Ok, this is going to be a long post, forgive me for giving a little background first.

In fact, although they lack the wealth and stability that the UK enjoys, it is developing countries, such as Pakistan and Iran, which continue to host the majority of the world's refugees. Nine countries in Africa look after more than 100,000 refugees each, even though they are among the poorest countries in the world. Even among EU countries, the UK ranks 14th in the league table of countries for the number of asylum applications per head of population.

With this in mind the idea, the UK should only accept asylum applications from those countries geographically closest to them is ludicrous. Geographical location and relative position to other countries is of no moral relevance; the fact that a country is an island or shares borders with few other states cannot be taken to imply anything about how many refugees should be allowed to resettle there. The factors that are relevant are population and average GDP per capita, yet these are unfortunately usually given little consideration. For example: The UK hosts less than half as many refugees per 1,000 inhabitants as Kenya, despite its average GDP per capita being nearly 40 times higher. Such an interpretation of whichever article of the 1951 Convention it was would only reinforce the status quo, which is that most refugees are hosted by the countries least well-equipped to host them. In fact the “nearest country of safety” should be interpreted as the country that the refugee in question is best able to reach, where the country is safe, politically stable and where there is a reasonable chance of their asylum application being fairly considered. Dan T, you suggest that the UK is perceived as a “soft touch”, I think it is nearer to the truth to say that some other countries are morally outrageous in their treatment of genuine asylum seekers and there is no obligation on the part of asylum seekers to apply for asylum in countries where they know that they will not be fairly heard. In fact, some people are refused asylum on the grounds that they had arrived via “safe” third countries but these make up less than 1% of all asylum applicants.

Also, I think that arriving in an air-tight truck does imply desperation, not a lack of it. People fleeing persecution are not able to simply hop on a plane with easy jet and I don’t think the means of an asylum seeker’s arrival should be taken into consideration when their application is being judged.

Further I think the idea that someone should change their attitudes because they might lead to people supporting and voting for the other extreme is a very dangerous one. David L should, as we all should, stand up for the views which he believes are true, not kowtow to the moderate right in the hope that it will placate the far-right. The best way to defeat misguided political opinion is to explain precisely how it is misguided; for example by presenting the facts about asylum and explaining that we do have a moral obligation to consider the needs and interests of those who are fleeing persecution. Clarification of the difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants need not be accompanied by any hardening of one’s position towards asylum seekers.

Since Dan T mentions the status quo, I think Peter Singer sums it up perfectly: “the status quo is the outcome of a system of national selfishness and political expediency, and not the result of a considered attempt to work out the moral obligations of the developed nations”.