Why is it mostly men on the boats?

[LinedOverLatte]

Inspired by a different thread relating to yesterday’s march.

Many of the comments on the thread about the march are rude about men, suggesting these ‘gammons’ are violent thugs who’ve told their women to stay at home.

They are men looking for a fight apparently.

One quote - “the fact that it’s only men should raise questions...”

So, my question is “it is mostly men coming in on the boats - shouldn’t that ALSO raise questions…?”

It does. But it raises a question that has been answered.

Many of those men travel from migrant camps, gain asylum and then organise visas for family to follow.

This is largely because the journey is difficult, and is even more so for women and children.

People on the March told their women to stay home? Or their women didn’t think it worthwhile to go on a March that represented hate? If I was a man in a country being forced into war I’d be getting the hell out of there, the war is just created by violent, idiotic men who don’t care about their country.

Your question is a stupid question that has been asked and answered many times.

If your family were living in a dangerous situation and you had the money to send one person on a long and potentially dangerous journey to find somewhere safer to live who would you send?

The young fit men are sent as they are more able to cope with the strenuous journey and life in camps , the hope is to find employment to support their families and the amounts they have to pay people smugglers mean that often funds are gathered from extended families. It’s exactly the approach most would have in their situation - the risks to women and children would be much higher and they would in theory follow once settled status granted

I live near the sea, SE UK, have actually seen the boats, arrive
Young males, not in war torn countries, coming over for the benefits. Have had a friend intimidated by them in nearby hotels,her middle aged son, actually frightened by about a dozen of them surrounding him, taking pictures on their phones..in a Bournemouth hotel where he had to go with his employment.

Quite a number of men on the march were violent thugs though, and that's according to reports in the Daily Mail, which is very sympathetic to their cause.

What's rude about pointing that out?

How do you know which countries they are from?

Also, when people talk about ‘economic migrants’ I wonder if they don’t understand what poverty looks like in the majority world. You’re just as dead if you can’t afford a doctor, or a home to protect you from the elements, or food for your family, as if you get shot.

Millions of people die of diarrhea every year. Malaria. Pneumonia.

You can worry about immigration without lacking empathy about why people migrate. My parents were economic migrants. But white so no one seems to care. I’ve lived in three countries. People need to behave when they get here, of course. And men are always riskier than women, regardless of any other factors.

Many of the comments on the thread about the march are rude about men, suggesting these ‘gammons’ are violent thugs who’ve told their women to stay at home.

I may be wrong but I really cannot see any large groups of decent men going "an event led by Tommy Robinson with Elon Musk as guest speaker? Get me there".

If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. If a man (or woman) chooses to align themselves with a known violent racist by willingly attending an event he's leading, then chances are they are one too.

Ps had it all been reversed the men on the march would mostly have chucked their women and children overboard to get away quicker!!!

I understand the principle of sending the young and fit , but how is it though that, once the asylum status is granted, families can join them, surely whoever they are fleeing isn't going to just let families leave? That's the bit I haven't understood.

Gosh. Did nobody start a men on small boats thread already today?

Because it's easier for men to make what is a risky journey.

Because young people tend to be the ones to emigrate in any culture.

Because the intention is they will gain a right to remain and then apply to bring over their families (which is why the government are tightening up on family reunification).

Because in many cultures the man is sent to earn and expected to send money back to their family.

I don't have any respect for Afghan men leaving their womenfolk behind.

Back before WW2 many men sent their kids and wives before they went themselves.

Some of the current migrants could be gay, of course, but they'd be perfectly safe in most European countries in that case.

The migrant camps are generally in France, and their wives aren't there. The vulnerable are left at home.

We’re told that they were forced to leave their homes because they are so dangerous. If they are so dangerous, shouldn't they get their families out?

Given that the government intends to make it more difficult migrants to bring their families over quickly, do you think his will be a deterrent, or at least lead to more women coming?

Back before WW2 many men sent their kids and wives before they went themselves.

The world was a very different place before WW2. There is no comparison to be made.

I personally would send my partner on that journey to gain asylum for us, while I stayed put and tried to keep myself and our son safe, before I put our child on the back of a lorry or a dinghy.

It would be a difficult choice, but my gut instinct is that I wouldn’t put a child through that journey.

I think it will mean women and children are put at risk to make that journey, and think that the best option is to reopen sensible and safe asylum routes so that the crossing doesn’t need to be made. Safe and legal passage is all the deterrent we need to stop the boats.

How many safe and legal routes would need to be offered to meet the number who would apply?

If they send women and kids over and they drown it is all over the papers with people asking who would risk their kids like this - the refugees can't win.

How many displaced people are the West going to sit by and watch have their homes bombed?

Depends how many apply?

We don’t currently have a safe alternative to crossing the sea, so reopening those is the first step to better managing arrivals.

Safe asylum routes already exist; they are called UNHCR refugee camps. They assess the most vulnerable and ensure they are placed first. Men on boats jump the queue and take the place of actual genuine refugees.

I’d spend the money on an actual visa and flights.

Quite a number of the men coming on boats are violent, predatory misogynists though; what’s wrong with pointing that out?

The issue for just offering safe routes is the level of demand, the numbers applying would be incredibly high.