Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

882 replies

AnotherNC12345 · 17/09/2025 10:54

… rather than the smuggling / trafficking gangs that are responsible for the journey?

I think it’s very extreme to put all of the blame and the anger at the individual that arrives, rather than the people responsible for orchestrating the whole process. These individuals are often ‘sold the dream’ and hooked in by organised crime groups who direct them to the UK. I’ve looked at sample routes from different parts of the world (screenshots may be pending) and these are complex and would need local people, as well as law enforcement, customs officers and other government officials to turn a blind eye involved in smuggling across multiple borders.

It’s no secret that these crossings likely cost a lot of money, and I think it would be safe to assume that refugees would often be in crippling debt to the OCGs who will put pressure on them to pay it back, by threatening them and their families and I would go as far as to say they could then be coerced in to further committing crimes when granted asylum in order to pay back their debt.

These OCGs are likely involved in other trafficking / crime, not just of asylum seekers but likely drugs, weapons and sex as they have the connections across those borders.

I think it’s very unlikely that an asylum seeker is sitting there looking at all the European government websites and shopping for a country with the best benefits package and approaching a trafficker with a brochure like they’re picking a Jet2 holiday. But this is the narrative that’s often put us and fuelled in the media.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a better system and want to control our borders better on a whole, but this sheer anger and blame placed at the human in front of us seems very misplaced, when they were likely manipulated in to thinking they can have a better life in this particular country and not another, and the problem is way way bigger than an individual.

Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…
Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…
OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 17/09/2025 20:34

AnotherNC12345 · 17/09/2025 20:14

In the context of Romania and Bulgaria specifically:

Romania

What’s guaranteed (by law / policy):

  • Law 122/2006 on asylum gives asylum seekers certain rights: to be given information in a language they understand; to have a legal translator/interpreter free of charge in the asylum procedure.
  • Asylum seekers have the right to free primary health care, emergency hospital care, and treatment in acute or chronic illnesses that are life-threatening.

Bulgaria

What’s guaranteed (by law / policy):

  • Asylum seekers in Bulgaria have the right to receive an interpreter free of charge as part of the asylum procedure (for interviews, etc.).
  • They also have the right to access health care, and their health insurance is paid by the State Agency for Refugees during the asylum procedure.

The availability in those countries is the issue. But yes should one be available, they are entitled to it. You’re not, as you’re not an asylum seeker.

As it happens, unfortunately,I lived about 100 yards from Bulgaria's newest migrant reception centre ( Svilengrad,Haskovo oblast) which contained many nationalities,varying from Syrians,Malians,Afghans to Mongolians, and can assure you ,from personal conversations with them,that no interpreting was done there.
And of course, the people the NHS are so keen to interpret for are,in the main,not asylum seekers either.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 17/09/2025 20:27

Credible sources , lol. Just had a look at both of them. Both pro migration orgs, it seems. I particularly enjoyed the cover illustration of a tiny pair of hands grasping a strand of barbed wire, and the immediate pop up for Amnesty. Perhaps take a look at Migration Watch.......🙄

AnotherNC12345 · 17/09/2025 20:14

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 17/09/2025 19:56

Actually, no. If I went to see a doctor in Bulgaria or Romania, the idea that I should be ENTITLED to an interpreter would be treated as deranged.

In the context of Romania and Bulgaria specifically:

Romania

What’s guaranteed (by law / policy):

  • Law 122/2006 on asylum gives asylum seekers certain rights: to be given information in a language they understand; to have a legal translator/interpreter free of charge in the asylum procedure.
  • Asylum seekers have the right to free primary health care, emergency hospital care, and treatment in acute or chronic illnesses that are life-threatening.

Bulgaria

What’s guaranteed (by law / policy):

  • Asylum seekers in Bulgaria have the right to receive an interpreter free of charge as part of the asylum procedure (for interviews, etc.).
  • They also have the right to access health care, and their health insurance is paid by the State Agency for Refugees during the asylum procedure.

The availability in those countries is the issue. But yes should one be available, they are entitled to it. You’re not, as you’re not an asylum seeker.

OP posts:
BeHappySloth · 17/09/2025 20:04

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:28

The illegal migration act

As a pp has said, most of that act has been repealed and some bits were never actually implemented.

Can you point to which specific clause in the legislation states that you cannot pay people for a lift on a small boat?

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 17/09/2025 19:56

AnotherNC12345 · 17/09/2025 12:00

Actually, yes. Specifically in healthcare situations in Europe - they would all provide translators.

Actually, no. If I went to see a doctor in Bulgaria or Romania, the idea that I should be ENTITLED to an interpreter would be treated as deranged.

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:55

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:51

People are ‘sick of illegal immigrantion’ based on half truths and flat out lies from Farage and co, and the people who can’t be arsed to think for themselves, the racists and the lacking of any kind of empathy have been sucked in. Again. the same people who lied to you about Brexit are still lying to you, and no one even thinks to check some facts or even talk to an immigrant or two and hear their side of things.

that act was repealed because it was bullshit and breaks international law on numerous counts.

You can get as ragey as you want but you know that people can vote how they want whether they believe it or not.

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:53

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:48

The U.K. allow 48% to stay to germanys 44%.
also why should Germany take more than us? Surely the right thing to do is for all countries to take some so no one nation is overwhelmed? Or is it just a case of NIBYism on a massive scale for you?

NIMBYISM, yes, but also 4% isn't worth

A) crossing a channel and risking death
B) paying a trafficker and the risks of that
C) not being able to support my family because of the above.

For a 4% increase.

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:51

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:43

And look where we are.

A country so sick of illegal immigration that Reform are looking likely. Something that would never, ever have been on the cards if the previous Governments had dealt with it.

People are ‘sick of illegal immigrantion’ based on half truths and flat out lies from Farage and co, and the people who can’t be arsed to think for themselves, the racists and the lacking of any kind of empathy have been sucked in. Again. the same people who lied to you about Brexit are still lying to you, and no one even thinks to check some facts or even talk to an immigrant or two and hear their side of things.

that act was repealed because it was bullshit and breaks international law on numerous counts.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 17/09/2025 19:50

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:38

40% of those coming in on small boats are female. 20% are children. It’s most likely to be younger men for two reasons:
they are the ones most likely to be drafted into fight in wars they don’t want to fight in or believe in. They are also the most likely to be killed by the taliban if they don’t submit to their will.
they also send the people most likely to survive the crossing in the boat, and then the other family can be brought over safely at a later date.

makes perfect sense to me,

Stop telling lies, or cite a reputable source for your nonsense.

AnotherNC12345 · 17/09/2025 19:50

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:48

The U.K. allow 48% to stay to germanys 44%.
also why should Germany take more than us? Surely the right thing to do is for all countries to take some so no one nation is overwhelmed? Or is it just a case of NIBYism on a massive scale for you?

If only there was an alliance that shared the workload and balanced the responsibility… oh wait. The same people that told us to Brexit are the ones telling us we need to stop the boats.

OP posts:
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 17/09/2025 19:48

Paganpentacle · 17/09/2025 11:37

What's the difference?

He's still turned up illegally

Hope that helps.

Pull your head out of your arse,if you can't see the difference.

Hope that helps

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:48

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:41

Germany host most and don't risk a channel crossing.

The U.K. allow 48% to stay to germanys 44%.
also why should Germany take more than us? Surely the right thing to do is for all countries to take some so no one nation is overwhelmed? Or is it just a case of NIBYism on a massive scale for you?

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:43

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:39

Most of that act has been repealed.

And look where we are.

A country so sick of illegal immigration that Reform are looking likely. Something that would never, ever have been on the cards if the previous Governments had dealt with it.

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:41

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:35

No they don’t, so if people know they are less likely to be granted asylum due to numbers or whatever, wouldn’t YOU go to a country more likely to let you in??

Germany host most and don't risk a channel crossing.

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:39

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:28

The illegal migration act

Most of that act has been repealed.

Crochetandtea · 17/09/2025 19:38

People aren’t happy because it costs £££.
There aren’t enough houses, school places , jobs etc for the people who were born here.
We need a system similiar to Australia.
The UK are a soft touch.
The risk of sexual offences are increased when men from countries with high levels of domestic abuse and violence come alone without their families.
People don’t want a muslim majority.
People are scared of sharia law.

These are the reasons I’ve heard recently.

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:38

CoffeeCantata · 17/09/2025 19:31

And why are so very many of them young, fit, single men?

40% of those coming in on small boats are female. 20% are children. It’s most likely to be younger men for two reasons:
they are the ones most likely to be drafted into fight in wars they don’t want to fight in or believe in. They are also the most likely to be killed by the taliban if they don’t submit to their will.
they also send the people most likely to survive the crossing in the boat, and then the other family can be brought over safely at a later date.

makes perfect sense to me,

OwlBeThere · 17/09/2025 19:35

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 17:33

Well the dont have to 🤷‍♂️

No they don’t, so if people know they are less likely to be granted asylum due to numbers or whatever, wouldn’t YOU go to a country more likely to let you in??

Cleikumstovies · 17/09/2025 19:34

I'm surprised the last government or any right of centre party is no suggesting a processing centre in the heart of Paris. Especially the " the French are our real enemy" people.

CoffeeCantata · 17/09/2025 19:31

Paganpentacle · 17/09/2025 11:05

So... can you explain why are they risking channel crossings and not staying put?

What is the lure of attempting something so dangerous when they are clearly safe in France? Why do you think that may be?

And why are so very many of them young, fit, single men?

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:28

BeHappySloth · 17/09/2025 19:12

Which law prevents people from paying to travel on small boats?

The illegal migration act

JustAnotherManicMomday · 17/09/2025 19:14

The gangs wouldn't exist if they tried to enter legally.

BeHappySloth · 17/09/2025 19:12

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:10

Why not?

Which law prevents people from paying to travel on small boats?

NotABiscuitInSight · 17/09/2025 19:10

BeHappySloth · 17/09/2025 19:09

It isn't an "equal fact" though.

Why not?