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

I didn’t say any of that about his application. I said it wasn’t clear where it was at when he committed the crime, not that it was important, but he would now be deported and I’m glad he’s in jail.
The link posted didn’t say he was a terrorist, nor that he had asylum in Turkey - this is a failure of our system with backlogs and lack of access now to certain data then.
I also said that doesn’t mean all Egyptian males, or all asylum seekers, are rapists.
I added that it’s the hatred and poor facts that concern me most rather than different views on immigration.

I think that’s what’s referred to as suicidal empathy.

He's a convicted terrorist. He's a member of an organisation fundamentally opposed to Western/British values. He's illegally entered the UK. He's made a claim for asylum, despite already having been granted asylum in Turkey, where his wife and child live. He's already been put up in a hotel for 2 years waiting for his asylum claim - which should clearly be rejected by any sane person -to be processed. While the judicial system has been navel gazing for two years, he's raped a woman in a park and now he's in prison for that.

What part of that story leads you to believe we still need to exclude any lingering danger that his application gets judged based on unfair assumptions about him? He is a proven liability and he has absolutely no business being in this country at all. The fact that the system still hasn't figured that out means the system isn’t fit for purpose at this point.

Probably for the same reason that MN blames the men that look at porn rather than the sites that show it, or the OCGs that enable it.

One is identifiable and the other is not.

People have been complaining about the abstract principle to politicians for years now and had the pleasure of being called "that bigoted woman " (thanks Gordon Brown). It's not surprising they've moved on to directly protesting those few they can actually connect with.

Because I reckon you don't believe in Border control.

Why would they not feel safe in France? I've been to Paris and I liked it there. Lovely patisseries. If I simply didn't like France as a place to live and work I wouldn't risk potential death at sea.

But I'll read up thread as you suggested.

Why do they want to get further away?

What do you think England will be like in a few years time if we keep on allowing the boats to come in?
(I think another 1000 people crossed the other day), where do you think we'll put these "asylum seekers' when we can no longer accommodate them in hotels?

How do you think we'll be able to afford to pay for their upkeep?

And for the 860th time, there is no requirement to stop at the first safe country. Refugees are allowed to have a preference for where they live. Throughout this thread there are tons of reasons why they don’t stop in France. Usually it’s language or family reasons, better chance at using their skills when they speak the language.

and also, how is it fair that France should take them all and we don’t take any? Every country should be helping out with refugees if they can, becuase it is the right thing to do. We are not special.

France will be the second to last if the final destination is UK.

I suspect that's more what PP is asking... why IS their final destination the UK? Surely it should be the first safe country they arrive at?

‘We’re all human beings’

You see the world as you’d like it to be, not as it is.

There are human beings in the world who actively dislike you, your values and your principles. Do you wish to live alongside them?

Well you could apply this to the first European country they reach. From every corner of the world, France wouldn’t be the first European country they enter. It will be the second to last if the final destination is UK.

Which brings me on to the point in my OP - and that’s because it’s likely to be the route that’s dictated or sold to them by the gang in the first place, as opposed to them being born in to deciding the UK is their ultimate aspirational goal.

Yeah you’re making a lot of assumptions too though - about how “highly educated” I am (or not).

I’ll repeat - genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants are two different things. Not everyone who tries to come to the UK is fleeing war and/or persecution. Even if they were - the UK cannot take everyone who is fleeing.

Genuine question @ForgetMeNotRose - do we just keep taking anyone who wants to come here? 1 million, 5 million, 100 million? Where would your line in the sand be? Given that as much as 14% of the world’s population are living in a conflict/was zone (University of Southampton research) ie 455million to 1 billion people - how many can a small island like the UK safely accommodate? How will we pay for them? How will our infrastructure support them? And how many illegal migrants on top of this can we accommodate? Genuinely - what would your answer be?

And with regards to my education, let’s just say you can call me Dr Youdontseehow. And I think you mean “you suspect” rather than “you expect”.

Yeah but you brought it up with your passive aggressive comment about “expecting” them to be more educated than me. I wouldn’t have mentioned it otherwise.

And as I’ve repeatedly said - I’m not talking about genuine asylum seekers. I’m referring to unskilled, unvetted, illegal economic migrants. Why is that so hard to understand?

I’m not labouring under any such delusion.

Some people don’t care how small you make the expenditure seem - they’d prefer the amount was zero. And the financial burden isn’t even the most significant issue.

Yeah but you brought it up with your passive aggressive comment about “expecting” them to be more educated than me. I wouldn’t have mentioned it otherwise.

And as I’ve repeatedly said - I’m not talking about genuine asylum seekers. I’m referring to unskilled, unvetted, illegal economic migrants. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't really care about your level education, the point I'm making is that there's no reason why an asylum seeker would necessarily be less well educated than anyone else, including yourself.

Yeah you’re making a lot of assumptions too though - about how “highly educated” I am (or not).

I’ll repeat - genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants are two different things. Not everyone who tries to come to the UK is fleeing war and/or persecution. Even if they were - the UK cannot take everyone who is fleeing.

Genuine question @ForgetMeNotRose - do we just keep taking anyone who wants to come here? 1 million, 5 million, 100 million? Where would your line in the sand be? Given that as much as 14% of the world’s population are living in a conflict/was zone (University of Southampton research) ie 455million to 1 billion people - how many can a small island like the UK safely accommodate? How will we pay for them? How will our infrastructure support them? And how many illegal migrants on top of this can we accommodate? Genuinely - what would your answer be?

And with regards to my education, let’s just say you can call me Dr Youdontseehow. And I think you mean “you suspect” rather than “you expect”.

You're making a lot of assumptions about asylum seekers. War doesn't discriminate, you know. Well educated people aren't exempt from suffering. I've worked with many, many asylum seekers who have experienced unimaginable trauma. Many more highly educated than you, I expect.

Hmmm I wonder how many of them paid people smugglers to get them to the UK in a dinghy 🤔

Like many, I am not against controlled migration of skilled workers and their families who make a net contribution to the UK, learn English (if they didn’t already speak it), follow UK laws rather than medieval cultural practices and generally make a positive contribution.

Not the same as those coming over illegally in small boats, being net takers and contributing very little to society/community whilst reaping the benefits of being in the UK illegally.

Or alternatively put in place safe, legal routes. The human thing to do.

I’m not naive. I have no issue with economic migrants. Economic migrants want to work and contribute. Wouldn’t you?

come on now - you cannot seriously believe that many, if not most, of those on the small boats are genuine asylum seekers and not economic migrants? Nobody can be that naive surely?