A good answer to "how many asylum seekers do you have living with you?"

[SomersetBrie]

I see this quite a lot in a fairly supportive group I belong to.
Lots of people dispelling the myth that asylum seekers are raking it in, taking jobs and benefits, etc.
A positive space and then someone comes in saying "if you are so supportive of asylum seekers, how many fighting age men do you have living with you?"
It really annoys me! It's possible to be supportive of a cause without actually taking people in.
All I can think of is really rude responses, I'd like something measured and decent and not allow them to get away with shutting people down with that.

(and I know I'll get negative responses to this post, but I will be super grateful to anyone who can come up with something I can use)

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/32-percent-jump-in-annual-number-of-reported-sexual-offences/

So basically that link is saying increases in sexual offences in a particular year (but perhaps to be inferred year after year after year after year) are down to increased reporting.

I think that's utter rubbish. In 2002 I would walk home alone after going to a nightclub - wouldn't want a young woman to do that now.

If the Government wanted to keep data on the ethnicity of people arrested and the amount of time they had been in the country we would know the answer wouldn't we?

They don't/won't keep the data so that when people make freedom of information requests about it they can say "sorry we don't keep that information".

My thoughts are that if keeping ethnicity data showed migrant man are less likely to be involved in violent crime or sexual crime the government would be falling over itself to record that data and shove the statistics down our throats.

I would just say that correlation doesn't always equal causation but Swedish people did not suddenly decide to use bombing each other's houses as a way to settle disputes and this just happened to be after massive immigration from Syria. Sometimes correlation does in fact equal causation.

If the government would keep the statistics I would be happy to be shown how wrong I am.

Just came across this on another thread and thought it is interesting in this context.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4936754/Wives-men-jailed-rape-blame-victims-too.html

For those that can't bear the horror of a daily mail article a summary is Muslim journalist interviews wives of Muslim men put in prison for raping girls in Manchester.

Some of the women blame the girls (what they wear etc) and their parents (our children wouldn't be on the streets).

The journalist believes they didn't know what their husbands were up to because the men come and go as they like and it's not the woman's place to question them.

The women don't have a sense of consent to sex within a marriage (must submit to husband) and there are examples given of sexual abuse within the families.

So very "British values" then.

You said "our own people are supported" - in context surely that means that they are adequately supported.
You said "asylum seekers are supported out of the overseas aid budget". This is not actually true, but nonetheless it implies that you do not know that the overseas aid budget is funded just the same way as everything else - from taxes and borrowing.
If that's not what you meant to say, perhaps you could make your views clearer.

They may not get a council property as such but what they do get is housing benefit to pay for a rented property. In others words, some people who come here from other countries ( I'm not specifying their route here or their immigration status) are able to live at the tax payers' expense. This is the reality.
We get into a mess when talking about immigration because we confuse those who come here legally and those who do so illegally, we confuse asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants. Some people come on a work visa, some on a student visa, some come with their families. There has been an explosion in immigration in recent years but two facts remain constant: at no time were we asked if we wanted large numbers of foreigners in our country, and those that are here are costing us money.
That is the problem - a solution is proving illusive.

Quite - if someone gets a British passport after 6 years they don't suddenly disappear into the ether. People act like they should no longer be counted in migration stats because of an administrative change in their status. This is obvious nonsense and I say that as an immigrant (a self-funding one though!)