Why Ukrainians treated differently from other refugees?

[Babymamamama]

Disclaimer I’m not a current affairs specialist and not trying to start a bun fight this is a genuine question.
Aibu to ask why it is Ukranian refugees have on appearance been treated so differently from other groups fleeing dreadful conflicts in their home country. I’m specifically thinking of Afghan and Syrian nationals as they are the two groups I’m most aware of.

Round my way people have been hosting Ukrainians, clubbing together as whole streets to contribute to flat deposits, gathering up household items to set up Ukrainians in their temporary homes, holding fundraising concerts. It’s all all admirable and I myself have also contributed where I could. But a lingering question remains -why for this group and not the others? Is this unconscious bias? Why the difference in approach and treatment? Not wanting to offend but something about this doesn’t sit well with me. Can anyone with more knowledge of world affairs enlighten me please?

The fact that Ukrainian refugees are mostly women and children and other asylum seekers are mostly (but not always) men is 100% down to government policy.

The government set up a safe system for Ukrainians to arrive - visas and housing. It’s a relatively safe (albeit tough and emotional) journey for women and children.

Outside of a very small Afghan resettlement scheme,

THE ONLY WAY TO CLAIM ASYLUM IN THE UK IS TO APPLY ON UK SOIL.

The media (and the government) will both incorrectly describe asylum seekers as “illegal immigrants” even though it’s a lie, purely to stoke division.

IT’S GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR MANY THAT YOU MUST ARRIVE IN THE UK UNDER YOUR OWN STEAM IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED AN ASYLUM SEEKER.

Women and children often cannot make the very physically tough and dangerous journey from Middle Eastern countries to the UK. And “dangerous” means risking physical abuse, rape and slavery. That happens to the men too btw.

The solution is to set up safe routes and resettlement schemes for more countries but the government are very reluctant to do this.

I’d imagine they’re reluctant because they’d be seen as actively welcoming refugees (and anger their right wing base), whereas they can claim that boat crossings are out of their control and frame it as an “invasion” to cracked down on.

So in short, the Conservative government’s desire to please their right wing base actively contributes to women and children being left in danger.

@BewareTheLibrarians there was a time that most refugees from the Middle East arrived by plane. It was pretty straightforward and you claimed asylum on arrival. What changed?

At the beginning you may remember Patel and co were hesitant before cobbling together their host a refugee scheme. Didn't want to seem too heartless when the rest of Europe were opening their hearts and houses. After that Johnson found his cause where he would be loved because it certainly wasn't here.

Just because we are both mixed race doesn’t mean I have to have to same opinion as you.

You seem to think being mixed race makes your side right, hence hey you brought it up in the first place. It's of no relevance whatsoever.

Like, that's it. You've cracked it! A mixed race person also thinks there's Legitimate reasons for favouring Ukrainians so that's fine then. No racism after all, because a mixed race woman agrees with that pov

Blonde, white, Christian and female

I think it is purely pragmatic. We have something like 40,000+ hotel rooms accommodating refugees at the moment. These are mostly young adult men (though not exclusively). Firstly, the government couldn't just find a further 40,000 rooms overnight to accommodate a new influx from Ukraine. Secondly, most Ukrainian refugees are women and children whose husbands / fathers have stayed at home to fight. There are safeguarding issues with regards to putting them in the same accommodation as all male groups. Thirdly, my guess is that the government realised they could save a lot of money by offering £350 a month per Ukrainian family, instead of paying £100 a night for a hotel room per individual / mother and child.

well they hosted the 2018 champions league so certainly got a LOT of UK tourists then. And my experience is the complete opposite of yours. The new arrivals we are supporting in my area have excellent English and qualifications, but it’s about getting them equivalency documents so they can work.

@Porcupineintherough there are probably a few reasons for that, from the situation in the country they’re leaving to individual circumstances.

If you’re leaving a country at the beginning of a war/instability, you’ll likely be relatively well off from having had a stable job, will likely have a passport and therefore be able to afford to fly to another continent, and airports will still be functioning. You can then claim asylum on arrival.

From personal experience, people of my parent’s generation who left the Middle East were relatively well off, (although I’m sure here were also many others who weren’t) but being persecuted by the regime for promoting democracy or being critical of the government. They were imprisoned, threatened with torture, family members were imprisoned and questioned. They were able to fly out and claim asylum in the UK as their lives were in danger in their country. They were able to leave as the country hadn’t yet descended into civil war or worse instability.

If you compare that to the current situation in Afghanistan for eg, there’s massive instability, people may not have access to passport/visas, there may be no functioning embassy to help people leave. If you can find a functioning airport, there may be scrutiny/ID checks, so if you’re in a persecuted group you’re putting yourself at risk by trying to leave.

3/4s of households in Afghanistan can’t meet their essential needs so there’s no money to spend on flights and visas even if flights were available.

This is also eye-opening - even though the government promised a “warm welcome” to refugees from Afghanistan, most have no way to apply for asylum from Afghanistan. One of the government’s resettlement schemes has taken TWO people since April. 1 in 4 of those crossing the channel in small boats are from Afghanistan and include people who supported the British army, who’ve been left with no other way to reach the UK.

How many Ukrainian refugees have the rich middle east countries taken in apart from Israel, seemingly none. Are they also racist for rejecting blonde, blue-eyed refugees as many posters assume is the case for the other way around?

Fair point @likeminded but tbh rich Middle Eastern countries don’t take in any near enough refugees from their neighbouring countries so it’s not out of character!

Having said that though, it’s worth remembering that the attitudes, actions and policies of governments should be a much bigger focus in this accusation of racism.

How many rich Middle Eastern countries have pushed back Ukrainian refugees, forcing them back into detention camps or danger? How many have left them to drown in attempted crossings, or outright murdered them as they attempted to cross?

How many rich Middle Eastern countries have left Ukrainian refugees in small hotel rooms for over a year with no right to work and barely enough money to travel to their government mandated appointments? How many rich Middle Eastern countries have put Ukrainian refugees in detention centres, tagged them and left them unable to access legal advice or healthcare?

Those are all accusations that you could rightly level at EU and UK governments, and the difference in how they treat Ukrainian refugees compared to refugees of colour.

The accusations of racism are more usefully targeted at the actions of the government than at individual people.

How many are In a position to? How many Ukrainians applied to? This is such a ridiculous argument, did you think you just cracked the case with this one?

White

I don't think it's fair to say people are being racist for caring more about Ukraine, although race does come into it.

We care about things we understand and can relate to. The war between Russia and Ukraine is easier to understand than the Middle Eastern conflicts, and the average person from the UK will find it easier to relate to a European fleeing their home from war.

On an individual level that's not wrong, although perhaps it does feel unfair. People can help who they would like to help, charity is generally motivated by emotion rather than objectivity.

The government however should be able to be objective and treat refugees equally and fairly. Unfortunately that's not what they have opted to do.

I feel like we’re asking the wrong question. Apart from the fact that the Uk govt didn’t actually tread Ukrainian refugees all that well, with visas etc

The question should be “why don’t we treat all refugees better” “why don’t we treat all refugees the way we purport to have treated people from Ukraine”.

Blonde, white, Christian and female

TBH I’d be on board with giving a preference to female refugees, and children of course.

Women are always more vulnerable in a war zone and to persecution generally, as women can be made pregnant.m

Not in favour of preferring white or Christian people over others of course.

I don't think there's a single answer

Racism is probably a factor

But also this is happening to a European neighbour so feels more like 'our' problem than conflict happening on other continents. I have had Ukrainian colleagues. I currently have a Romanian colleague who's home town has become a big refugee hub. I know Latvians and Estonians who are worried about their border with Russia. There is a sense that this is happening on our doorstep. Whereas Afghanistan/Syria etc feel much more distant.

Not saying any of this is morally Ok. But just trying to think it out...

Malta is European and Christian and anti-abortion. Is that in line with our liberal cultural norms?
By our, what countries in the UK do you mean exactly? Northern Ireland by any chance?

To many good points on the thread, also want to add that:

1. Ukrainian scheme does not have any extension rights, or lead to any settlement claim or residence rights. Three years, and poof - you must leave, irrespective of what the situation back home is. Other asylum routes do lead to eventual settlement and naturalisation.

1. Despite all the stories of complete strangers finding hosts somewhere on social media, most cases, in my very limited experience, are through either families or some prior connections. Friends, colleagues, business partners. When the war started, I myself got many messages from old colleagues I knew from 15+ years ago, offering to host me and/or family in case of need, for as long as needed. Not only the UK, also from Europe, US and even Australia. So it is quite natural that people wanted to help someone they already knew, not just an abstract refugee.

Didn't know about the 3 years - surprised the "strong on immigration" government doesn't want to highlight that to it's racist base.

www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-visa-under-the-ukraine-sponsorship-scheme#extending-your-stay-in-the-uk

"Extending your stay" section there does not apply to the Ukrainian scheme extensions, but rather to people who crossed the UK border on other visas but had to extend under family or sponsorship routes. So students, seasonal workers, visitors.

I think the three year cut off was quite widely known. At least it seems to be a major issue with landlords now when people are trying to move into independent accommodation, very few want tenants with a maximum 2.5 years shelf life (and in addition potentially be in the breach of the Right to Rent legislation if they become illegal but refuse to move out).

@CathyTheQueen got it. Add in the media spin and it is the same thing.

There are many boats with women and children, many in refugee camps etc; but folks only seem to see male economic migrants.

The argument that they're culturally similar is also laughable, as most Ukrainians I've had contact with are staunchly Christian, speak very little or no English etc...