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

Good grief you really are an extremely narrow minded and blinkered individual! Just because I don't agree with you or fit your "right wing racist" narrative, you are clutching at straws to demonise me.

Yes, I have had "decent converstions" with them, I advocate for them on a daily basis, I ferry many around to appointments as part of my job in public health, I've been working with asylum seekers for more than 10 years. I have my own donation service where people can donate toys, clothes, soft furnishings etc which I then arrange to have delivered to their homes. Is that enough for you?

However as I have stated on numerous occassions, genuine asylum seekers are not the same as illegal economic migrants. And the UK cannot safely accomodate an infinite amount of any migrants - legal or otherwise.

You won't be granted asylum or humanitarian protection because you are poor and want to make more money.

You're just making stuff up.

I didn’t say you had, I was explaining why I don’t see the value in setting one myself or others using their arbitrary threshold to apply pressure.

I think you’re right, most do want a threshold - some would prefer net zero, and/or no applications. I think as a country we’re leaning towards anti-immigration, and becoming less compassionate to the needs of others.

I haven’t set a threshold I asked if you had an upper limit, or a point where you felt there was an issue. People feel differently on that.

Your answer was no, fine but I think it’s a minority who are ok with however many apply. Politically it would be hard for anyone to sell that in.

They don’t take priority, but they are reasonably more informed views.

I don’t believe setting numbers and thresholds in an area that you don’t understand and have no control over is useful. Where does it get anyone?

Over the last few weeks, we’re supposed to be having reasonable discussions about asylum with people who still believe you can seek asylum illegally and don’t know the difference between an asylum seeker and a migrant.

People who set their own random thresholds for asylum without even knowing what it is.

I would rather trust the experts than “angry of Internet,” in all honesty.

I already agreed that it referred to those on boats, and it still does not mean they are not economic migrants; it’s recognised that they cannot or are unlikely to be able to return home. Fleeing poverty, in certain circumstances, is a reason for a grant of protection; fleeing somewhere because you are poor and going somewhere that will give you money is absolutely economic migration, but the claimant knows they have no realistic chance of being accepted on a visa as they will likely have little or no needed skills.

Why? I can see people working in a system might be the strongest advocates for it, of course there’s a whole industry around the system we have - legal and not legal participants. Huge amounts of money involved.

I don’t think it’s those views that take place over the electorate.

And then there's this, for instance:

Afghan asylum seekers ‘go home on holiday’ https://share.google/hJYn9ZzV4ogiPVaxU

I’m well aware that some people think it reasonable to apply political pressure once we reach some arbitrary threshold that they’ve set themselves, with absolutely no involvement in the actual process, and societal pressure too - those people are wrong.

We have only ever been able to deport people to a country which accepts returns. It’s also very difficult to deport somebody who has no papers and whose country of origin cannot definitively be established.

I don’t think some posters will accept any number is too high. I really don’t understand the mindset, particularly of advocating for clearly wrong’uns.

I looked who was defending The Hyde Park rapist (and wanted terrorist) and, lo and behold, it was an “activist” chambers - not just an allocated defence. So they had “picked” him. What motivates them to advocate for a nasty excuse for a human being and a danger to women and society?

Yeah, yeah, everyone is entitled to a defence but, as I stated, this individual was represented by a chambers known for a liking for anti-establishment causes; it was not chance he ended up with them.

Ok so this sounds like no upper limit, just that people are assessed. I think some will feel the same, but more will see high numbers and put political pressure to change. Particularly if we start seeing what @MrsSkylerWhitereferred to earlier (high numbers).

On this exact thread, there’s been remarks about staying in your home country and helping it prosper, rather than coming here for safety or for your own development. Do you not see that those who feel that way could ask you the same question? Why didn’t you stay put and prosper there?

Because I met a British man and moved to be with him.

It's not hypocrisy, I have zero issues with other highly educated and law abiding immigrants who integrate.

Arrivals don’t matter. The more reasonable figure to look at would be how many stay.

If after arrival the asylum process is (generally) followed, then those who are deemed able to stay can stay as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t believe in open borders, I believe in a fair and managed asylum and immigration system, and if the result of that process is that you’re approved to remain then.. great, welcome. If not, then time to go back.

It doesn’t need to be your job, but is there a point where it feels to high for you? If 2000 were arriving a day or higher? Do you think it could be an issue or is it ok

How are we all supposed to know those numbers? I genuinely do not work for the Home Office, or in any form of immigration services.

No idea. But what I can tell you is my “acceptable” line is the same as my “manageable” line, in that where we can manage to take them - we should.

Last I checked, that wasn’t my job!

I don’t believe however that zero is the answer. Which is at least implied by those who don’t want any migrants anywhere near them.

Yes, there’s never a straight answer about what numbers would be acceptable or manageable. Opening all borders would create huge migrant camps, surely, even if any spare or under-occupied properties were commandeered.

This.

@SleeplessInWhereveris there an upper limit for you for how many the UK should take?

@PurpleNurple23 / @SpaceRaccoon

So you both think it’s acceptable to either refuse people in genuine need asylum, or vilify those who are economic migrants and move here for a better life, when presumably that was your reasoning for moving too?

On this exact thread, there’s been remarks about staying in your home country and helping it prosper, rather than coming here for safety or for your own development. Do you not see that those who feel that way could ask you the same question? Why didn’t you stay put and prosper there?

My family didn’t. They’d have starved to death in their home country had they not migrated here. I don’t take that for granted or blame others for doing the same.

It’s hypocritical at best to be an anti immigration immigrant.

This is just getting silly now.

It seems some are keen to assume the worst of asylum seekers regardless of any sense or evidence.

I wonder why that is?

But I doubt I will get a sensible answer here.

OP, everyone dislikes asylum seekers because they are all unskilled, uneducated, poor, criminal, fake homosexual economic migrants with no British values.

No prejudice involved or anything 😆

So now they're boats full of fake homosexual economic migrants!

68% have been accepted as at risk of serious harm or persecution - either refugees or in need of humanitarian protection. Therefore not economic migrants.

"I'm gay". Job done.

I’m sorry, but the audacity of you being an economic migrant and saying you don’t want refugees anywhere near you.

I'm also an immigrant to the UK and I agree with her. Immigration is needed but should be those who benefit the country and integrate, and not in the huge numbers we saw under Boris Johnson.