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…?”

Cool story. I often meet nice people on the far right; they're not always all horrid, you know.

Are they highly skilled and well paid, at levels significantly above minimum wage?

Strange then that so many asylum claims come from “students” who don’t want to study or leave…

You can apply in France under the new UK/European Applicant Transfer Scheme.

You can present at a refugee camp and trained UNHCR staff will assess the most vulnerable and in need, and match them to suitable safe recipient countries which are able to accommodate and support the refugee. The problem is that they assess the most vulnerable, and the men coming here wouldn't qualify, so they jump on a boat to jump the queue.

Those wanting to come to the UK because of family connections can apply via the Family Reunion policy or the Mandate Scheme. Given that we’re told so many on the boats come because of family connections, you’d wonder why they don't use these safe and legal routes, wouldn't you?

ACRS and ARAP. Again, any Afghans on the boats are there simply to jump the queue, or wouldn't be entitled.

The Displaced Talent Scheme.
https://london-immigrationlawyer.co.uk/displaced-talent-mobility-pilot/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20Displaced%20Talent%20Mobility%20Scheme?,including%20IT%2C%20construction%20and%20engineering.

I guess all those safe and legal routes aren't enough when you're selfish enough to believe that you're far more important than anyone else, and should be able to jump the queue.

What’s even worse is that the government has a statutory duty to accommodate any person arriving here by any means who utters the word “asylum”, but has no statutory duty to house anybody already here who is homeless who asks for help. It’s disgusting that international law compels the government to house foreigners over people already here.

The UK/European Applicant Transfer Scheme (or one in, one out) had not yet brought anyone here, or taken anyone out. We're told that the first flight will be this week, but who knows.

So it's not remotely relevant to the general conversation on this thread. It's also only going to affect a tiny number of people

Ahh...thanks for explaining that! I had wondered how it works..

Surely that will not be the case as Labour has stopped family reunification and that mostly extends to women and children.

It’s not irrelevant, it’s another safe and legal route to claiming asylum in the UK. If any migrant in Calais thinks they have a legitimate case, they can try this or one of the other safe and legal routes rather than boats. If they come on boats, they likely don't have a legitimate case.

I’m sure you do, don’t think I’d said otherwise.

They work within the conditions of their visa, in roles that are on the Home Office issued skills list. Many of them in care based roles within schools.

Why?

If they have a visa, they are not refugees; ILR is not a visa.

Can I ask where your knowledge of migration rules and visas comes from?

You don’t need to apply, you are in a safe place and they will assess who needs placing.

Experience, friends, and work.

Because your grasp of it is very poor. Just BTW.

Placing where?

Somewhere safe and appropriate for their needs.

Erm no, it isn’t.

We employ people on student and graduate visas, skilled worker visas, family visas and those with ILR.

Checked using a UKVI system. UK* Visas and *Immigration. Or a government issue right to work share code… via the Home Office.

Some of which were originally asylum seekers who have since been approved asylum, and changed visa/leave type.

I hope this helps your understanding.

How do they “place” them in the UK?

Who are "they" and how do they know who needs what if nobody is applying for anything? And where are they placing people?

Did you actually read the criteria for the scheme?

Yes there should be a statutory duty on councils to accommodate people who are homeless. But one doesn’t cancel out the other.

There is no way my DH would leave myself and DC somewhere so incredibly dangerous he had to flee for his life like Syria or Ukraine.

No way.

UNHCR. They’ve been doing it for awhile, and it used to work fine before men decided they should jump the queue.

They place them where it’s safe. They’re not tourists paying for a holiday; they don’t get to pick but can express a preference, it’s done on a fair basis so that the refugee can be properly supported and the host nation is not overwhelmed, not the shitshow we currently have because men demand to be first.
www.unhcr.org/uk/what-we-do/build-better-futures/long-term-solutions/resettlement

UNHCR does their best, but it's a million miles away from placing everyone somewhere safe and habitable. Respectfully, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
You are allowed to have an opinion on migration without making up half truths you know.

UNHCR prioritises the most vulnerable. It works with host countries to ensure that the refugees are properly supported, rather than just crammed in hotels in already poor areas with no prospects and mounting resentment.

Respectfully, your students and skilled work visas have nothing at all to do with men coming on boats; the workers who applied and gained visas you mentioned are here legally.