The problem is that as much as 5 to 7 % of the population is thought to be gay.
Can we really take in that much of Africa? Why should the few that have been able to pay huamn traffickers be allowd in? there are many many safe countries on the way to the uk but they do not seem to be running there? It's safe enough in india and very easy to slip into india from Africa without anyone knowing or caring. Do they go there for safety? No. Because they are economic migrants who are lucky enough to have a way in.
Would one be persecuted for being homosexual in any African state or only some of them? Are we being asked to take all asylum seekers that Africa has? Would rejecting all asylum seekers mean that no-one sought asylum any more and if so how would that be a better solution except for the fact that the UK would have derogated its responsibilities to humanity?
We (as the UK) are not being asked to take every asylum seeker from Africa and I'm pretty sure it's not even the majority of them. I'd obviously prefer if they weren't persecuted and those who were coming to the UK were doing so as an entirely free choice but we're very fortunate to live in a broadly liberal mostly progressive democracy - frankly if we turn people away from this country when they need our protection then I think we really cease to have the right to describe the country so positively.
Even if the countries that persecute homosexuality continue to do so they're almost certainly never going to change the base rate (5-7% if that's the figure you want to quote) - as far as I'm aware it isn't something that can be bred out, it can't be "cured" and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being homosexual so the sooner the people in charge of policy in those countries get hold of that point the better. Forcing their citizens out because of some misguided belief won't change anything.
This is possibly the first time I've heard that being a persecuted homosexual is lucky for the individual because it means they can claim asylum but I guess that's a marvellously positive spin to put on things. It's all a matter of perspective if you look at it in a certain way - "you lost a leg but no need to go on a diet any more, you now weigh 3 stone less, way to go".
Why do we have to "respect human dignity"? They are coming from countries that will kill them for being gay. If I was in that situation then I'd jerk off to midget transexual clown porn if that was all that was keeping me alive, stuff the dignity.
I really think the EU sits there all day thinking of new things to troll Britain with.
Once you stop respecting human dignity then you're potentially departing down a worrying path - it could be quite easy from there to see people as unworthy of dignity and it's a pretty short hop from there to stop seeing them as human. If you stop regarding people as human it's much easier to do all sorts of nasty things to them.
They can escape persecution in many countries that don't have generous welfare states. Yes and all these countries with the biggest welfare states have the most asylum seekers.
As has been pointed out we don't have a hugely generous welfare state in comparison to others. Haven't you previously said when you emigrated here you got nothing given to you by the state*? If that was the case for you then apart from the media headlines why do you believe is it so vastly different for asylum seekers?
*For the sake of argument we'll say that the economic conditions to prosper are a background issue, as is a generally safe environment, respect for property etc.
