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:

NIMBY is such a loathsome insult. It's perfectly natural not to want more cars and more houses and more noise. Of course, when liberals describe people as NIMBYs, they mean rich people with massive detached houses who wear wax jackets and go foxhunting at the weekend. In reality, the average so-called NIMBY is on a moderate income, lives in a small semi, and just wants some peace and quiet. My sister is a nurse. She cares deeply about her patients and has dedicated her life to the NHS. She could have earned a lot more working in private care, but she chose not to. She owns a tiny cottage in the countryside, which she can barely afford, but has saved to buy. Right now, a massive housing estate is being built next to her, including great blocks of flats. And the local woods, where she walks to de-stress, have also been hacked into to make way for more homes. What do you expect? Do you think she is going to dance for joy? All her life she has done the right thing - worked hard, saved her money, obeyed the law. And that's her reward. I don't blame her for being a 'NIMBY'.

Umm, no. It's not about physical space as someone (taxes) has to fund their accommodation, healthcare, schooling etc. Countries like Ireland or Sweden who accept many times more refugees per capita than the UK are making a huge financial commitment. The UK is shameful by comparison.

Er you’re quoting stats for unaccompanied children - that’s kids who don’t have an adult with them?

That is not the % of all children. Other children will have adults with them.

using your link @BigWoollyJumpers

Most of the dependants were female if I’ve read it correctly

And @OneTC - Sorry, you are both right. So it is 20%.

I have to say, I worry for the unaccompanied children. A lot of them end up in awful circumstances or in the foster care system which doesn’t have the best outcomes.

So I can't criticize justifiably criticize Islam on here? It's a big issue in this crisis.

Not without actual empirical evidence, no.

There are plenty of awful countries which are not Islamic and people try to flee from.

means number!

And actually, according to this website: migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/ (university of Oxford):

"When compared against EU+ countries, in 2021 the UK ranked 6th in the absolute number of people to whom it gave protection, comprising asylum seekers and resettled refugees."

So the BBC has purposely skewed the data to make the UK look worse.

If we had a decent quick process then we could get through the claims more quickly and send people home if necessary.
I agree we should do much better, but not everyone who has their asylum claim denied can be sent home. Responding to the vast increase in arrivals by boat by recruiting more people to process them isn't the answer - we need to massively disincentivise the boat crossings, which I accept isn't easy, especially with a fork-tongued government which pretends they want to solve the issue but in reality doesn't.

Because the belief that Britain is one of the most diverse countries in the world is not true. Countries are ranked on diversity in the Fearon List. According to that the UK is ranked 162 of 215 on ethnic diversity, 202 on linguistic diversity, and 27 on religious diversity.

Such as?

You disincentivise it with a proper process.

If people know that they can claim without going on a boat then they will. They managed it (poorly) for Ukraine!

Why can’t they be sent home? If they are lost well then obviously not but if we were efficient then that should be reduced.

I’m not going out of my way to disprove your prejudice. You came up with it, you provide evidence and show your workings.

Venezuala.

Sending them "home" depends upon knowing for certain where home is and then persuading the officials there that we have a national of theirs we need to return. Far from easy for people who have destroyed their documents and for various reasons, understandable or less so, may not be truthful about where they originated.
I agree though if we had a fair and fast system for consideration it would help.

And Myanmar.

Maybe the U.K. should not have left the Dublin regulation system which made most of those crossing France’s problem. There has been a massive increase in small boat crossing since that system stop applying.

And South Sudan.

And Eritrea. Shall I go on?

Am I allowed to use the B word 🤣

There's a big Islamic element to the issues in Myanmar and South Sudan.
The vast majority of asylum seekers are coming from failed Islamic states whilst continuing to practice Islam in this country ( or whichever European country they stay in)
This has to be a real concern.

@Discovereads "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?)"

So you're an economic migrant yourself?

That does not mean that Islam itself is the issue, that’s the problem.

And what’s wrong with people wanting to practice their religion here? If you actually mean you don’t like people speaking a different language or wearing different clothes then say so.

Are you sure they are sent back?

Or is it more likely of the 10,000 arriving most will be lost in the population. As a pp put it it’s easy to leave the hotel, and this is backed up by hotel owner in six sites who said Albanians tend to leave after 24 hours.

According to pp they are picked up by gangs and taken to farms