Home Uncategorized The Difference Between Immigration And Asylum

The Difference Between Immigration And Asylum



There’s a certain blurring here of the point of the system:

People seeking asylum in the UK and Europe on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are routinely seeing their claims rejected because of a widespread “culture of disbelief” and an “impossible burden of proof”, researchers have said.

Calling for a major overhaul of the way asylum systems treat LGBT+ claimants, the team from the University of Sussex said that across Europe, one in three were refused because officials simply did not believe their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Four in 10 reported being rejected because decision-makers did not consider they were persecuted, or at risk of persecution, in their home country, while more than a third felt interviewers did not listen to their story or ask the right questions.

“These findings of course sit within a broader picture of the ‘hostile environment’ to immigration,” said Moira Dustin,

That’s sorta the point. Asylum and immigration are not the same thing. From some to many places, for some to many would be immigrants, there is no legal manner of immigrating. The would be immigrant isn’t particularly trained, or likely to be high earning, or possess some rare skill in demand etc. They’re – and why shouldn’t they be? – simply someone who wants to move from a shitty place to a better one.

The way the world is currently set up that freedom of movement doesn’t exist.

We also have this other system. As we righteously should have such a system. Those who are going to get topped by whatever evil has overcome their original homeland get to move out of it to somewhere safer. Quite why they might get topped, oppressed, doesn’t matter here. Sexual identity is one good reason, religion another, race, skin colour, political beliefs and so on. That governments can and do go off the rails is clearly true and the people who will be their victims have a right – and it is a right, not a favour – to go somewhere else to be safe.

True, in law this right is to be exercised in the first safe place they come to in the flight, thus no one currently in France should be able to claim asylum in Britain while someone stepping off the plane from Pyongyang into Heathrow might well do so. But that detail doesn’t matter for the base point here.

We now have two different systems, using different criteria, for deciding who may move from one country to another. Who can qualify under the one system will be different from who can under the other – different criteria, see? So, there has to be some sorting through who does qualify under which set of criteria.

For one thing we know about humans is that they’ll, we’ll, shade things in order to get what we want. Say that we qualify for whatever in this sense even if it’s not wholly, entirely and totally true. We only have to look at claimant rates in welfare systems to see this. At which point, well, that someone is denied inclusion in their claimed category, well, that’s rather the point of having the different criteria, isn’t it?

We don’t have free immigration, we do have free movement for asylum seekers in the protected classes. That second is obviously righteous and just – but that does also mean that we need a system of making sure that those claiming it are indeed from the protected classes. And given human nature some are going to claim what isn’t quite true and any system of verification is going to reject some of them.

It’s entirely true that we can’t trust governments to get this right because we can’t ever trust governments to get anything right in detail. But the fact that we have an asylum system at all, one that differs from the regular immigration one, means that some applications are going to get rejected.



  1. You’re a nice man, Tim.

    I naturally have the attitude that these fortunate people were luckily liberated from the awful iron heel of the evil empire and are now lolling in the luxury of independence from the wicked whites. Independence means you have to solve your own problems. (The one I enjoyed most was when the National Liberation Front rescued the Aden Protectorate from the beastly Brits and came rushing into Aden to leap into the money bin and swim in the cash. But alas, no money. They had to bludge off the Soviet taxpayer, who egged them on to liberate the poor oppressed Dhofaris, and of course the oil, from the wicked Sultan of Oman.)

    Anyway, now they have their liberated homeland to give them asylum from the wicked whites, I don’t see any reason why they should be permitted to flee to the wicked whites and claim asylum from them. After all whites need asylum too, especially from that lot.

  2. I think a lot of people want to let asylum seekers in because they want mass immigration – but are too scared to say it.
    Certainly would explain how people can get asylum with ludicrous claims (speaking from personal experience).

  3. @ David
    I want to let genuine asylum seekers in because – firstly – it is morally indefensible to refuse them and – secondly – because we benefit from doing so. If you look at what the UK has gained from Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis in the 1930s and Polish refugees from Stalin in 1940, the Huguenots, Hungarian refugees in 1956, Ugandan Asians, pre-1914 Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms (Marks & Specers, anyone) …
    Economic migrants cloud the picture although economic theory says that we should welcome them because New Labour made it attractive for non-workers and those whose value-added is less than the cost of their upkeep to migrate to the UK to live off the over-generous (except to asylum-seekers) benefit system.
    It is mind-boggling that anyone taking a boat from France should claim to be a refugee with the UK being the first “safe country” that they reach.
    FYI I do not want mass immigration because we have a housing shortage and we don’t produce enough food to feed the current population (and we still couldn’t if we abandoned the EU-dictated “set-aside” and sowed crops in all the paddocks for riding horses) and the South-East (and various other areas) are already overcrowded.

  4. @John77
    >Don’t produce enough food
    By what measure? Do you mean people are starving to death, or that we should have more domestic production for security reasons?

  5. @ Terrance
    Currently we are dependant upon imports to supply us with food and that would still be the case even if everyone went on a diet similar to WWII rations but *reduced* to reflect the lower calorie needs of three-quarters of the population. So we are at the mercy of those exporting foodstuffs and those controlling trade routes.
    The Royal Navy is not allowed to control the English Channel according the Mayor of Calais and numerous grubby lawyers.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments