After all the bad publicity about Somali immigrants, I thought this was a good counterweight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24869363

Are we so wrong giving them a chance of a decent life?

Decent folk are decent folk, wherever they come from.

For most people doing the best for their children is the main objective in life and sometimes that means moving to a different place, which is never an easy option.

I agree in the main, you could have a similar cartoon for the UK based on the Asian immigrants arriving after being expelled from Uganda. I do have some observations though. The attributes conducive to successful integration, some illustrated above include.

Hard work and determination to improve one's lot.

Being well educated.

Willingness to in the take work below their capabilities and qualifications rather than rely on benefits.

Not wanting to live in a ghetto but to participate in the native culture and way of life.

Willingness to support children without strictly controlling their behaviour.

Desire to identify with their adoptive Country, though not losing your roots.

The trouble is many recent immigrants for a variety of reasons score pretty poorly on the above list, furthermore by actually allowing many immigrants from one place risks a ghetto mentality forming, also when economies are in trouble unemployment exacerbates the problems, especially if immigration is on a large scale. In terms of prioritizing immigration a recent study in the UK found that migrants from EU nations make a net contribution as oppose to a 14% net deficit for those from outside the EU. This is common sense considering the greater familiarity with language and culture with respect to our immediate neighbors.

With regard to asylum seekers why not prioritize groups oppressed within their Countries? For example Kurds, Pakistani or Egyptian Christians, or Ahmadiyya Muslims living just about anywhere within the Islamic world.

I recently posted a link (and now I can't find it!) which showed that ALL immigrants paid more in taxes than they received in benefits. From memory, I think the Europeans paid over 10% more, and the non-Europeans 2% more. Only native Britons received more than they paid in total.

I agree with you, Dan, about prioritising oppressed groups. My only reservation is that there would suddenly be a host of Egyptian and Pakistani Christians, who reverted to Islam once they had their immigration papers signed and sealed. Theoretically it should be easy to tell them, but would that actually happen?

I agree with you, Dan, about prioritising oppressed groups.

I don't. People in all walks of life and situations ought to be treated according to their own individual circumstances not according to which particular group they belong to.

With regard to asylum seekers why not prioritize groups oppressed within their Countries? For example Kurds, Pakistani or Egyptian Christians, or Ahmadiyya Muslims living just about anywhere within the Islamic world.

So would that include the Rohingya and other Muslims in Burma, Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka, Muslims in Gujarat, anyone from Eritrea irrespective of their religion, etc etc?

re potential future PM of India and oppression of minority groups

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13170914

Yad Vashem highlights the failure of Western nations to accept the entry of Jewish refugees prior, during and post WW2, should we be doing the same to equally persecuted minority groups?

With regard to asylum seekers why not prioritize groups oppressed within their Countries? For example Kurds, Pakistani or Egyptian Christians, or Ahmadiyya Muslims living just about anywhere within the Islamic world.

So would that include the Rohingya and other Muslims in Burma, Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka, Muslims in Gujarat, anyone from Eritrea irrespective of their religion, etc etc?

re potential future PM of India and oppression of minority groups

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13170914

Yad Vashem highlights the failure of Western nations to accept the entry of Jewish refugees prior, during and post WW2, should we be doing the same to equally persecuted minority groups?

I think I answered that in the part of my post you didn't quote.

P.S I take it 'decent' is as commonly accepted by the Country receiving the migrants, after all a decent cannibal may be subjectively different to outsiders than to his own tribe.

With regard to asylum seekers why not prioritize groups oppressed within their Countries? For example Kurds, Pakistani or Egyptian Christians, or Ahmadiyya Muslims living just about anywhere within the Islamic world.

So would that include the Rohingya and other Muslims in Burma, Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka, Muslims in Gujarat, anyone from Eritrea irrespective of their religion, etc etc?

re potential future PM of India and oppression of minority groups

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13170914

Yad Vashem highlights the failure of Western nations to accept the entry of Jewish refugees prior, during and post WW2, should we be doing the same to equally persecuted minority groups?

I think I answered that in the part of my post you didn't quote.

But you do focus on your "preferred" groups. I take the view that victims of persecution are potentially valid asylum seekers irrespective of where they come from, their creed, or colour. Obviously no action is without its downsides and upsides but decent humanity should be paramount. Any of us might one day might be seeking asylum and hoping not to be refused. Aliyah Bet....

It's easy to generalise.... preferred groups, persecuted groups etc..... but you also have to think of the receiving country. Some countries are popular with refugees of all sorts, England and Australia being two. Neither can take unlimited numbers, and has to make distinctions between asylum seekers of different types.

What I was getting at by posting the cartoon in the OP is the tendency to demonise groups, such as Muslims and, since the Lee Rigby affair, Somalis. No group,is all good or all bad.

The problem is that many of the asylum seekers are not persecuted minorities but economic migrants who develop tales of persecution in order to gain the sympathy of the officials who are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff - and there's an awful lot of chaff.

The British Consulates throughout the world are responsible for granting visas for legitimate visitors to our shores. They could also be allowed to grant a provisional entry format to members of certain endangered parts of the local society, who would then be able to enter the UK legitimately, but subject to review. We could then return to their origin ALL illegal immigrants.

But the EU and European Court of Human Rights would probably rule against it.

I think there are two separate but often conflated issues here, firstly asylum, which is based on humanitarian criteria and immigration, which is an economic issue.As HB sp rightly points out individuals from the latter often masquerade as the former.

I would observe that in both cases successful assimilation is easier the closer the culture of the prospective migrant is to the Country accepting them, this is only common sense backed up by a recent study that found the UK makes a net revenue gain for immigrants from within the EU and a net loss for those from outside.