few pogroms?

  17. Haven’t we got a spare island somewhere, left over from Empire days that we could deport everyone to, if we didn’t know which safe country they had arrived from? Unless you claimed asylum immediately on arrival in the country on a direct flight/boat, you get sent to the island. Where you stay until you decide to tell us where you came from, and where you would like to go back to. And we send you there, gratis.

    So you either spend the rest of your days on some island somehere, or you go home, or get another country to accept you. But you don’t get to live in Blighty and clog up our welfare state. We have home grown layabouts to do that.

  18. @sobers: Better be a big island. Australia uses Christmas Island for that sort of thing, and it’s full-to-overflowing with attendant problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *