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:

Standing room only in Kent.

We also need to define 'asylum seekers', far too many are not leaving unstable countries and are not genuine asylum seekers other than economic migrants.

I’m in London I see people from many backgrounds around me, which I prefer and choose.

But this particular trafficking issue is difficult to solve. There was a report today re men recruited and brought over and work on drug farms.

Asylum seekers are pretty well defined, the problem is the definition is too narrow as it only allows those fleeing persecution from their government. It doesn’t allow for those fleeing from gang/organised crime, family, or religious cult violence. Even with this narrow definition, 80% of those who apply are accepted.

Some of the 20% rejected fall between the cracks I’ve mentioned above. Some asylum seekers do end up being switch to humanitarian leave to stay. But lots of people in genuine need and are fleeing for their life, get their asylum application rejected because it’s not their government that is trying to kill them.

None of the people on the boats are economic migrants imho. They are people who are fleeing for their lives that genuinely believe they have a case for asylum OR they are being trafficked into modern slavery and being forced onto those boats by force, threats or deception.

Visa costs for a work visa (economic migration) are far below the cost to get on a boat across the channel. No one would do it, if they had another way.

How do you know this

It's all conjecture. We are so gullible

@woodhill What do you think is conjecture? I’m not asking angrily I promise! I’m sure to the average person it’s easy to read certain headlines and think that’s the whole story, when there’s a lot more going on underneath that.

We know what human rights violations are happening in other countries - I mean there’s actual proof of the harm that people are coming to. It’s hard to fake torture scars. It’s hard to fake PTSD. It’s hard to fake malnutrition. It’s hard to fake the scars of sexual assault. Does that mean every asylum seeker ever is going to be 100% genuine? Of course not. Does that mean we should demonise genuine asylum seekers anyway, just in case? Also of course not.

(not accusing you of demonising anyone btw woodhill - just people in general/headlines in the news)

No of course we shouldn't as some have experienced terrible trauma but some are taking advantage which frustrates me

That's what I meant

Fuck me.

An extra person in every 10 square kilometres?

We're all going to die in the crush....

@woodhill
I don’t know with absolute certainty, that’s why it’s my opinion and I haven’t presented it as a fact. But I have reason to suspect it from having done a lot of reading on the subject and through my own DHs dealings with the Home Office.

They are renown for being over cautious and over suspicious in the immigrant community. The exact opposite of gullible and soft touches. Windrush was a glaring example of their inhumanity and is only one of many incidents demonstrating the callous disregard that runs through the Home Office.

It also makes no sense for an economic migrant in a safe country who can apply for a work visa from the comfort of their safe home, pay a small visa fee, and then after a few months waiting, fly here and be 100% legal with no wait time to work, rent a home, use the NHS and no threat of deportation.

Why would an economic migrant decide instead that they will trek to the coast with only the clothes on their backs and pay 400% more money than the cost of the above legal route to risk their lives crossing the channel in a rubber dinghy and then suffer perhaps years waiting for an asylum application to be processed while they are housed in dehumanising and squalid conditions with a tiny living allowance and the limbo of deportation could happen next week, or next month hanging over their heads? An asylum application they know they do not meet the requirements for and the U.K. Gov will find out there is no evidence to back it up? Resulting in deportation and a 10yr ban on ever visiting the U.K. or applying for a future visa?

No economic migrant is going to choose to come here on a boat crossing.
What the Home Office are calling “economic migrants” are most often young men being trafficked to work in the drugs industry.

We won’t, I’m saying we are taking in a fair number. I’m not saying there are too many.

News at the moment is saying that the Albanians are being trafficked but it doesn't make it right for this to be allowed.

It explains that wages are so much higher here so obviously it appeals to them but so what

All the UK is doing is fuelling the trafficking and allowing the boats

Yep @woodhill One of the reasons the numbers are so high is that the UK’s anti slavery laws and protections are incredibly weak, allowing the organised crime gangs to act without any worries of being caught or prosecuted. This increases the number of young men and women (because from Albania it’s both) being trafficked and smuggled for forced prostitution and forced labour (slavery conditions). The UK’s outgoing anti slavery commissioner has been critical of the government’s lack of action at tackling the organised crime gangs and supporting victims of trafficking.

In 2020 for eg only there were only 2 convictions for modern slavery + child abuse offenses. 2, for something that’s so widespread.

If our anti slavery laws and protections were stronger, we wouldn’t be seeing hundreds of Albanian people being trafficked here or needing protection here.

Hopefully it will get sorted out eventually

It’s not looking too hopeful.

“The Home Office is accused of deliberately failing to appoint a new anti-slavery commissioner to avoid scrutiny while trying to push through legislation on the issue.
It has been a legal requirement to have an independent commissioner since the post was created as part of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015.
Yet this week will mark four months with nobody in the role, despite sources saying that the interview process concluded two weeks before the previous incumbent, Sara Thornton, left.”
amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/29/home-office-accused-of-deliberately-leaving-anti-slavery-post-unfilled

This article is from August. We’ve now had no anti slavery commissioner for 7 months. Crazy, considering it’s a legal requirement.

In fact, this government (Braverman again) has moved modern slavery from being a safeguarding issue to an immigration issue. However, the largest group of modern slavery victims in the UK are actually British children, so this move hugely disadvantages their safety. As long as they can stick it to immigrants though, this government doesn’t care who gets caught in the crossfire. 😡

This tells you what you need to know

And not just Sweden. France, Germany, the Netherlands.

I'm just not sure why people can;t see that in many places where you have large numbers of newcomers, there is also social unrest. Or do they just think that is insignificant? Or they assume all the affected people are racists so don't count?

Countries don't literally run out of land i.e. people falling off the cliffs of Dover into the sea because the UK is full.
What is your space concern?
Land does not equal housing (look how many flats you can fit in a small area, mind blowing stuff).
Land doesn't equal food production - we already import a lot of our food (and export!), food can be moved in vehicles to different places (incredible technology and the carbon footprint doesn't need to be bad if you do it the right way).
Land doesn't equal congested countryside - are you worried about clogged footpaths? Don't think it's too much of a risk not everyone is into that.
Have I missed something....why do you think land is relevant?

Oh hang on.... Is it because the UK is small and you just don't like asylum seekers?

This