Why are governments putting women and girls at higher risk of sex crimes?

[Absentmindedsmile]

Fact: Hundreds of thousands of men are entering Europe (as in the continent), from countries where women and girls are second class citizens.
**
Fact: The sex crime rate statistics associated with different nationalities living in the UK have been published. An example is provided below.
**
**Facts:
….the [sex crime] rates, based on convictions per 10,000 of the population put Afghans, with 77 convictions, at the top with a rate of 59 per 10,000 – 22.3 times that of Britons.
**
They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population.
**
Britons accounted for 12,619 sex offence convictions, representing a rate of 2.66 per per 10,000 of their population in England and Wales.
**
https://archive.md/6AXAy Archive version
**
Fact: This example data blows up any erroneous claims from people suggesting that British men commit more sex crimes when numbers in the population are accounted for / are more likely to commit a sex crime.
**
There’s above is factual data. It is not racist to provide it. To claim this, is quite simply, wrong. Perhaps it’s projection, the mind boggles.

To want ‘no debate’ and bleet on with incorrectly placed accusations of racism, is to shut down people’s valid concerns.

Tin hat on for the people who want no debate on this issue, and instead of protecting women and girls, insist on protecting men from countries where women and girls are treated as second class citizens.

More data has been promised.
**
**

You are very wrong about that.

They may not all be safe, but they are safer than the women. They are also the only sex that the Taliban take notice of. It is not an excuse to run away and leave women and children to try and survive a brutal regime on the off chance that they will be alive in 5 years while you run off across Europe, try and enter the UK illegally, claim asylum and then try and get them out. There are many more men than there are the Taliban. They are the only ones who are capable of overthrowing them and stand up for the rights of their wives to leave the house and their daughters to access education. I have no pity or respect for men who decide its easier to abandon them and run off, paying thousands to traffickers. We should absolutely have safe legal routes for asylum. They should not, in my opinion, include single Afghan men ( unless they are the ones who are at risk because they helped the allied forces in Afghanistan, who we should know and should be removed with their families immediately. It is the fault of the UK and the US governments that they werent). Or random men from safe countries which make up most of the illegal asylum seekers trying to got across the channel. The issue isn't asylum, it is illegal immigration. We have absolutely no idea who these people are, and housing large groups of single men all in one place is a recipe for disaster.

Safer? Torture and death

Run away? Torture and death

Random men from safe countries, examples please

We have no idea who these people are? That's why there is an asylum claim process.

I agree that hotels are not adequate accommodation

Men who are opposed to the regime are very unsafe in Afghanistan.

These young men were children during the time when America occupied it. They will not be targets. They are opportunists, and you don’t have to take them at all

Nobody is talking about 'taking them all' except for you and the OP

And how do you know they are not targets?

These are such exhausting threads.

Personal insults being slung back and forth about people’s character or inability to grasp at issues.

Real genuine concerns dismissed out of hand with no willingness to challenge pre-existing even if they are thoughtfully held beliefs.

I fully support migration, functioning asylum processes are an extremely important part of democracy but the scale of what is happening at the moment, the lack of support migrants get when they are here for genuine reasons because you cannot provide at the scale of the problem.

The level of disenfranchising of a group of people (men) who have been missold a dream by traffickers and the potential for significant social issues arising from these issues simply cannot be ignored.

As per always, inevitably unless a war breaks out and men fight and get killed, it will be women and girls who will be exposed to the risks at a greater rate because of their inherent vulnerability and a worldwide culture of VAWG.

The thing I find most strange on these types of threads is that there isn’t a government policy across Europe willing to represent the views of those advocating for a migration system with very limited restriction. Instead the systems are incredibly punitive and cumbersome. It is an extreme minority view that supports lifting restrictions on immigration that is massively over represented on social media.

The Garron Noone furore on Irish social media brought out the silent majority in their droves after his brief cancelling by the extremists over the most benign of comments on this issue which it turns out were widely supported.

I said, ‘take them at all’. You don’t have to take them at all. You can refuse asylum to those who enter, as is often said, irregularly.

The UK does refuse asylum, just not solely on the fact of nationality

Any evidence of Afghan men being safe from the Taliban?

Because it’s more likely they are fleeing dire poverty than retribution for a war they were far too young to participate in?

In any case, you should just ban all irregular entries—if they know that irregular entry will mean automatic deportation, they wouldn’t try it, now would they?

You can't ban irregular arrival without providing options for requesting asylum from outside the UK. No such options currently exist, and the likes of Reform would oppose having them.

UK signed up to the 1951 Refugee Convention, so no they can't just ban people claiming asylum by irregular means

Automatic deportation to where?

This is nothing to do with the US occupation of Afghanistan. Are you at all aware of what has happened there since 2021, and do you really think all Afghan men are delighted with the Taliban?

Its probably time to look at that then. In todays world. Because that's probably not what they had in mind in 1950.

OP, read this article that the Migration Observatory at Oxford University has written. Unlike The Telegraph, they don't have any skin in the game:

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/

A relevant quote:

".....just comparing foreign-born and UK-born populations can be misleading. A series of factors might lead to foreign-born individuals having higher or lower arrest/conviction rates than the UK-born even if they commit crimes at the same rates. For instance, migrants may commit crimes that are easier (or harder) to detect or police could allocate more (or less) resources to catching migrant offenders or courts could be more (or less) likely to convict migrants."

And this:

"international evidence from studies using similar methodologies to Bell et al. (2013) include Bianchi at al. (2012) using Italian provincial data and Spenkuch (2011) across US counties. The Italian evidence finds zero overall impact of migrants on either violent or property crime. The US study finds no evidence of a causal link between migrants and violent crime, but does suggest a significant positive link with property crime."

What didn't they have in mind?

They may or may not be delighted. But they are not targeted because they had no role in the war.

You can just ignore international law. Nobody cares.

If you’ve been foolish enough to make it part of British law, well, get your lawmakers to fix it.

This is a key question.

Migration Observatory says that 48% of those refused asylum from 2010-2020 were removed by 2024. Issues include

The lengthy review and appeals process

Adhering to the principle of nonrefoulement: a person cannot be returned to an unsafe situation according to the Convention on Human Rights

Lack of immigration enforcement resources

Lack of international co-operation: when someone has no papers, return is contingent upon acceptance by their home country or a third country. The UK has no established treaties for this situation and ad hoc arrangements depend on goodwill. This is in shorter supply as our foreign aid budget is cut.

Be more like Russia? Or Trump?

Illegal border crossings have plummeted under Trump because they can no longer claim asylum after entering illegally. Incentives are gone.

How will you magic up co-operation? You cannot force any country to accept someone without a passport

Unlimited mass miragtion by large amounts of people who are more accurately described as ecomonic migrants. Unpresented cost to UK tax payer, crushing national infrastructure,
Urban sprawl eating up historic countryside, loss of habitat and native species plant and animal due to shite carbord houses, working classes who literally built the country left in poverty,
More crime, more poverty means more crime across the board. lack of 'British vaules' , homeless ex army left on streets while housing budget taken by someone just arriving.

Government only answer so far to create a surveillance state to deal with irrefutable crime levels.

Do you have a source to back this up?

How will you magic up co-operation? You cannot force any country to accept someone without a passport.

You cannot ‘just ignore international law’ without being thought no better than those who do. Are you suggesting a race to the bottom?

Farage, with his empty rhetoric and even emptier promises, certainly is. If Reform would offer some halfway thoughtful proposals I would at least give them the honour of serious thought. But they don’t. All the trouble Trump is making for America is a small taste of what Reform would do to the UK.

It would be much worse because America’s economic and military dominance mean that the world must accommodate a deranged President to a large extent. No one will bother doing that for a small island that’s taken itself out of Europe.

Apologies, @TopPocketFind , for quoting you instead of @RingoJuice above.