To think the BBC is wrong an actually the U.K. is accepting its “fair share” of asylum seekers?

[Discovereads]

On another thread this screen shot of a BBC news report was posted. It shows a newscaster claiming the U.K. is a shameful 19th out of 20 (random) European and Scandinavian countries for taking in asylum seekers. The message was we are not doing our “fair share” compared to other countries to help asylum seekers. The newscasters face says it all really….

Now, I know the Home Office is a shit show of brazen inhumanity, callous disregard for human rights, and it’s Secretary likes spouting jingoistic rhetoric.
But this thread isn’t about their many failings. We know they can do much better, that’s not in question. It’s meant to be a let’s look at the hard data and compare it to other European and Scandinavian countries.

Now the BBC made two mistakes, the first I hinted to, they cherry picked 20 countries out of 32 in Europe and Scandinavia. They didn’t use a measure like largest or richest or safest 20 countries. The second mistake they made was calculating the # of asylum applications on a 10k per capita basis. Using the # of applications is meaningless because it bears no relation to the number of asylum seekers actually given leave to settle here, we have a high acceptance rate of 76% on initial decision, plus a further 3% after appeal so 79% of all asylum seekers end up settling here. The figure used should be #asylumees accepted not #asylum applications received. Then comparing us to other countries on a per capita basis is also a mistake because we have a very high population density- 5th highest in all Europe & Scandinavia and #1st highest of all countries of over 100,000km2 land area. Using per capita ignores the valid concern of overpopulation.

I personally think that looking at “fair share” should be based on balancing two factors: population density inclusive of accepted asylumees and total number accepted relative to the land area of the country. And then when when looking at a table, giving allowance for different climates, ie Iceland cannot support as high a population density as we can. So I’ve researched some stats which show that actually, we are doing our fair share and the next post will have two tables showing the data. For now, here is the BBC screen shot:

The gov.uk site offers more accurate information on the numbers involved. For example, this is a summary of numbers in 2021: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

A person granted asylum is called a refugee.

Now the BBC made two mistakes, the first I hinted to, they cherry picked 20 countries out of 32 in Europe and Scandinavia.

So ... assuming all of those other 12 countries are worse than us, we're 19th out of 32? And you think that's something to be proud of?

The second mistake they made was calculating the # of asylum applications on a 10k per capita basis. Using the # of applications is meaningless because it bears no relation to the number of asylum seekers actually given leave to settle here

What the heck is 'the hashtag of applications'? The percentage?

You just sound like a massive rent-a-racist to me, I'm afraid.

Sorry, I have no idea what happened with that link.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

Ok I give up 😂 search "gov.uk how many people do we grant asylum to".

The whole idea of comparing it to the number per 10,000 population makes no sense to me.

A huge country with a small population has more space to take in applications than a small country with a huge population. The latter would look "worse" even if it took in more than the former.

Plus a country would have to take in an ever-increasing number to maintain their position on the chart, because the previous accepted applicants would increase their population figure.

The only measure that really makes sense is to compare the number of applicants against the population density of a country, i.e. how many people there are per square mile of territory.

So, this table compares the # Asylumees actually accepted over 2021 for the 13 European and Scandanavian countries greater than 100,000km2 in land area. The table is in descending order of population density inclusive of the Asylumees.

As you can see, the U.K. has the highest population density, but even so we were #3 in rank for total number of Asylumees accepted.

Its hard to argue that we are falling short when there are countries like Italy accepting half the number we are despite similar economic wealth, being a larger country with a lower population density. 🤔

France accepts twice as many Asylumees as we do, but they are more than double the size of us and their population density is less than half ours…so I think they’re not doing as much as we are tbh

Germany accepts almost triple what we do, their country is larger than ours and their population density not a whole lot lower. I think they are doing a bit more than we are, but they have more elbow room and are wealthier. So that’s fair too.

Spain seems to be doing the bare minimum.

Romania, Poland and Bulgaria are trying despite not being wealthy countries at all- that is fair imho.

Greece deserves special mention as they are accepting almost as many as we are, despite being much smaller and not as wealthy, but then they have a very low population density and so they have more of a problem with underpopulation than overpopulation.

So I think all in all the U.K. is doing it’s fair share all things considered. Now if we could just completely reform the Home Office root and branch that would be a massive step forward.

we aren’t 19th, that’s my point, wait for the data. :)
the # isn’t a hashtag, it’s the shorthand symbol for number #
so saying # of people, means number of people.

For anyone interested table with 28 countries sorted in descending order of population density, even the tiny ones. It’s not surprising or unfair imho that the very tiny countries are accepting none or very few. Especially Malta who is extremely over populated (been there many times).

OP why do you keep using the made up word 'Asylumees"?

After being told the correct terms you seem to be enjoying using it over and over again which makes me think you are just on a wind-up, even before taking into account the racist undertones.

What racist undertones are we talking about here? Why is it so racist to state we are overpopulated underfunded country in crisis and being criticised for not taking in more people we cannot afford?

The bbc live in cloud cookoo land

A person granted asylum is called a refugee.
Quite right, I was afraid that might confuse people though as on other threads people didn’t know the difference between an asylum seeker and an economic migrant. In addition, not all refugee visas are granted on the basis of asylum, for example the total number of refugee visas would also include the Afghan resettlement scheme so I just wanted to limit it to asylum seekers only ifykwim?

Because I am focussing on asylum seekers. Yes once an asylum seekers application is accepted they are then given a refugee visa. But not all those with refugee visas were asylum seekers. So I can’t technically show #s of refugees and be accurate when those #s will only be regarding accepted asylum seekers.

I don’t think the op has racist undertones but statistics are being used in a media tussle atm and it makes sense to analyse what’s going on.

The other headline was the 86% female which was repeated. It’s a bit of a political / media head to head and quite full on when it comes to sorting through figures.

Asylumees
People. You’re talking about people. And we’ve never taken in our fair share or nearly as many as we should. We’ve always been a shitty racist country – we were in the 1930s and we still are now.

OP, I don't mean to nitpick (well maybe I do) but you're talking of accuracy... there is no such thing as a refugee visa. Again, please refer to official government sources for accurate information.

I don’t think it’s “rent-a-racist” to feel concerned that a load of single men from countries with backwards views towards women, gay people and religious and civil liberties are gaining entry and, in many cases, have no interest in assimilating British values; nor to feel concerned that we don’t actually have any idea who these men are and whether they have criminal convictions for violent or sexual offences in their home countries. I wouldn’t visit most of countries most of these asylum seekers originate from because of men who have no respect for women and harass and intimidate them on the street and women shouldn’t have to pretend that they bring many of the problems with them when they arrive in the UK. Hence why people have been more accepting ok Ukrainian refugees who are overwhelmingly women and children and pose less of a threat.

Oh, I was referring to this one
Indefinite leave to remain (refugee, humanitarian protection or Discretionary Leave)

Well "fair" is so relative, isn't it? The UK has been instrumental in destabilising Afghanistan for over a century, so how many asylum seekers should we take to compensate for that? See also the Middle East and large parts of Africa.

As climate change causes Famine, unrest and conflict do the countries who contributed most to the problem owe anything to the population of countries most affected?

I just don’t agree, we are 3rd in the total number of asylum seekers we have accepted despite being the 5th most density populated country of all, and the #1 most densely populated country of the 13 largest countries.

The UK takes far too many asylum seekers, as does the rest of Europe.
The BBC is very left wing and pro immigration/ asylum.

Right. But refugee status, humanitarian protection, discretionary leave and ILR are four very different things. None of them are visas.

My point is that if you're going to criticise the accuracy of a report, and put about information online, you need to be sure you are being accurate, and at least using the correct terms. There is a lot many people can learn about the asylum process. The place to start is gov.uk, not the BBC.

No, you don’t get it the name of it is:
Indefinite leave to remain (refugee, humanitarian protection or Discretionary Leave)
www.gov.uk/settlement-refugee-or-humanitarian-protection

You may be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) if you have:
refugee status or humanitarian protection (sometimes called ‘settlement protection’)
Discretionary Leave
Indefinite leave to remain is how you settle in the UK. It’s also called ‘settlement’. It gives you the right to live, work and study here for as long as you like, and apply for benefits if you’re eligible. You can use it to apply for British citizenship.

ILR is commonly referred to as a UK Settlement Visa as well. 🤷‍♀️

I know you dislike the comparison but where does the UK sit in terms of numbers accepted per 10,000 population?

Personally, I think per capita needs to be partially involved in the comparisons, as it is to do with ease if immediate integration. If you have a low population density, you also have a low GP density, school density etc. It's not as simple as "there is loads of space, build a fully functional town to deal with the new population"

How does any of that rebut what I said?

Trust me, I do get it 😂 I have a lot of knowledge in this area.

I think a fairy system would be to take a % of refugees, based on how much of your GDP is made up by the Arms Trade … in particular arming the regimes that see forcing these people out of their homes