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:

It shouldn't be a real concern as it's just not true. The 'big Islamic element' in Myanmar is 4.3% and South Sudan 6.2%. You're spouting nonsense.

👏👏

@SarahAndQuack

Did you not know that # stands for number?

In the social media age, it is used as a tag because it was already on all the keyboards and very rarely used so made sense to pick that symbol for tagging. But it is actually the symbol for the word 'number'.

I did cringe a bit when I saw your reply. You didnt know that? What did you think that symbol was doing on all keyboards ever?

But Islam and the cultures it creates are a big part of this problem.
Do you think that people would be leaving Afghanistan or Iran if the Islamic leaders weren't trying to impose their interpretation of Islam?
If you believe that the Koran is the word of God and you must adhere to it, then your not going to create a very nice country or somewhere that different opinions are tolerated ( reminds me of Mumsnet sometimes).
Those beliefs and mindsets are being brought into this country in huge numbers and we should be very concerned.

If Islam was the reason for these failing states, then surely we would see war and chaos in all Islamic states over the last 1500 years.

Or maybe, just maybe, there are other reasons why some states in the Islamic world have large refugee flows, like foreign intervention, invasion and occupation. Or dictatorships and oppression that have nothing to do with Islam.

Each one of them needs housing temporarily in hotels all over the UK.
Then they need housing. Got a spare house? Serco have an excellent offering.
www.serco.com/uk/sites/serco-aasc/landlords

Afghanistan has been a conservative Muslim country since the 10th century. Islam is not the problem. Forty years of war, begun by the Soviets in 1979, are why you end up with millions of refugees. The Taliban emerged from the refugee camps.

I was referring to the Rohingya situation. Myanmar's population is massive so that's still a lot of people.

This

You’re implying that Muslims are basically the issue here. That’s really why we are disputing your claims because that’s racist.

Myanmar's population is smaller than the UK's. Still spouting nonsense.

I heard (on the BBC) that this is incorrect. 10000 male Albanians have left Albania but they haven’t all necessarily come to the U.K.

I'm implying that Islam is a big part of the migrant crisis.
If we had seen an easy integration into British society then I wouldn't be worried. But where I live in the North West, the communities live like oil and water.
That is a real concern which is getting worse here, as we now have state schools which are almost exclusively Muslim and schools for everyone else.

That is true about the state schools-I'm assuming you mean Briarfield and Rochdale.
Who cares what religion it is!
I think the problem is different cultures and it is a big problem in pockets of the North West and Yorkshire.

Who’s fault is that?

People like you who think there’s a fundamental problem with Islam?

Failed policies which lump disadvantaged people altogether in the same location so they feel safer than trying to integrate?

There is a real problem with what are effectively poor ghettos. Social housing is not mixed in with everyone else so communities become divided with suspicion and division, for example. Then schools follow because they’re drawn from populations nearby (typically).

When I was a care leaver (ie coming to the end of my time I foster care), I was offered a council flat bang in the middle of a council estate. It was intimidating as it was a run down area, no investment in streetscape, minimal police presence etc. so I can see why people placed in those sorts of environments would stick together and create “ghettos”.

Councils need to be bolder. Buy up properties in all sorts of areas and place families accordingly, then they can mix more easily. Provide support in terms of language, where to find community services like libraries. Shame we don’t have much in the way of community centres or youth clubs etc as that would also help people to integrate. But ultimately there is little visible sign of communities so where do immigrants go?

I'm referring to Tameside and Oldham and the way the boroughs are segregating themselves.
I don't know Rochdale too well but it's the next borough along so I imagine the same issues exist.

I agree with this. They need to look at density of population and amount of habitable land to work out what a fair proportion might be.

I don't know where the UK would come in that analysis.

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.

Picking up on the linguistic diversity, is that not misleading (or at least doesn't tell the whole story)? When migrants cross the Channel and people ask why they don't stay in France (usually hinting that it's for the benefits system) the answer tends to be that English is a pretty universal language, so if they come here they can communicate. Hence why there might be such little diversity.

Councils need to be bolder. Buy up properties in all sorts of areas

Council funding has been stripped to the bone though. Councils were some of the hardest hit by the austerity cuts.

Same here in East Lancs.

Indefinite leave to remain is a status not a visa, as far as I am aware, and is open for all kinds of people to stay in the country providing you are eligible. It's not a refugee visa.

Yes, the Rohingya are Muslim. That is not why they are refugees. They are refugees because of a genocide perpetrated by the Myanmar regime. Myanmar is 90% Buddhist by the way.

Anyway the vast majority of them (1 million) are in Bangladesh so you probably don't need to worry about them showing up on your street.

This

I can actually see in the not too distant future, that people from the Uk will be fleeing themselves.

Does that imply that the
Albanian criminal gangs referred to on the BBC report are hurting their own people, trafficking in poor people of their own country to work on our farms? Which we know are short on cheap labour? And farmers would be complicit then, in some sense. As opposed to the rather scary idea of criminal gangs waiting to harm us.