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:

So USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand...I can just rock up then try to find a job and live there? No visa, no promise of employment, no need to prove I've got a few quid/dollars to tide me over and pay for food/shelter?

Fantastic!

<searches for passport>

Sorry, posted that last message early by accident - that's a quote from another post, not what I think.

Do you know what no recourse to public funds means?

Paying your own hotel bill?

@Believeitornot

I'm singling out Albanians because of the reasons given by the BBC.

Let me repeat the figure for you.

10, 000 Albanians have arrive so far this year. 8
8,000 of them are young men.
That is 1% of the Albania's total poulation of young men.
Albania is a safe country
This time last year, only 500 Albanians arrived/
So, 10,000 this year is a massive increase.
Are we expected to take the same total of Albania's young men year on year.
If so, in five years, we will have 5% Of Albania's total population of young men?
Albania is a safe country, so why are they coming here?

That is not racist. It might be racist to you but may I suggest that you must have a very low bar defining racism.

People are expected to shut up when they ask reasonable questions-question based on the BBC's own reporting- when some numbty shouts racism.

It is not racism and a lot of people are becoming pretty fed up with the way that it is cast around to mean never questioning anyone from another country.

I have no idea why 1% of the adult population have arrived here this year. Nothing has happened in Albania since this time last year when only 500 came.
So, why have they all turned up in the last year?

That's not racist and you know what, if in today's society that question IS considered racist, then things have gone very adrift.

Yes. In England we are building entire new towns on our green belts.
City building needs land. The land can only support so many people. When looking at us with 263 people per km2 compared to France with only 104 people per Km2, it’s perfectly logical to conclude they can build towns too and more of them while “ruining” far less than we are.

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.

That doesn't work unless the space is habitable. Lots of empty space in the Arctic and Antarctic, for instance, and they have a tiny population, but I assume you're not suggesting that failing to fill all that space with refugees makes them"worse"

Personally I think arms sales from certain countries that effect the refugee or asylum seekers country should be taken into account.

Maybe countries that profit from the destabilisation of other states should take more responsibility for the refugees it creates...

So are you advocating sending more people to Scotland rather than England? Plenty of non-agricultural, non-National Park land.

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.

It doesn't work like this though. Countries with small populations usually have less money to play around with becasue they have less taxpayers, they have less amenities to suit the smaller population etc. Just because they have more empty fields it doesn't mean they have more capacity. Countries don't tend to have tons of excess school places, GPs, accommodation etc just because their population is small.

Im not unhappy with the numbers we are taking in, I am fine with entire new towns being built on green spaces. I am just saying I think the U.K. is doing it’s fair share. We are making sacrifices (as well we should for our complicity in causing some of the issues causing asylum seekers to come here).

I am mostly not happy with the narrative that the U.K. isn’t doing it’s fair share, and that every other country is doing more. When you look at the data on the number we take in, that’s really not the case imho.

Now, of course we are like less than one star in quality rating in how we treat asylum seekers once they arrive and to granting their asylum. That has to be improved massively despite the obstacles of a housing crisis, cost of living crisis, energy crisis, economy in recession, etc…there’s lots more the Government could be doing to process the applications faster and house & treat the asylum seekers better & with actual dignity and humanity.

Do you think there are" tons of excess school places, GPs, accommodation etc "here then?
Where? I

Well we magically found thousands of school places for Ukrainians after years and years of families struggling to get into their preferred schools.

The point is that every country has to upgrade infrastructure and public services as their population grows. This is a wash really except for the poorest nations.

Who said that there was? I was pointing out that there are the same issues whether a big country has a smaller population or a small country has a bigger population.

So my battery is dying. And I have a covid jab to get to. So please excuse my absence from the thread for a few hours. Thank you for the discussion so far. I will be back later!

You did. In your last sentence of your post at 13.41

You were saying that just because countries had more space they couldn't take more people because they only had small populations with no excess, school places, GPs or accommodation.
As that was in reply to a post that said we have limited space and others have more, space than us, I infer you seem to think we do have these things.

If you didn't mean that, you would have clearly said that although we have less space we don't have those things either.

Which we don't.

OP, Have some compassion, people are risking their lives crossing the channel in flimsy boats to get away from that shithole the EU.
Would you really want to deny them entry.

BBC article from yesterday with some numbers. Most of the Albanians granted asylum are women and children.

Albanian migrants: Why are they coming to the UK and how many have arrived?

I can’t see it in that article but 10,000 of the 12,000 arriving are male.

"The rise (Albanian men-12,000 this year from 800 last year arriving in UK) has been exponential and we think that fact is in the main due to the fact that Albanian criminal gangs have gained a foothold in the north of France" says Clandestine Channel Threat Commander Dan O'Mahoney quoted on the BBC site today.

I'm worried about that, as I imagine he knows what he's talking about.

12,000! For Fuck's Sake and maybe double that next year.

Stop with the shit about women and children. Just stop.

Economy of scale means it's much easier for us to make them. Which raises the interesting question as to why our systems are so fucked and poorly managed in the first place that they're not self sustaining

No matter why they are fucked-the fact remains the same they are fucked and can't cope with much more.

It says it just below the Dan o'Mahoney quote and before the chart of who arrived.

Oh yeh it does, thanks

These asylum seekers are so entitled. Should I just arrive in Canada because I fancy "a better life" of course not.