The case of the Jewish twins, refugees from Kyrgystan got me thinking about asylum. In case I haven’t made myself clear in my earlier posts, of course the twins – hard working, immensely talented, kind, grateful - should be allowed to stay in Britain. (I thought I was being clear, but when I commented generally about asylum, the reaction has been about how blameless and deserving of it these two young women are, something I never disputed for an instant.)

Asylum and immigration are two very different things, although they are often confused in people’s minds. Immigration, if properly managed, benefits a country. Immigrants should be selected on the basis of what they can contribute to a country.

Asylum is another matter. People are generally granted asylum on the basis of need rather than merit. Need will always arise. People are always in danger of being killed, always have been and always will be. No country can take in all those in danger, so there have to be rules.

Population density is not the only factor to take into account, but surely it is one factor. Here are some population densities, starting with the most dense:

Do all those people really live in Monaco? I doubt it. And how would you get a quorum for a meeting in Greenland, when you need to go on a big round trip to get even one person?

Yes, I know it’s more complicated, but I think it’s fair to say that some places are more crowded than others. The UK is very crowded. It’s nearly as crowded as Japan, but everyone knows Japan is crowded. There’s a widespread belief, too, that “Palestinians” are all huddled together without room to swing a cat (this despite Israel’s “genocidal” policies.) But the territories are just over twice as densely populated as the UK. Australia, which is not very crowded at all, has a very strict refugee and asylum policy, for which it is often criticised. The US does not allow unlimited asylum, and nor should it. But it has more room than we have, that’s for sure.

On grounds of population density, therefore, the UK more than most countries should be allowed to limit the number of refugees it takes in. So what criteria should be used to set limits? Here are my ideas – no doubt hard, but not impossible, to put into practice.

1. No asylum for Muslims. This will cut down numbers and danger/nuisance factors considerably and ease resentment.
2. A rebuttable presumption that any Jews are fleeing persecution, so Jews qualify unless criminal.
3. A rebuttable presumption that any non-Muslims from Muslim countries are fleeing persecution.
4. Automatic asylum for apostates from Islam.
5. All other cases considered on merit, as now. Those who have passed through a safe country where they could have claimed asylum should be returned to that safe country and their application should be rejected.
6. Those who do not qualify under the above but enter the country as minors should have their case reviewed at 18, and assessed, as immigrants would be, on their potential contribution to this country.

No doubt there are potential flaws in this system, but how can it be worse than what we have at present, where the asylum system is exploited by those wishing to jump the immigration queue?