Our last big peak of asylum entries was in the early 2000s when we were kicking off our "intervention" in Iraq and Afghanistan (rather than when we finished)
In both cases, historical links between UK and those countries were why our asylum applications were much higher than our European equivalents. Perhaps that's why so many braindead posters still say we take too many? Unable to move on from 20 years ago.
Makes sense, there is a hurdle to get over when a country is first invaded obviously. There is extensive disruption before it gets better. Means to an ends.
Afghanistan should have been a 100 year project of re-culturing their society under our control. It could then have acted as a middle eastern hub for asylum seekers in that area. A new, sunny, oil rich 'New Britain', it could have been.
The UK cannot just force other countries to be as they would like them to be. Religious, tribal and other issues in other countries are, honestly, none of our business.
The recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show that it's not possible to force change.
The abject failure of nation building in Bosnia is another excellent example of good intentions not being enough.
The only things we can effect are things within our own country, and that is where action has to be taken.
I disagree entirely. We just don't go far enough. Yes we can, given long enough, remove tribal and religious ties. We can, given long enough, drive new investment into these countries and make them productive again. We essentially need to terraform their land and culture. That is what we should be doing because, completely objectively, they will be better off under our way of life than their current way of life. It would be for their own good, but will take a hundred years plus to drive the necessary cultural changes, in the same way that our own culture has taken hundreds of years to evolve.