Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…

You are sure I would advocate for no one being returned are you? And you base that on what? Because I think it’s inhumane to treat humans like cattle or I don’t get all hysterical about all the men in boats who are coming to take over the country? I am equally sure many of the people objecting to asylum seekers would want none to be allowed to stay, at least none who are brown or black or Muslim. It’s funny I don’t see any objection to the many white immigrants in this country.
I can’t say exactly how many I think should stay, that depends on many factors, but I do think we should give someone seeking asylum a fair hearing. And if they aren’t deemed a refugee then they should be returned. The system should weed out criminals to an extent, though I acknowledge that it’s not perfect. But unless we close the borders entirely, including to tourists, then there is no way or entirely controlling crime.
and Yes I do think non-western values should be accommodated unless they pose harm to someone else. Why not? Embracing people from all walks of life is how we combat prejudice and bigotry.

If by illegal migration you mean asylum seekers, it’s not illegal.

It’s not about migration, it’s about illegal migration. It’s as simple as that to me.

Err, why?

The funny thing is about this thread is that one day, not too far off into the future, all of the pro-migrant posters are going to say:

"oh, lord, what have I done"

That's a fact.

I could be wrong about this but I would have thought... To an extent those numbers will exist no matter what measures the government will have in place? (unless deterrence effect kicks in). Because even if the government returned every single person who comes by boat, they would still be counted in the figures as arrivaling (but also in departures). If those are the figures you mean... Correct me if I got it wrong again.

So it all depends on factors the government really can't control like the weather (nice summers =more boats) and events in other countries. And things which the government can only partially control (they can limit push factors by advertising the problems with immigration in places like Albania, they can I guess try to encourage stability in other countries. Not bomb Iraq for a while). But if for example, all the people in Gaza get pushed into Jordan and Jordan (already with 30%of its population being Syrian refugees) then starts to collapse under pressure, you would see more immigrants trying to reach Europe and also the UK. Regardless of who's in government. And the UK government (despite what protesters on the left think) have very.little.influence there.

The UK can choose to an extent how it handles immigrants once they get here. But they can't have absolute control over the push factors in other countries. Sending a legitimate refugee back to certain death in another country is morally rough if theoretically possible. But even if a government did, the fact they were coming at all would still be portrayed as an "invasion" by the right.

I’m not posting about this. I’m asking @MrsSkylerWhitere the millions who are at risk of dying.

Regular immigration might also be too high. There might be a limit on how much the UK should be taking but:

• People already here are people who followed the process and rules set out by the last government. In many cases filling needed gaps in health care etc. In other cases actively invited by the last government. Demonising them is completely wrong.
• We do need people. Even Nigel Farage says that he wouldn't ban immigrants coming to work in the care sector. Even some people on last Saturdays march said they didn't have a problem with people coming " the right way". So on the right as well as in the country at large there is disagreement about whether this immigration is good/how much is good. I think splitting it into left V right or open borders V anti immigration is unhelpful as it creates an idea the government just aren't listening to those with immigration concerns. When even those with immigration concerns have different/sometimes contradictory beliefs. They couldn't make everyone on last Saturdays march happy because of this even if they made it their only priority.

People have been saying " wee need an honest debate about this". But maybe the people who consider themselves on the right/opposed to current immigration levels also need an honest discussion among themselves.

I’m focusing on non work visa immigration which is controlled.

I’m asking the pp about irregular migration only and the numbers expected for that. @MrsSkylerWhiteis talking about higher numbers for that not being scaremongering.

The high numbers of overall migration over recent years aren't a culture war myth. They were much higher than most people thought and that's been covered by people on the left as well as the right. There were a number of reasons for that

• Ukraine war
• Hong Kong scheme arranged by BJ
• the reduction in (more likely to be temporary) migration from the EU following Brexit and the need to make up the shortfall by recruiting from further afield. Those workers were more likely to stay permanently (having come further) and more likely to bring families
• A need to generate better economic growth rates post 2008 and especially Brexit. I agree that focussing only on overall economic growth is flawed if it ignores per capita GDP.

Essentially the Conservatives generated a lot of outrage/negative language about migrants while actively

The levels of "irregular migration" or people seeking asylum are much much lower. And the proportion of those is even lower. Now maybe this number is still too high and indeed having people arriving by boat is both dangerous to them and encourages illegal criminal gang activity which is bad. But they won't be having an impact on eg housing availability/costs even if the sight of migrants in a hotel is a useful focal point for very reasonable frustrations.

whether she can run for office is irrelevant, her party still exist.
historically we have been less far right than France, or at least that is the perception lots of the asylum seekers have, which is what matters. They don’t feel safe in France.
’Just learn French’ is so ridiculously flippant, it takes years and years to be proficient enough in a language to work as a lawyer or a doctor or in an office etc, and for some people learning a new lanaguge isn’t possible at all. If they already speak English of course they are going to want to go to where they already speak the language.
Also, as I keep saying, France takes its share of refugees too, we should ALL do that. As it’s the right thing to do.

I mean hoarding. Keeping it for themselves. It’s obscene when we have a purported housing crisis and there are people living in giant mansions with acres of lands doing nothing really.
farming is different, that land has a purpose and is used to create food and other products we need.

If people realise the high numbers part isn’t just made up as some kind of ‘culture war’ as claimed at the last GE they’ll vote accordingly.

You can probably have a low amount coming in with a bit of what we have now in terms of backlash. A very high number and it’ll get difficult to maintain order. And people can vote for a system that just ends it.

What is the alternative?

Population shifts have always happened because of wars, famines, contagions etc, I agree @MrsSkylerWhite.

But the planet has never before supported a total population of c8 billion people. And if they all become aware of a fortunate prosperous country via the smart phone everyone has, then many will move heaven and earth to reach its gold-paved streets.

I understand the why, and sympathise with the unfortunate souls who find themselves in such extremis. But practically, I think the misguided generosity of Sweden and Germany towards the Syrian emigrants has poisoned Merkel's legacy and caused enormous social and cultural issues.

Unfortunately I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s not scaremongering. As with the cheesey movie, much more rapidly than we expected, too unless people in power worldwide get their arses in gear and commit.

I can’t understand that mindset, either. Most people in the Uk come from immigrant stock if they look back far enough. The pulling up the ladder behind them is inexplicable, Suella Braverman and her hatred for immigrants, for example. Despicable.

Yes it’s a great movie 😀, I’ve seen it a few times.

I think a few will say we should take a very high number but the majority won’t, and the messaging has always been that’s scaremongering we won’t need to do that.

Genuinely - what’s that got to do with you? That woman may be waiting for lessons, she might be midway through learning, a whole range of things which remain nothing to do with anyone else.

I’m perfectly happy for people to live in whatever culture they live in, within ours. I’m fine with us being a mishmash of multiculturalism and diversity, and I’m fine with someone speaking whatever language they speak. It doesn’t make me more or less anything, and doesn’t impact my life in any way.

So you support trapping people in a war torn country to fight a war they may not want to, because they happen to have been born there? Not for me thanks.

I also think, that if you self identify as British Indian, your family evidently migrated here at some stage. So did mine. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to judge others doing the same, don’t you think?

We may well. I just don’t see what the alternative is, though? One part of the globe willingly allows another to die?

Puts me in mind of the very cheesey film The Day After Tomorrow, which I love 😁 The scenes towards the end where, because of climate change taking a bit of an unexpected and very, rapid turn, people in the north suddenly find themselves desperate to get to the south. Americans desperate wading across the Rio Grande. And being taken in.

We definitely do need to look at societal and cultural impacts. I can see the lack of integration myself living where I do in London. Some parts I genuinely do not feel like I'm in the UK. I'm British Indian myself. I went to the GP and a women was struggling with the receptionist because she couldn't speak English. Integration into British society is essential, many areas don't have this.

I do expect people to fight for their nation. I can judge their "individual choices" all I want. Ukrainian men haven't been allowed to leave.

Because it's a ready made excuse, easier to use than to say that they just don't want those people here.

I appreciate the answer I just can’t see how socially and politically this can happen. If we really do see multiples of the numbers arriving rn I think we’ll see some more unrest.

They happen to be geographically closer, not have.

This idea that someone is required to claim asylum in the “first safe country” is simply not true.

If the UK has no responsibility and its first duty is to its own citizens, surely that applies to every other country in the world? Why should they take in refugees because they have to be geographically closer?