Should asylum seekers be dispersed?

The UK government has defended its policy of dispersing asylum seekers around the country, despite renewed criticisms.

The murder of a refugee in Glasgow and a serious attack on another in Hull have raised questions about the system which has seen 30,000 asylum seekers moved north in the last 18 months to reduce pressure on London and the South East.

Refugee agencies say asylum seekers are being dispersed on the basis of the availability of cheap accommodation to areas which lack the necessary support networks.

But Home Office minister Jeff Rooker defended the policy, and said the government would only stop placing asylum seekers in certain areas if the police advised against it.

Should the current dispersal policy continue? Or should asylum seekers be allowed to choose where they live while their cases are reviewed?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

I too agree that refugees should be dispersed. But a basic proficiency in English language should be made mandatory. You can have a multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, but NOT multi-linguistic! There should be English and only English, except at home or in traditional or religious occasions.
Sajjeev Antony, Oman

Don't ever forget that you were the first asylum seekers in the world. You too did it illegally and made the locals asylum seekers in their own countries. You have a moral responsibility to welcome at least the people from your old colonies (who really made you rich and prosper). After all why are only black and dark asylum seekers are being targeted?
AM, USA

They choose to enter this country illegally, they jump the queue for accommodation others have waited years for. Why should they be given a choice of venue? New houses should not be given to them, this is where the ill feeling stems from. Most people feel they should be sent back to the European country they landed in, after all, charity begins at home, and we are only a small country, with not much room left. I am not racist but I would just like there to be, farm land, open spaces and green hills, for the generations of people and children of the future to enjoy.
Joanne Smith, GB

Britain is not getting any bigger

A, UK

If so many asylum seekers are going to be allowed into the UK then they should certainly be dispersed. A few weeks ago that Hampshire, West Sussex and other areas in the south east are going to need thousands of homes each over the next 5 -10 years just to keep up with demand. This will put a lot of strain on resources. Towns and cities in the south-east are already very crowded. Britain is not getting any bigger.
A, UK

Point 1, why are these asylum seekers in the UK, rather than the "first safe country" they inevitably passed through on their way out of oppression. Point 2, If they must be housed in this counrty, (and sincerely are escaping the very worst forms of oppression, violence and fear for their lives in their home countries) what is so wrong with a comfortable, safe, warm and well-fed existence in a secure camp until their asylum cases are heard, surely if you are fleeing to this country with your family that sort of accommodation, where education and healthcare is on site, is preferable to placing your loved ones in the most run down housing far from others from your own community and where you still may be fearful for your families safety.

Point 3, and most importantly, why should the overcrowded south east have to pick up the pieces all the time. We have enough trouble here already trying to provide affordable housing for our key workers such as health care staff, teachers and the fire service without all the available low-cost and housing association accommodation being taken up by incoming asylum seekers.
Jane Chamberlain, England

It is unreasonable to expect that there will not be trouble when a large group of people with serious problems are simply dropped into an area which itself has very serious problems. Sadly, ignorance to the plight of asylum seekers and a campaign of misinformation about the facilities open to them by certain members of the community means that this was inevitable.

If long-standing residents of an area are told that the money to fix their homes is unavailable, then appears to be given to asylum seekers (regardless of the fact that the money for asylum seekers comes from a different fund) then animosity towards them is, sadly, inevitable. In addition, sensationalism of the asylum seekers situation in right-wing newspapers doesn't help.
Jamie, Scotland

No asylum seeker ever closed a school, privatised a hospital, or cut anyone's pension. New Labour and the Tories make these cuts to please their big business friends, and try to scam us that asylum seekers are to blame. Our "leaders" have sunk so low they're happy to pass the buck onto the most vulnerable. Are we really going to play dumb for them?
Ben Drake, York, UK

OK, so the asylum seekers have terrible lives in their countries, but shouldn't we think about our own deprived and under-privileged before allowing floods of people to make use of our good nature. Surely the millions that are spent on these schemes would be better placed rehousing our own homeless first?
Mark Day, UK

I think that the way some of UK residents treat "asylum seekers" is disgusting. They don't come here to cause trouble they just want a chance to lead a most normal life as possible. I have a Kurdish boyfriend and I have heard stories of what they have gone through which you or I wouldn't go through in a lifetime. So why doesn't everyone just give them a chance instead of judging them by their "status"?
Joanne Bean, UK

One remembers the Afghan "refugees", who hi-jacked an internal flight, refuelled in Moscow and then proceeded to fly over Germany, France, Holland, Belgium etc, to land specifically in the UK. The reason? We are a soft touch. There are old people in this country who cannot heat their homes in the winter, children going hungry or malnourished to school etc. Bottom line - they shouldn't even be in the country.
Mark, Scotland

"Under the UN Charter they should be accommodated in the first safe country they come to," says Tom. How convenient! We can now sit here, smug in the knowledge that no 'genuine' refugees are likely to come flooding out of our immediate neighbours.

Personally, I would rather see this country take in a thousand 'bogus refugees' or 'economic migrants' than risk sending a single family back to death or torture for their belief or an accident of birth.
Andrew, UK

I have lived all my life in the Haringey area, which has been one of the most used areas for "dispersing" refugees. I have no qualms what so ever about this but I have seen over the past few years a steady decline in the quality of the area. There has also been a steady increase in negative views towards refugees over this period. Is this to do with their culture or race because we are xenophobic? I don't think so. What has started to annoy long term residents is that they seem to get every benefit given to them and more whilst people who have lived all their lives here and paid tax and NI Contributions all their live just get fobbed off with lame excuses when asking for help.

Several points, which I feel would make things better would be: 1. If an asylum seeker is caught committing a crime then they should be deported for abusing the trust and help we as a country have extended to them 2. They should not be allowed to jump the housing list, as so many have around here. 3. They should be able to work to help contribute towards their living costs and fellow asylum seekers.
AL, London, UK

I was amazed at A Franklin's comments on "hundreds of years [of] harmonious living". I've obviously been reading the wrong history books. On to the main issue though, I think dispersal is a good idea, for the development of inter-racial relations (we live in hope!) and to ease the burden on the entry port towns and cities. Why can we not embrace other cultures? How dull would our lives be without the Jewish tailors and bagel shops of the East End of London, the country-wide Indian, Italian, Malaysian, etc restaurants. Give these people a chance - what would you do had you been born to an oppressed or poverty-stricken nation?
S, London, UK

We should be celebrating the fact that these people want to come to this great country of ours. We should perhaps start to ask questions if people stopped wanting to come here!
Richard Johnson, United Kingdom

Asylum seekers have made a choice of country, it would be good manners to cooperate with the authorities to assist their resettlement. Violence was is Sighthill before refugees but went unnoticed. Is this an excuse to stop dispersal
V Price, Scotland

In reply to Andy of the UK, contrary to his ill-informed opinion it is not OK for Australians, New Zealanders or South Africans to simply come to the UK and work. As Commonwealth citizens they can get working holidaymaker status (2 years in the UK)if under the age of 28 which also applies to Nigerians, Ghanaians, Malaysians etc. Many of those he quotes are refused entry, or removed from the UK if found to be working illegally. Furthermore it is not "a few thousand" it is more like 500,000 - 1 million if taken over the last 10 years. Finally, as others have pointed out, the vast majority of so-called refugees have not fled their homelands, but rather have come from that well-known war zone - France.
Paul, UK

A sign of a society at peace with itself is its willingness to accept difference

N A, Britain

A sign of a society at peace with itself is its willingness to accept difference, of whatever type. I live in a very mixed area, and enjoy the fact. If folks are getting "frustrated at handouts" "frustrated at pickpockets" (is this true anyway?) then an interesting solution would be to admit straightforwardly that any immigrants are all "economic immigrants" and make sure that they can work. How about a UK Green Card lottery that will allow a small number of immigrants in every year, say 50,000. (yes that is small).

If we have to, make language and culture training available, so that everyone is sure of their democratic duties. And no, don't distinguish about skill levels, labourers as well as doctors and software engineers as just as welcome. Then we will also have no "dispersal" debate since folks will go where there is work and backup. This will give dignity to all immigrants, and hence ourselves. I also suggest to include all immigrants from the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc in this 50,000 - they can only get in in the same way, just to make it all fair.
N A, Britain

If you think the problem of refugees is a problem now just wait a little while. Take the statement that Kent is dealing with 100 unaccompanied children a month. This is the equivalent of 4 school classes every month or 48 a year this is without taking into account those who arrive with family. All these children have to be educated. It is unlikely that Kent is building one or more new schools every year so all these children will be entering classes in local schools with teacher shortages class sizes are going to rise rapidly or children are going to get sent home one or two days a week. Then watch the resentment to the asylum seekers rise as parents see their children missing out on education.

Other local services will also suffer as increasing pressure is put on health and social services, due to the increased numbers using them. It is even possible that troops may be needed on the streets to protect the asylum seekers. Either that or council taxpayers may start to refuse to pay the increases needed to pay for the extra services required.
Stephen, England

I'm confused. Isn't the United Kingdom made up of people whose ancestors wanted to improve their lives? The hypocrisy and xenophobia in many of the comments is frightening. How many of those writing have relatives in Australasian, Europe or America who were economic migrants? How many have ancestors who worked in the colonies? Asylum seekers and economic migrants are not new or unique to Britain - its the way the world goes round.
Janice, West Sussex, England

I think the dispersal policy should be stopped and asylum seekers allowed to live where they wish, as several have been murdered by racists in bad areas they have been sent to. I also think more asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in the UK etc. as they are fleeing torture and persecution and are desperate for help. I also think more should be done by world governments and the UK government to tackle the root causes of people seeking asylum such as action to stop torture and human rights abuses etc. in other countries through sanctions and conferences etc. Asylum seekers are human beings and deserve our sympathy and help and Jesus said we would be punished in the after-life if we did not welcome "strangers" in the country we live in.
Rohan, UK

I believe that dispersal of asylum seekers should not be the priority. The Government needs to look at ways of processing the asylum applications far more rapidly and then re-locating the personnel. In that way it would, a) Reduce the risk of "illegal" immigrants disappearing. b) Ensure that genuine asylum seekers were treated in a prompt and humane manner.
Philip Ager, UK

I agree with Alan from Scotland, I am amazed to have discovered that these refugees now in the UK must have been hounded by their enemy's through some if not all of the following countries: Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France, and are finally only "safe" in the UK, however with the trouble in Glasgow, perhaps even here is not safe, and we should pass them along the chain to Ireland. For myself I am going to be joining my American wife in the next few months, and I have to say their government will not be showering me with tax dollars, in fact it is one of the conditions of entry that I do not become a burden on the Federal budget for at least 10 years.
Chris Kenny, England

This week we mourned the death of Larry Adler, who was himself an asylum seeker from the McCarthy witch-hunts in America in the early 1950s. To help the new strangers in our midst to realise the talents that they can enrich us with would surely be a fitting tribute to Larry Adler's memory.
Nigel Baldwin, Portsmouth UK

Of course the real problem is world over population and Third World countries that seem beyond help. Many of these countries are racked by corruption, political instability, ethnic intolerance and poverty with no solution in sight. Naturally most would prefer to be in the West given the choice. Whilst I am sympathetic to the plight of these unfortunate souls I do not believe the West can be held responsible for these countries ills or be expected to take large numbers of asylum seekers since there must be hundreds of millions of them around the world. Does anyone really believe taking a few million asylum seekers will really help! For instance I cannot imagine asylum seekers from India will decrease in the next 50 years with a population expected to increase by 600,000,000. Personally I blame it all on the Romans if they had never arrived we would all still be wearing furs and living in stick huts and nobody would want to come here.
Jamie, Scotland

I also agree with some of the other comments made that we should be providing for our own people, i.e. homeless, poor, elderly before spending money that would be of value to them. How can it be justified that someone who has never made any contribution to this country be put first before our own. Bringing in more poverty is not the solution. I understand that these people cannot stay in their own country, but there should be a limit to the number of incomers and the period that they are allowed to stay.
Dave, Scotland

The basic fact is that Britain is and always has been a country of immigrants, whether it be Scandinavian, Italian, French, Afro-Caribbean, Indian, etc etc. This is what makes the UK so culturally strong. If economic migrants want to come and work hard and contribute to our economy, good luck to 'em - I mean, look at Marks and Spencer set up by two eastern European immigrants at the end of the 19th century. We should be proud that they want to come here. Of course they should be dispersed, because it would maximise the benefit...
Oliver, UK

I believe that a country should look after its own

Ian, Scotland

I believe that a country should look after its own, before taking in "Asylum Seekers". There are thousands homeless and needy. I also believe they should get the help they need first and the "Asylum Seekers" should have been put on the first boat back to their home countries.
Ian, Scotland

While the UK and other powerful nations continue to loot the poor nations' wealth and resources, we sit here and criticise the so-called 'economic migrants'. There would be no economic migrants from anywhere if the powerful nations stopped their blood sucking activities under the umbrella of the IMF and the World Bank. We, in the Western World, should be ashamed of our present and our history, and should try to help these poor people rather than meet them with racist attitudes. We lead luxurious lifestyles and people in poor nations pay the price. I say, shame on our government who disperses these asylum seekers to areas where the government knows that they will be faced with racist thugs and hence discourage them from coming to the UK. Congratulations, Mr Blair, it seems your policy is working effectively.
Zad, UK

Can somebody please explain why it's perfectly OK for Australians, Kiwis and South Africans to come here in their thousands to work, even though (some parts of South Africa excepted) there is plenty of work and a reasonable quality of life in their own countries, but we get so het up about a few thousand people who want to come here from countries which have been crippled by war, famine or the collapse of communism and who genuinely want to make a proper life for themselves? I'm not saying we should have an open door policy, but it seems to me that there is a major double standard operating here.
Andy, UK

We cannot help the whole world and its dog

Murphy, UK

Whilst I appreciate the disturbing and terrible situations these refugees are fleeing, I don't think we should keep allowing so many to settle in Britain. We're too soft. We should deal with our own homeless people first. If I were homeless and saw all these refugees being given houses, benefits, access to our services etc, I would feel extremely let down by my country. We already have a population problem. As a taxpayer I feel I should be allowed to choose what my money is spent on. There should be a limit on the amount of refugees allowed to come to Britain and after that it's just tough. We cannot help the whole world and its dog, we can only do so much.
Murphy, UK

Everyone is skirting around the real issue. If life were so terrible for these people in their own country they would seek asylum in the first country they come to that granted it. Instead we have shantytowns in France full of people waiting to come here to exploit our welfare state. In twenty years time, when the welfare state has been consigned to oblivion because the country can no longer afford it, will you all remember how eager you were to have these people here?
Simon Roberts, England

Life as a refugee is not as easy as some people think

A Kurdish Refugee, UK

As a refugee or asylum seeker myself (whichever name you prefer), I think that there are some facts that must be understood before anything else. No one chooses to become a refugee. Life as a refugee is not as easy as some people think and becoming a refugee is not like going on a holiday - you don't go round travel agents looking for the most attractive destination - and most people, when they do their dreaded journey, are in such a big confusion that they don't know where they are coming from and where they are going. As far as draining the system and wasting taxpayers' money is concerned, most people like myself are taxpayers ourselves and it's the fault of the system itself that refugees have to rely on benefits, at least for the initial 6 months - even after that I don't think any one has an idea about how hard it is to get a decent job if you don't have proper documentations.

There is so much hypocrisy involved in this argument. What you expect people to do? The government takes years to decide a case (I am aware of people waiting for up to 6 years and the average waiting time is well above 2 years). At the same time, they make it extremely hard for people to get a job. Refugees want to settle in as soon as they can, to work and contribute to the society they live in. If you want to make a well-informed judgment, then meet some of those scary creatures called asylum seekers and see for yourself if they are as barbaric as they have been portrayed in the media.
A Kurdish Refugee, UK

I can't let James's remark about double standards go unchallenged. If you migrate to the U.S. you had better be prepared to work, there is no free ride here. That is the difference. Also we are, at least I am, paying U.K. taxes for the British Government to give away to these people. 100 million pounds just for one small group, give me a break.
Douglas Kay, U.S.A. (English)

The most successful immigrants are those who enter into the new society and play by its rules

A, Sweden

I agree with Aslaf Sheikh Hussain, it is better that refugees are dispersed and integrate instead of ending up being a group on the fringes of society. The most successful immigrants are not those who stay with their own kind but those who enter into the new society and play by its rules. I see many other fellow immigrants who create barriers between themselves and the indigenous population instead of realising they must make the effort. I do not say this is easy though!
A, Sweden

There seem to be a few double standards here. People slagging-off economic migrants yet they themselves are British citizens working and living abroad. Surely they are economic migrants as well?
James, British in UK

Keeping your enemies divided is the best strategy and sadly too many are willingly playing in this game

Tanja, UK

How can the UK, a developed and rich country, in this day and age still have areas or cities where people have "no hope of education or employment"? And if even if that is so, what is being done about that? Before we blame refugees for the sorry state of areas such as Sighthill, we need to blame our Government for neglecting people and letting anyone, be it refugee or British person, live in such bad conditions.

It does not do to accept refugees into the UK and then put them into dumps, but it also does not do to use these dumps to house British citizens instead. We all have the right to good, clean housing and a living standard which maintains our dignity, whether refugee or not. But we also need to start looking at each other as people, as one unit, and not fight amongst each other as this gives the ones at the top to continue the way they are going. Keeping your enemies divided is the best strategy and sadly too many are willingly playing in this game.
Tanja, UK

After reading all the points in this section, I'm absolutely amazed that only one or two people have realised that economic migrants are the ones making problems for genuine asylum seekers. Mr/Mrs average are not racist, they are just absolutely fed up with their taxes going to fund the lifestyle of bogus asylum seekers rather than our NHS! As for today's issue regarding interpreters being poorly paid and upset by some tales of woe, perhaps you should talk to a qualified interpreter as supplied by the institution I work for. They are well paid and appalled by some of the obviously false statements they are required to interpret! The interpreters are usually fellow countrymen of the asylum seekers and know very well that many of the claims are completely false.
Catherine, Devon, UK

If you send foreigners to live near bigoted racists, you expect trouble. The fact is that the only areas of the UK where people have become tolerant of other races and cultures are around the South East.
Keith, UK

I have spent many years working both at ports of entry and dealing with those already in the UK. I can honestly say that in those ten years I have met no more than a handful of "genuine" refugees - the vast majority are economic migrants. I know this from first hand experience of interviewing people. The idea that every person who travels to the UK to seek asylum "must" be in fear of their lives shows a breath taking naïveté.

Economic migrants are those coming from very poor areas in an attempt to better themselves and their lot - very laudable you may say, but why should the taxpayer foot the bill for this? The sheer numbers who pass all the way through Western Europe making a beeline for our shores is testimony to this - it is widely accepted that a genuine refugee will seek refuge in the first safe place they come to. There is a major trade in humans from the Balkans to London - surely if they are truly in fear they would stop in Italy or Germany or France.
S, UK

I think we need to be a bit more compassionate. Some of the comments I have seen on here make my blood boil. These refugees have left their countries and come here to make a better life for themselves. Like most people I have had to work hard to get what I have wanted but I strongly believe we should try and do good by other. An old saying my mother used to say was "If you smile on someone they will smile on you".
Lisa, UK

It seems to me that the big problem is lack of integration. Economic migrants, as with other countries like Australia and the US, should not be allowed in unless they can demonstrate a working knowledge of spoken and written English and have skills likely to allow them to obtain work. If they have these - fine, but they have to become British citizens and live the British way of life.

As far as asylum seekers are concerned, they should be decently housed and cared for in purpose built centres, where they can be taught English and their skills tested and enhanced. This could be for perhaps one year. At the end of that time, they either choose to become British citizens and live as the rest of us do, on the same terms, or they move on to another country. All this talk about this and that "community" is what causes most of the problems. Presumably those coming here want to benefit from the British way of life but it needs to be made clear that this is a two-way bargain.
Julia, UK

Branding the resentment to this type of problem as racist only serves the Government in quelling argument over its pathetic or non-existent efforts to raise the "first safe country" issue in Europe. It's about time New Labour stopped being so soft with our "European Friends". We've only got a small island here!
Scott, UK

I agree with the principle that refugees should be dispersed for many social and economic reasons. However, when you put this into action, it doesn't always work. Many refugees want to around others who have come from similar situations. They go on to build their own small communities, supporting one another from the horrors many have left behind. One thing I would like to point out is, just because a person is labelled "British", this shouldn't stop them identifying with their race or religion. If you're Sikh or Muslim or Asian or Black what's wrong with saying your "British Asian"? The UK is a diverse and vibrant country and this should be celebrated not discouraged.
Kiran, Bristol, UK

I do not think asylum seekers should be dispersed. I think they should be given full residential status and given an open door into the UK. The argument that they are drain on resources is a lie, they cost only a tiny amount to the social security budget and besides that if we allowed them to work they would add to the country's prosperity. Finally asylum seekers should not have to prove that they are being persecuted in order to get into the UK. Escaping a life of unbearable poverty, that our Western governments often perpetuate in these countries, is a valid reason to emigrate.
Andy, Wales

Does Mr Lock believe that if you get annoyed at other people's "preferential" treatment, you have the right to stab and kill that person? I am deeply worried about the signals emerging in our society. Are we becoming a nation who are rejecting the polling stations in favour of direct action? Should we not rather show some social conscience and take up our responsibility as voters. If your not happy with the society you live in, change it! But that cannot be done with knives, bullets, petrol bombs or semtex. We are fortunate on these islands to have been given the vote, it is time all the complainers got off their backsides and did something constructive.

Stop blaming immigrants and asylum seekers for all the ills of our society. The fact is that given a choice the majority of these people would prefer to be at home with their friends and families, not in a cold and unfriendly place like the one they meet in Britain. My belief is that there is a need for dispersal, in order to foster a great degree of integration into our society. But this can only be done if the asylum seekers are given the tools for integration; language training, job opportunities and some education in the way British society works.
E. Craig, Belfast, N.I

The entire immigration policy in this country is a disaster and should be totally reviewed. The problem with immigration is that it has always been a political "hot potato" and there are so few leading and influential politicians with the imagination and courage to tackle it. The UK has become a global dumping ground for migrants of all kinds. I am amazes at the length that people will go to in order to gain access to our welfare state and housing opportunities
P Johnson, UK

If one is a genuine refugee, does it matter where he or she is allowed to settle?

Eugenia, Switzerland/ UK

I do not see anything wrong with asylum seekers being dispersed around the country. In fact it is a good idea for integration rather than keeping all of them in one area. However, one question bothers me. If one is a genuine refugee, does it matter where he or she is allowed to settle? I am talking from a personal experience of one who had to flee my own country. It did not matter to me where I was accepted. The most important thing was to arrive in another country, alive! That should be the most important thing. Unless of course one is not a genuine asylum seeker!
Eugenia, Switzerland/ UK

I am disgusted at the way refugees are being treated here. People don't run away from their own countries without any reasons. Instead of picking on the refugees why doesn't the Goverment stand up to their oppressors?
Debbie, UK

We can have multi-racialism in this country but multi-culturalism will never work. In America you swear allegiance to the flag when you become a citizen and you agree to be American. All too often people, including refugees, want to come to this country but do not want to become British and this causes resentment. You're not British Muslim, or British Asian, you should simply be British.
Paul, UK

Those who blame the problems in Sighthill on racism within the community are taking too simple a view of the situation there

Olivia, Glasgow, Scotland

Those who blame the problems in Sighthill on racism within the community are taking too simple a view of the situation there. The fact is, as a young man walking through a rough area where his face wasn't known, Firsat Dag would have been at risk of violence whether or not he was an asylum seeker. The man that stabbed him did so because he was 'different'. If he had been wearing a shirt of the 'other' football team or, simply, wasn't part of 'their gang', he would still have been a target for the two men who stabbed him. The fact is, there are areas of Glasgow, such as Sighthill, which have been deprived for so long that young people in the area are growing up without hope of education or jobs. Although this is not an excuse, as outcry from the many good folk of the area will testify, it is a reason why young folk will turn to gang violence.
Olivia, Glasgow, Scotland

Interesting to learn, that only one council in Scotland, has agreed to take asylum seekers. Considering, that there are so many Scots in the Cabinet.
Mark, England

I can't believe some of comments I have just read. Several contributors ask why these refugees can't be moved to middle class areas to see how those "liberal" types like it. The answer to that question is simple. There is no empty accommodation in these areas to house them. It makes sense to put empty housing in inner city areas to good use. The problem of ignorance and racism can be attacked by educating local people.
Bhavesk Lakhani, UK

Why not send more asylum seekers to the Liberal strongholds?

Anthony, Germany (UK)

Recent events have compelled comfortable middle class Britain to look more closely at its ugly sister: socially and economically deprived underclass Britain. Are we really surprised that poor white communities with high rates of unemployment and crime and low levels of education are not welcoming to immigrants? Why not send more asylum seekers to the Liberal strongholds, especially in the South-West of England? After all, the Liberal Party embraced tolerant asylum laws in its electoral platform!
Anthony, Germany (UK)

I cannot but feel sympathy for those asylum seekers from the current regimes such as in Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan, where their lives are in danger because of their political or religious beliefs. On the other hand, when these regimes eventually crumble (as they invariably do), the reason for the asylum ends. Will these refugees then return to their own impoverished countries, or remain in the economic security of UK?
John J. Gant, UK

It's been said that asylum seekers should not be placed on so called "sink estates" but aren't we denigrating the very people who have to live there by suggesting that asylum seekers are worth more than they are? Surely the way to make asylum seekers more acceptable is to raise the standards for people who have to live in poor conditions or we will always have inequality for many which will breed discontent and anger at whatever asylum seekers are given freely?
D. Shaw, UK

Some people would do well to remember that there, but for the grace of God, go I. All this keeping charity for our 'own' people is sickening. Where are your humanitarian values? I suggest some of you would be first to turn on what you call your own people were Britain hit by food shortages, civil disruption etc. Grow up and join the real world - we're all in it together.
HR, UK

With the recent complaints from the Welsh Nationalists that English speaking immigrants are destroying their Welsh speaking rural culture, then surely the solution is to put all the non-English speaking asylum seekers into Wales. Or is this too simplistic?
Peter Goff, UK

Many asylum seekers have gone through unimaginable horrors just to get to the UK

Ralph, Scotland

Coming from a working class Scottish background I know how hard it can be to get a good education and eventually a decent job. But I can't help thinking that the people of Sighthill should get off their backsides and start doing something about their own situation instead of protesting against asylum seekers. Many asylum seekers have gone through unimaginable horrors just to get to the UK. I'd rather my taxes went to help them than Scots who were given the same opportunities I was but decided to waste them. However, I also think that dumping large numbers of asylum seekers in deprived areas with no support system in place is stupid and negligent. This does no-one any favours.
Ralph, Scotland

I'd like to see all England's elected officials hosting at least several hundred of these refugees in their immediate neighbourhoods. Let's see if that causes any strife. It seems to me that those who are most tolerant of this situation are those who are not having to deal with the influx of several hundred poor immigrants into their nice comfy neighbourhoods.
A. Bradley, USA (UK)

I am ashamed of my fellow countrymen but not surprised. We have been breeding an underclass in this country that resents and bullies others, especially those worse off than themselves. To hear these morons night after night on TV complaining that the refugees are getting houses and furnishings ahead of them is pitiful. The refugees are getting the very basics of life; those who complain about the refugees have been living of the welfare system all of their lives.
Gerry, Glasgow

The problem is not dispersal

Tom, England

The problem is not dispersal, but that the UK is not the first safe country for any of these refugees. Under the UN Charter they should be accommodated in the first safe country they come to. Of course we should offer financial assistance to look after refugees in those countries, but until France or another near neighbour enters a period of internal strife no refugees should be accepted here but returned to the first safe country they passed through.
Tom, England

Before we should help others we should help ourselves thus putting us in a better and more stable position to offer support. Nothing racist about these remarks, I would expect the same in return.
Luke Keelan, Britain

Why is no-one talking about why people are fleeing persecution and how we can tackle this problem from the roots? I'm sure that the Turkish Kurds would be better served if the Turkish military stopped receiving military aid and arms from the West.
Dan, UK

We should be thankful for the lives and opportunities we are fortunate enough to have in this country, and be more tolerant to those seeking refuge. Remember the highest number of asylum seekers comes from places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. Even if a small number do abuse the system does it really impact on our lives in a big way? The immigration debate seems to be used as a proxy for the crude racism of some people, and our politicians pander to it. We should show no tolerance whatsoever for the racists in our society.
Martin van Tol, UK

There are many people who are absolutely appalled at what is happening to our country in terms of hundreds of years harmonious living now under threat by people who are completely alien to our culture, religion and customs, being imposed upon them. Why can we not be consulted?
Andrew Franklin, England

We don't see refugees being sent to comfortable middle class areas

Roy Harvey, UK

One hundred million pounds paid to Glasgow to house asylum seekers. Am I wrong in feeling that I would wish to use the money to be spent on my own countrymen, as regards to poverty and education in these areas? Does this brand me a racist or a xenophobe? I bear no malice to these people or any real compassion. My loyalties are to the people of the United Kingdom whatever their race. What was the logic in inflaming what already was a troubled community by offering the people of that community a scapegoat for their problems? We don't see refugees being sent to comfortable middle class areas, would we have the same problems if this happened, I suspect we would but with a much more vocal and powerful lobby group against it.

Would it also be better to set up a European clearing centre at either their country of origin (if relations allowed) or within the EU where we could deal with the issue from a holistic viewpoint? Those granted asylum would be allowed to settle where they chose within the EU and those rejected sent back to their country of origin. This would allow us to integrate people into our communities, rather than impose those waiting for asylum on already troubled communities
Roy Harvey, UK

Mr Lock - why do you assume that asylum seekers are getting "preferential treatment"? How do you know that they are responsible for a "rise in crime"? Who has told you these things? Are you a social scientist? A police officer maybe?.
Jane, UK

Trying to defend a refugee must be one of the most difficult tasks in the world, the reason being that it is impossible to argue that they have any rights at all (and who cares about the UN Convention, or the fact that the UK has ratified it?). At least, with homeless people, for example, one can cynically argue that removing them from the streets makes us feel better. Refugees, on the other hand, only have the goodwill of the people to count on; and of course, this is a very scarce commodity indeed.
UE, UK/Nigeria

Yes, dispersal makes sense, but if you send 3000 refugees to a run down area like Sighthill which has been ignored by successive governments for years and where the locals feel totally alienated from our society, don't be surprised if they show resentment to those of whatever race or skin colour who appear to be getting a share of the resources.
Eileen, UK

I am just wondering why do a lot of people in this country have the idea that asylum seekers are getting better treatment than national citizens? This country is full of opportunities for everyone and I don't think that by accepting asylum seekers the British economy will collapse. People with this mentality should remember that these refugees have been forced outside their country because of wars or dictator regimes. I think no one wants to live as a stranger or to be a refugee. Hence, every capable country should accept refugees not only because of its commitment toward international community, but because of humanity and the right of every human in this planet to live a decent life.
M Barno, UK

I think Darren has hit the nail on the head, people are angry because they've had to work hard to get a roof over their head and the necessary furniture. These people come over and get the whole lot and whose paying for it - WE ARE!
Sha, UK

Where do people find it in them to "hate" so much. My mother lives in the Sighthill area, and the refugee people that I have met have never been anything but friendly and happy. How do they manage to smile after going through some of the hardships that they have? The ignorance of some people in Sighthill is unbelievable. If they have a problem with the fact that their repairs aren't being done, then speak to the Council. Don't blame it on the refugees. The repair problem was there before the refugees arrived. Mind you, it is always the people who have never worked a day in their life that stand with their hands out complaining that they get nothing and the refugees get everything.
Julie McQueen, Scotland

Look at Bradford and these people have been here for forty years. I feel instead of nice words about these events we should try and integrate them into the British way of life has soon has they are accepted into this country and not stick them in ghettoes together in Sighthill where they no incentive to become British because the locals hate them. I am scared that once some of these people settle in this country they will still stay outsiders culturally and not interact with the local area and her people. After all would any asylum seeker want to mix with the very people who abused them when they leave countries after being tortured and abused.
Robert Parker, Glasgow, UK

Can we please forget all the politically correct rubbish expressed on this subject. Surely if refugees are true asylum seekers, they should be placed where they can access the best support services available for their language/religion. They are victims of distant oppression not trendy opportunities for us to "celebrate multi-culturalism". They deserve all the real help they can get. And if they are economic migrants, under current legislation they should be sent home - quickly.
KS, UK

I don't think Britain is in any economic position to offer asylum to so called "refugees" when it can't handle the current racial strife in northern England nor meet the needs of the indigenous senior citizens. Britain has for too long been a "soft touch", and it's time the Government started to pay more attention to what the British want and not arbitrarily make decisions that are counter-productive to the economic and emotional well-being of the majority.
K, Canada

Since when is it the sole responsibility of those living in and around international ports and stations to look after asylum seekers? These people come to the UK for help, not a seaside holiday! If we have to give them that help in Scotland, the midlands, or wherever, then we should do that.
Khalid Hussein, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

While I think the concept of dispersal has some logic to it, it concerns me that people seem to be dumped in areas with limited support and with few, if any, of their compatriots to provide support and some sense of "family". The genuine refugees have had a tough time of it as it is without being sent to the four corners of the country. It's hard enough to adapt to living in a foreign country without being given some form of support to enable them to at least try and integrate themselves. Admittedly there are those which give other asylum seekers a bad name, but they're not all the same and social services clearly need to be careful about the sorts of communities these people are transplanted into.
Nick, UK

Economic migrants, in my opinion, have no rights to benefits, hand-outs or housing. If they come to make their fortune, then let them earn it like anyone else. As for asylum seekers, these people claim to be persecuted in their own country and living with fear of death should they return there.

Can someone explain then why people in such a condition turn down offers of albeit fairly basic accomodation and support, because they feel that they deserve better? Many of these people lead a much more comfortable life than a large part of the Brits that they claim to "want to integrate with".
Doug, The Netherlands

Government needs to accept responsibility for the deprivation in areas around the country

Ross Goutcher, UK

The events in Hull and, especially, Sighthill are the result of a severe lack of knowledge about the plight of asylum seekers, coupled with a hostile tabloid media and an unwillingness for government to do anything about the level of deprivation in certain areas of this country. We can do nothing but defend a policy of dispersal around the country (anything else would be unfair on London) provided sufficient efforts are made to integrate asylum seekers into the local community.

Placing asylum seekers in areas such as Sighthill without such efforts being made can only lead to trouble. The lack of well publicised information about asylum seekers has led to ridiculous gossip about asylum seekers receiving upward of £100 a week, no doubt contributing to the feeling of neglect from some Sighthill residents. These residents would do better to direct their anger towards government and councils that do nothing to renovate their area. An obvious question one should ask is "Why is housing so prevalent in areas such as Sighthill?" Government needs to accept responsibility for the deprivation in areas around the country rather than letting local residents blame innocent parties such as asylum seekers and ethnic minority communities.
Ross Goutcher, UK

At last, the Government has woken up to the problems associated with importing tens of thousands of economic refugees, sorry, "asylum seekers" into the UK. What are they doing about it you might ask? They are sending them to the socially and economically deprived North. And now they have to arrogance to attack the locals by labelling them racists. Race has absolutely nothing to do with the matter!

Are the ministers so stupid that they cannot envisage problems with parachuting thousands of strangers into a deprived community and then giving them free handouts? No, they are not that stupid, they just don't want them on their doorstep anymore and the easy option is to disperse them so that the problem becomes someone elses, just as we have come to expect of this government.
Richard Patterson, England

These people should be treated with dignity, just like any human being. The fact that the Government can't be bothered with improving the welfare of indigenous civilians is not the fault of asylum seekers. One of the main problems with dispersal is the profound level of prejudice generated by the mass media and certain Tory MPs. Now that people are imbued with this racial hatred, I doubt it will be easy to settle refugees and asylum seekers anywhere.
Ahmed Mahbous, UK

Why should asylum seekers choose where they want to live? If the country they are escaping from is so terrible then anywhere has got to be preferable. I feel that if you asked them all where they wanted to go there would be one answer, "London". There is no excuse for the violence inflicted on these people, however, one has got to understand the level of unjustness faced by many people in the deprived areas of Glasgow when they see refugees being placed in homes with new furniture, electrical goods and monetary handouts when there is a large number of British people homeless, unemployed or living on the poverty line. Help out our own people first, there's a limit to how much we can give.
Jim, England

No, asylum seekers should not be dispersed. But nor should they be let out of secure accommodation until their case has been reviewed, and all appropriate authorities convinced that they have a genuine need. Not only a genuine need to settle outside their own country, but specifically to settle in THIS country.

Why should France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Austria be any less satisfactory for immigrants passing through them from Eastern Europe to settle in than Britain? Perhaps it is our fatuous and self-delusory welfare state, which may make the metropolitan liberal elite sleep easier at night, but at gross expense to the taxpayer. Remove this purely financial incentive, and I am certain that we would discover the real reason that people flood across the English channel: not because Britain is the mother of democracy and tolerance - which she certainly is not. As long as asylum seekers are seen to be sponging off the state, it doesn't matter where you house them - resentment will cause regrettable actions. Remove this impression by excluding and removing those without genuine need (and physical persecution, not discrimination, is genuine need) and you will remove the resentment and its sometimes tragic consequences.
Simon Ashall, UK

Of course dispersal makes sense when there are large swathes of empty, unsaleable houses in parts of the country. Ultimately, however, the most important consideration is the speed at which refugees have their cases heard - it is unfair on both genuine refugees and communities used as "dumping grounds" that applicants are left in limbo for years because the courts and social services are so under-funded.
Julian Hayward, UK

The Government needs to wake up to the fact that the majority of the British people want an end to the large numbers of illegal immigrants coming to these shores. Normally liberal, left-leaning people in the UK are increasingly opposed to the existing policy. The UK is overcrowded, and clearly is not the "first safe country" that asylum seekers arrive at. The sort of anti-immigrant extremism we've been seeing of late will only increase unless Government takes notice. Continuing with the same unpopular policy of acceptance is increasingly hardening the attitudes of non-extremist Britons.
Michael Entill, UK

Of course asylum seekers should be dispersed - may I suggest France, Italy, Germany and any other safe country they travelled through to get here.
Alan Inverarity, Scotland

I am amazed that the government still cannot distinguish between alleged asylum seekers and economic migrants

Marti Adder, UK

I am amazed that the government still cannot distinguish between alleged asylum seekers and economic migrants. Asylum seekers should be allowed to travel where they wish - economic migrants should be placed where they are best served.
Marti Adder, UK

As is the norm in these thing, the 'good people' of the UK are calling the killing of the asylum seeker in Glasgow a racist attack. Why do people not realise that the colour of someone's skin is not the topic of debate here? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree at all with this level of violence, but if you put a stranger in your back garden and you see them getting handouts and preferential treatment and you start seeing a rise in crime, e.g. pickpocketing, you are going to get mad. This is not racism, it's frustration!
Darren Lock, England

Education is the key. I have witnessed with my own eyes 5-6 year old white English children making some very crude and obscene remarks towards children of a different ethnicity. In such instances the parents are solely to blame for harvesting racist views in the household. Racism needs to be stamped out at an early age, and in my personal opinion the British children are hugely under-educated in this department.
James, England

Refugees should be dispersed to avoid the build-up of ghettos

Aslaf Sheikh Hussain, British Muslim

Refugees should be dispersed to avoid the build-up of colour- or religious-based ghettos, which is counter-productive to sound ethnic relations. Britain is a vibrant, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious society and so its diversity of races must be mixed and blended together as much as possible, in order to confirm and to celebrate this.
Aslaf Sheikh Hussain, British Muslim