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:

@SarahAndQuack

can also mean ‘number’

Crickey ‘#’ can also mean ‘number’

but I’ve now learned that a hashtag also turns the text giant

@SarahAndQuack

Did I say they were all fleeing for safety?
<checks post>
Nope.

Why are you singling out Albanians? Do you have some sort of preconceived idea about Albanians and group them all as being the same? I think there’s a name for that. Some people originally from Albania do have their claims allowed.

Did you miss my call for a proper system so we can send people home who don’t have a case? <checks post, evidently so>

So, calm down and think logically.

We need a proper system in place to process claims. We don’t have one and it takes too long and that’s why we have huge backlogs and big hotel bills.

We don’t take as many asylum seekers as other countries and spend too long dealing with their claims.

What we are seeing is the end result of running a system based on prejudice.

😂
made me laugh

I think actions done by a country to destabilise other countries should count too. Eg going to war, empire etc. the country taking action (unless part of UN peacekeeping) should accept more refugees from that place.

Are you saying every European and Scandinavian nations’ governments are lying about the asylum seekers they grant asylum too? If that’s the case then how can you, or anyone, say the U.K. isn’t doing their fair share? Because then surely all the reported data is suspect?

We take far too many

Maybe an analogy will help people.

Imagine if a supermarket cut its checkouts so huge queues formed to pay for food. And cut the amount of stock available to buy. Loads of people would be in the store and it would get pretty lairy.

You could sit there and shout about all the people arriving to buy their food and tell them to go away. Or the supermarket could put more checkout staff on the tills and restock properly. Then it would all run smoothly again.

That is kind of what has happened to the UK.

how have you measured that?

I think the population density is a red herring and possibly chosen by the OP as the only basis she could find which made the U.K. look better.
You cannot stick refugees in tents up on a mountain with no infrastructure or in the middle of a national park.
A large densely populated city will likely adapt to an increase in population more easily than a remote poorly served area.

I do like the suggestion of looking at a countries share of the international arms trade or the number of countries they have invaded or been colonial overlords of in the last 150 years or so to decide what is fair.

Ok just drilling down into that chart atm there is a trafficking issue and 10,000 men may not be within the numbers depending on when an application is received. Most asylum claims granted are for women but they are not the highest number arriving.

Although this is recent so a time lag needs to be taken into account.

Whether the number we accept is reasonable or not, no-one should be kept waiting for a decision on an asylum application for long periods of time. If the answer is yes, they can start working with all the contribution to the economy that brings, if it is no, much easier for them to return to the place they came from.

More immigrants per capita?

That would be a functional system which we don’t have.

You can build cities in these similar climate and terrain countries with a much lower population density without paving over national parks or agricultural land. Which is what we are now doing.

Our large densely populated cities are also having issues with over-crowded living conditions. The next step on that path is making entire families living in a single room more common & permanent. Currently it such living conditions are only used for several months to a year as temporary emergency accommodation…but it’s already happening and it shouldn’t.

I think the problem with the current immigration crisis is that it gives an excuse for racists to shout about immigration alongside people with genuine concerns about the immigration process from a practical point of view.

All the more reason for it to be fixed that the racists can be clearly identified.

That is happening despite the immigration crisis. Not because of.

👏👏
100% agree. The Home Office is a complete shit show now and needs to be overhauled.

I think we do than our fair share because we send a lot of Overseas Aid to war torn countries so they can process applications there. Those refugees are genuine and attempting to enter our country legally and should be given priority over illegal immigrants arriving from safe countries such as France. I had a Syrian student whose family made a legal application and was accepted. They made their application at a shelter on the Syrian border.

I'm loving the idea of these massive countries with huge unlimited space that you could just build a city in and not ruin anything, because nowhere else does national parks, or nature, not like in England anyway.

Yes. But the housing crisis caused by high population density directly affects our capacity and ability to help asylum seekers. Despite these obstacles, I believe the data shows we are still taking in our fair share.

NIMBYism at it's best

The bbc would have the uk take everyone from anywhere at anytime

Fair by what calculations? In proportion to wealth? Population? Available housing?

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.