Revision of refugee resettlement is duly needed to help millions, not a lucky few who have asylum in foreign countries, as Dr Rush states in her research. Accordingly, for the asylum price of one Somali in Finland, 114 Somalis could be helped locally. Yet, welfare for all and in-person applications give free access to most states, which should never have been accepted. The analysis accordingly suggests that asylum in Europe is elitist and utilitarian for those with the financial means to travel long distances, as they can choose to be unemployed. It clearly discriminates against women who must stay in circumstances where women have no rights. The threefold examination additionally concludes that asylum seekers from Muslim countries often take the war with them, as terrorism and hatred against women are habitually committed by Muslim men.
When men with religious aspirations come with an ideology and foreign legal provisions, the system often appears to restrict women extensively, a practice that Western women are not used to. We cannot adopt cultural or religious practices that violate women’s European rights, such as genital mutilation, honor killings, and Sharia law. For European women, Islamic practices take their equality back to a time period that did not even exist. Refugees cannot thus be allowed to establish a state within a state, as they are obligated to obey the asylum state’s laws. If they cannot follow these obligations, Europe has to follow the rich Arab states’ example: no admission of Muslim refugees.
Keywords: Asylum, elitism, hybrid warfare, immigration, invasion, national economy, national women, religious ideology, refugee women, unequal treatment, utilitarianism.
Citation: Brink, R. R. (2026). Utilitarianism in Asylum – Do Asylum Provisions Treat National and Foreign Women Equally, Based on Their Location?. J Psychol Neurosci; 8(1):1-13. DOI : https://doi.org/10.47485/2693-2490.1145