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:

I think that is where foreign aid comes in as well as recognising that we may have climate refugees to assist as well. One thing to consider is that climate change is also increasing sea levels. We are losing land mass to sea erosion and flooding at an accelerating rate. This will affect how many we can safely settle here. So it’s worth thinking about how can we help people closer to their homes.

What about the fact that we are one of the most heavily populated countries in Europe. Does that not count for anything?

Exactly. The UK's invasion of Iraq directly contributes to refugee flows from Iraq and Syria to this day. If you don't want to deal with refugees, stay home and don't invade other countries.

Nice try Suella

This. If anything , we should have an Australian approach to immigration.

Is this a post from the Home Office and approved by Suella.

Or just the Daily Mail looking for "vox pop" 🙄

You said there is no such thing as a refugee visa.

So I posted the long name official Gov.uk title for what I meant by refugee visa:
“Indefinite leave to remain (refugee, humanitarian protection or Discretionary Leave)”

You then responded as if it were not the name of a U.K. Settlement visa for refugees. Saying each word was something different?

And then said ILR isn’t a visa? When it is a type of visa? (at least that’s what my immigration solicitor told my DH and we certainly paid a ton of £££ for one?)

People are fleeing here for safety.

We could have a decent infrastructure in place so that we know who’s coming, we can process their claims quickly and we could negotiate deals with our European neighbours to look at how to tackle the issue.

Instead we have the Tories and media wasting time whipping up hatred against individuals. It is not their fault that we have shit infrastructure. Most people aren’t coming here to fleece us. They can and want to work.

If we had a decent system, we could work with other countries to identify criminals and send them home quickly.

Instead we have a government using ideology instead of pragmatism and being childish with fellow European countries.

Grow the fuck up.

We can afford it. How can people hold opposing facts in their head (one of the richest countries in the world vs can’t afford it)? Don’t they get headaches?

The issue is that the Tories have ravaged the economy since 2010. The wealth is there, just sitting in the wrong place. The biggest clue is a PM who is sitting on a fortune of £000millions!!! A country that allows that to happen while having millions of children in poverty means the system is broken.

Asylum seeker or economic migrant?
There is a difference.

Anybody fleeing a war and I hope they would be welcome anywhere.
Anybody choosing to play the system relocate without visas/paperwork/permission, not so much.

So it’s worth thinking about how can we help people closer to their homes.

You do realise the vast majority of refugees do stay close to home?

There are 3 million Afghans in Iran. More than 1 million from South Sudan in Uganda. There are 1.5 million Syrians in Lebanon -- that's 25% of the population! The vast majority of refugees within sub-Saharan Africa stay in Africa.

More than 80% of the world's refugees are hosted in low and middle-income countries [https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html]

And we say we're already doing too much, the richest countries in the world who in numerous cases have a direct role in all these conflicts causing refugee flows.

Op is that chart in the first post applications received or granted?

At what stage is an application considered received, if the former?

What is wrong with economic migration? I have no issue with people arriving here and legally being given permission to work! What’s the biggie? People emigrate from the UK, so why not the other way?

you’ve seen to have swallowed the rhetoric that people without paperwork are here to game the system?

Do you know what no recourse to public funds means?

Forgive me but if anyone invaded Iraq it was the United States.

First Gulf War with Iraq: The Allies consisted of troops and support from 40 countries from the Middle East, Europe and Asia Pacific. Around 670,000 troops took part in the war, with more than half of those from the United States. Only 35,000 UK troops took part, or 5%. Compare that to Saudi Arabia and their 100,000 troops…

So I don’t think the U.K. can take all the credit or blame for Iraq.

Don’t hit them with facts!!

There isn't any such thing as a refugee visa.

Refugee status, HP, DL and ILR are all different things. The reason why you're seeing "Indefinite Leave to Remain (refugee, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave)" on the website is because you can apply for that type of ILR following any of those three types of initial leave (the three types of leave in brackets).

It's like if you were applying for a further education course, but there were two options depending on which other qualifications you already had. You might see the options as, for example:

Course 1 (A levels, BTec, undergraduate degree)

Course 2 (apprenticeship, conversion course)

Each item in those lists is still something different, it's just that some of them can lead to the other.

ILR is sometimes referred to as a settlement visa, but not very often (among those in the know) and it shouldn't be, as it's not really accurate.

With all due respect I am going to bow out now. Please do read up on the gov.uk stats rather than using the BBC/other media for your info.

My very first post with the BBC screen shot is of applications received.

My tables show applications accepted: initial, after appeal and then total for the year. As in the asylum seeker was granted asylum & thus refugee status.

@takealettermsjones
Please do read up on the gov.uk stats rather than using the BBC/other media for your info.

I have? I am critiquing the BBCs presentation and the stats I posted are from the published gov.uk Immigration statistics and the Eurostat database held by the EU. Did you even look at the tables I posted? The sources are in the header.

I would really rather like you to PROVE this racist claim. Regardless of whether you think we are being "fair" about asylum or not please provide EVIDENCE to support your statements:

• that asylum seekers have backward views towards women, gay people, religious or civil liberties (or are single men with those opinions - have you, for example, consdiered that calling countries "backward" is racist, or even that they might be claiming asylum because of such policies in their country?)
• That they have no interest in aasimilating British values (if you are an example of them then I have no interest either, and I was born here)
• How these "men" (who happen to include many women and children, but lets not let facts get in the way) are any more likley to be violent or sexual offenders than nice, white British men who also happen to be violent or sexual offenders ad may be the person you are standing next to right now)

I am not opposed to a civislised conversation about asylum policies, but your post is very definitely in the "rent-a-racist" category. I look forward to the evidence of your claims.

No they're not.

On the BBC's own website, the President of Albania who is moaning about the way he thinks Albanian migrants are treated, says himself that Albania is a SAFE country.

So far this year, according to the BBC today, 10, 000 Albanian people have arrived-8,000 of them young single men which the BBC points out is 1% of Albania's adult male population.

That is too much. The figures for this time last year was 5 HUNDRED.

So, what is going on in Albania that 1% of its adult male population have arrived here in 10 months?

What if the same arrive next year, and the year after that?

Will there ever be a point when we can say NO?

You mean the government has never lied about anything? Yeah right....

Ok thanks, one last question are the applications received at the centre before going to the hotel?

Or does it take longer to process

I do know this and think we should be doing more to help them there instead of only helping the lucky few that manage to make it here. What’s wrong about that? I’m not happy we’ve cut our foreign aid budget at all. Why should Lebanon & Iran & Turkey bear the full cost of helping asylum seekers or refugees because they happen to be closer to the epicentre?

Imagine getting offended over data 😂

I don’t know when the asylum applications get submitted in relation to being housed in a hotel.