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

I have no idea. You’d have to ask the Labour Party.

Why should those countries take all the asylum seekers?

Because Labour is trying to sound like Reform Lite.

I think the public is angry at the whole rotten system, including their own politicians who are either unable or unwilling to put a stop to it and perform the government's most basic role of maintaining a secure homeland.

Why does Labour talk about their illegal crossing?

And some fought alongside the British Army.
This is repeated over and over - I’m really not sure why people can’t imagine they wouldn’t go further than France ever, for any reason, if they needed refuge.

Read the thread. The poster you are questioning has already answered this point.

Yep, they said enough without actually articulating it explicitly. A cowardly approach in my view.

Yes, I guess they didn’t quite - I see that thing on here where folk say ‘I spat my tea out’ or ‘I lol’d so much’ and I tend to think ‘course you did’ 🙈
well I did have a physical reaction to this - so appallingly awful and so I missed they didn’t quite say it.

Why do they need British asylum if they've passed multiple safe countries?

If you had £9 a week to live on, in a country you don’t know, wouldn’t you probably spend some time just hanging out with other people in a nice place?
you don’t know if the crime has gone up, so you don’t know if they’ve done anything wrong , they’re just existing on the same path as you. And you’re mad at them….because?

It’s not illegal to cross by any means if you intend to claim asylum the other end. They can’t come over on a flight because if they come on a tourist visa they can’t claim asylum, and you can’t claim asylum until you are on British soil. So what do you want them to do?

It’s not additional, they get £9 a week if they are fed, if they aren’t they get £49 a week.

They have no money but have money for illegal crossings.

Because they are choosing to pass a safe country for one of their preference.

Because they don’t speak French.
Because they have family in the uk.
becuase they DO speak English.
because it’s further away from where they are at risk.
Because France already has a lot of asylum seekers and they can’t all stay there
because France has taken far more than the U.K. historically.
because the U.K. suits their skill set to work better.
because they went on holiday to Penzance once and think the U.K. seems nice.
because British people are seen as nice people.

all kinds of reasons.

This. They just come because the UK has too many pull factors.

Because the people shouting at hotels are relishing the chance to punch down, for once in their miserable lives

In the UK, asylum seekers who have applied for support can receive a weekly payment of £49.18 per person for essential needs like food, clothing, and toiletries, paid via an ASPEN card. An additional allowance of £9.95 per week is given to those in self-catered accommodatio

It’s possible to not be happy with both the individuals and the people smugglers.

There is an asylum hostel near me. A former 4 star Ramada, although to be be fair, it probably was in financial difficulty for some time before it was taken over.

It’a located near a “green trail” which leads from a nature reserve, along a stream, to another part of town.

Only now, groups of young men congregate by this trail, making me and probably others feel rather uncomfortable. I don’t claim to know if local crime rates have gone up but I probably wouldn’t go there in my own anymore.

If young British men were hanging around, I’d also feel uncomfortable, but that’s not the point, they’re there all day as they have nothing to do. Putting these individuals in local communities just builds resentment.

But they do benefit from government support!

I’m not sure the system we have now would stand up to neutral people with ‘critical thinking’. It’s dangerous, rewards gangs and lacks security.

It’s what we have and it’s straining politics in many countries. I don’t blame the individual, say the poor Eritrean currently under Labour’s cosh for ‘one in one out’ but I do question the whole system. If people do actually think about it kind of is open to change.

Not quite "out and proud". The poster is not responding to my request that they say exactly what they mean instead of simply implying it.

They know that they will have crossed a line if they actually say it, so they veer as close to saying as they think they can get away with, but just stop short.

It's pathetic.

Not at all, they can think whatever they like. And of course they will think they are being fair if they are basing their views on misinformation, which many people do. Unless we have a detailed breakdown of how exactly they arrived at those views, it doesn't really get us anywhere.

You haven't presented any evidence of their ability to think critically, which is what we were actually talking about, and the views of a group of random teenagers of unknown intelligence or exposure to education around critical thinking skillsdoesn't really tell us much at all. I have no doubt that I could find a bunch of different teenagers with totally different opinions, but I'm not sure how much further it would move us on in the debate.

Disgusting - I’m shocked and saddened that this view is displayed out and proud (twice) on this site.

The point is that the fairness thing is their view and its perfectly acceptable for them to hold it without being called ignorant, parrots, manipulated etc because they don't share your view. Sounds like you want to teach them what thoughts are acceptable. I think we're beyond that now thankfully.