To think that something has to be done about the immigration crisis?

[JudesBiggestFan]

But I don't know what? More than 900 people landed in Dover today, as I discovered when reading about the terrible petrol bomb attack on a detention centre. Detention centres overcrowded, more than 7 million pounds a day being spent on hotel rooms for illegal immigrants, horrendously slow processing of applications...people drowning in the channel and local people feeling angry and frustrated because of the strain on services. Not to mention the mental health toll on people living their lives in limbo! So what is the answer? Because I just don't know anymore but it feels like the system has completely broken down.

Quite. and what @ExtraOnions do you mean about by people wishing to come here? Anyone? From anywhere? No criteria at all???

Seriously thought that through have you?

If you want to take many more people from war zones then surely it would be better to stay out of the EU. Let the people from the war zones have the places that those from the EU would have had? Unless you really mean we should have completely open borders?

And what about the money the country needs to pay for it all. All the support? I know some work is available and you might get your loo cleaned or coffee made more promptly but for those refugees needing medical or trauma care, English lessons, child support etc, well ... We have black hole in the finances already. Should our grandchildren pay for it so we can feel 'compassionate' now? Or what should we cut to fund it? Nurses' pay? Universal credit? Shake the magic money tree a bit harder? Tax the taxable even more?

And what about values? Many countries have much more conservative ideas about women, education, reproductive rights etc. Are you happy for large numbers of people who agree with making homosexuality illegal into the country in a rapid space of time changing voting patterns entirely in some areas? Or people who want the death penalty or FGM? Or are pro-life and want to limit abortion? How are going to assimilate the values of all these people. Are you going to suggest they are wrong and they better learn to be more like us (very imperialist of you), are you going to make them attend classes that explain that a girl in a short skirt or a woman in a swimming costume is not 'asking for it'? Or that we have free speech on religion? That there is no such thing as 'honour killing'? Or are you just going to ignore what can be a very real problem.

Immigration is a massive problem, an ethic and legal minefield and I truly do not know what the answer is. Except I do know it is not a short, glib middle class #fbpe tick list!

Does anyone know where you can find the statistics about migrants? I know many are awarded asylum . But what about the % who disappear or don't get asylum?

And I’ve donated to a local homeless charity. We have people living here, some British nationals, who have worked and contributed here, who are now on the streets and unlikely to be put up in even the most basic accommodation. No wonder there are tensions.

But you haven’t factored in population density at all. You have merely ordered nations by population density instead of, say alphabetically or by GDP while still assessing “fair share” on a asylum application per capita basis. Ordering by isn’t factoring in.

To actually factor in population density we would need to calculate a nations population density inclusive of asylum seeker applications to assess fair share. This measure is based on land space- the aim being the least densely populated countries should take far more than the most densely populated countries.

The per capita measure is flawed because it measures fair share by how many people are already in a country without taking into account some countries like Malta are desperately overpopulated for the space they have. Malta being the 4th most densely populated country in the world should not have to take any asylum seekers at all imho.

I’ll try and work up a chart or something tomorrow to show you. I don’t know if the U.K. is taking in a fair share, but I don’t accept the narrative that we are not taking in our fair share when it’s being calculated on a per capita basis which completely ignores population density.

But again, you are calculating on a per capita basis, nowhere in your calculations are you using population density.

@ChristinaXYZ
It is entirely possible that they are both illegal immigrants and claiming asylum. Your phrase 'asylum seekers' assumes if they utter this magic phrase they are not illegal immigrants. When they can be both. Some will be successful in claiming asylum. Some will abscond from the hotel before their claims are assessed. Some will be turned down and then abscond. Some will be turned down and no-one will do anything to remove them.

No, it is legally impossible to be simultaneously an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker. Having an asylum application rejected doesn’t make one an illegal immigrant. It is also universally recognised that almost all those disappearing from housing while their asylum application is pending are trafficked modern day slavery victims which are also not illegal immigrants.

If an application for asylum is rejected and the appeals process exhausted, the person is then given notice to make arrangements to leave the U.K.. They are given a deadline to leave with an offer of free airfare to their country of origin or citizenship.

At this point, they can apply for a different visa to stay in the U.K. legally. Nothing prevents an asylum seeker after having their application rejected, then applying for a study or work visa. They can have the Home Office fees waived, and if working in Health or Care can be exempted from the NHS surcharge. Since asylum seekers can now work if they’ve been waiting 6mos without an initial decision, they may even have an employer willing to sponsor a visa for them. This is a route still possible for them.

If they do not get an application for a different visa into the Home Office or go by the deadline, it is only at that point that they become an illegal immigrant and are detained and deported.

The UK takes the lowest number of migrants than any other European country. We are keen enough for them to come to nurse, pick raspberries, build houses, be care assistants, plug our employment gaps.

@Murdoch1949
The UK takes the lowest number of migrants than any other European country

If by migrants you mean asylum seekers, no, we don’t. That special honour belongs to Hungary.

@Murdoch1949 "The UK takes the lowest number of migrants than any other European country"

And so we should.
We are the most densely populated country in Europe apart from Holland

But you haven’t factored in population density at all. You have merely ordered nations by population density

No, I have selected the countries with a higher population density than the UK that also take a higher proportion of asylum seekers per head of the population. Belgium is much more "crowded" than the UK but at the same time it has more asylum applications per head. Monaco and Vatican City have the highest population density in Europe but don't seem to have many asylum applications so I don't mention them. Sweden has more asylum applications but a lower population density so I don't refer to them either.

No we are not
www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html

@Whizzi24 Interesting - unherd.com/2018/03/youll-never-guess-densely-populated-country-europe/

@Whizzi24 And another opinion here - theconversation.com/think-your-country-is-crowded-these-maps-reveal-the-truth-about-population-density-across-europe-90345

@FlamingoRoad I think your 1st article is very simplistic.

There are always areas that have a higher population density than others, this linked to landscape and trade routs.

It is also beautifully presented in your 2nd article.

Not all land that is part of a country is inhabitable or able to support humans with food and water. Fancy living in Central Spain with its dessert like landscape? 🤔
And that is before you look at the political and social aspects.

They also only refer to England, not the United Kingdom.

We just need zero tolerance all round. Create loads of jobs rounding up illegal migrants. Stop offering visas to third world countries ( I include India and Pakistan in this). Create watertight legislation around entering the UK illegally, so we can send to Rwanda immediately.
This country does not need anymore Uber drivers.

Kent’s Council leaders:
“Secondary schools in Canterbury and Ashford currently have no year 7 and year 9 places for local children due to the ‘unexpected and therefore unplanned for arrivals of refugee children disproportionately placed by the Home Office in these two areas’.

That rather goes against the narrative that it's only adult male asylum seekers arriving then.

Well said.

@Whizzi24 they have no papers and claim to be children

Quite tricky to pretend to Yr 7 (11 years old) & 9 (13 years old)

I know @Notonthestairs ! But you can't disprove it even though they look enormous compared to other students

@Whizzi24 These guys aren't children

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11383395/Migrants-left-London-Victoria-station-without-accommodation-taken-Manston.html?ito=windows-widget-push-notification&ci=549266

but it was ok for the U.K. to plunder these countries of resources and qualified workers when they wanted?

Once the brexit happened talks started with countries like India re trade agreements and that includes movement of people.

@Whizzi24
YES you are still calculating asylum applications per capita. Population / asylum applications- that is the entirety of your calculation. Population density isn’t in that calculation, ergo population density is not being factored in.

You are then comparing asylum applications per capita between countries based on ordering them by population density. That’s not technically factoring in population density.