OV9

Oh and in response to the Pakistan and Bangladesh comment further up - we were originally talking about the dehumanisation/demonisation of "illegals" i.e. those who come by irregular transport routes, which doesn't tend to be Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
Those guys tend to be expired student and work visa.

But regardless, asylum extends to religious or sectarian persecution too. We'll look after you if your life is in danger if you stay at home. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Especially as former commonwealth countries who previously fought for the British empire, and whose current problems of religious intolerance have at least some of their origins in British colonial policy (Indian Partition, in particular).

Nefarious wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 12:51 pm In my neighbour's house fire example, you wouldn't say they couldn't sleep on your living room floor because there wasn't enough food in the cupboard or enough poo roll in the downstairs cloakroom - you'd pop to the shops!

But that's not a valid call back to your neighbour example. You neighbour's house burns down so you invite your neighbour to move into your house permanently - they will no longer attempt to house themselves - and you furthermore agree to be financially responsible for them, and their children, current and future, going forward.

I like my neighbour but not that much

And I take it that when you say "You'd pop to the shops", you mean "Tax the Rich"

Nefarious wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 1:01 pm Oh and in response to the Pakistan and Bangladesh comment further up - we were originally talking about the dehumanisation/demonisation of "illegals" i.e. those who come by irregular transport routes, which doesn't tend to be Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
Those guys tend to be expired student and work visa.

But regardless, asylum extends to religious or sectarian persecution too. We'll look after you if your life is in danger if you stay at home. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Especially as former commonwealth countries who previously fought for the British empire, and whose current problems of religious intolerance have at least some of their origins in British colonial policy (Indian Partition, in particular).

They still end up within the same asylum system and contribute to the overall statistics, though. They're still feeding the negative sentiment felt nationally.

I get the point, but those countries are relatively stable yet their residents are some of the main nationalities seeking protection. I'm not adverse to offering protection based on the example scenario you mentioned, but there's also many documented cases of frivolous asylum claims once a resident has legally overstayed their welcome. There's an entire industry on gaming the system and it's difficult to disprove claims.

A sensible asylum system would also include the government using significantly more diplomatic pressure on partner nations to rectify abuses on human rights that lead to residents seeking protection. But then again, I don't know what levers the government is able to use in such circumstances.