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:

Apologies I left out a word. I meant cannabis farms or other drug related. Not to do with normal farms but run by gang leaders.

Thanks for the clarification, still a lot of potentially innocent victims possibly.

There must be a reason why Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms and other refugees aren't. Can't put my finger on it though. 🤔

All threads like this do is show that you can prove anything with facts.

And why are house prices high? Because demand out-strips supply. High prices is an effect not a cause.

I wonder where in the country people are posting from. Those people so quick to accuse others of racism if they dare to question immigration levels… how many immigrants are there in your town? Are they integrated? Or do they live an almost entirely parallel existence to people (of many races) who’ve lived here for a couple of generations at least?

It’s very easy to be all in favour of open borders if your own life is unaffected.

Demand driven by people who can afford to buy houses which then pushes down to those who can’t.

I grew up in a deprived part of south london, my father was from Nigeria, I lived in London until very recently.

I don’t like racism. I think integration is a problem but I think that’s hardly the sole fault of people who move here.

What a ridiculous response. Use of the hash to mean number is yet another thing we've adopted from the USA - it's been a thing there since way before keyboards were anything like so ubiquitous, but it was unknown in my youth in the UK.
Just before anyone starts a tangential tirade - I am not complaining about us having adopted it from the USA - but that's what's happened, so it's not necessarily that odd that some people have missed it.

Yawn

That’s why I’m not saying we should consider land mass alone, but population density.

You can’t base it on population alone the way the BBC was doing it just like say you had 3 lifeboats.

1 seats 8, 1 seats 16, and 1 seats 24.

The 8 seater has 7 people already in it
The 16 seater has 6 people already in it
The 24 seater has 5 people already in it.

You have 30 people on a sinking ship, they need to get on a life boat.

If you look at only the number of people already there and say the boats who already have the most people should take the more of these 30 people, you’re going to overload the smaller boats.

You’d put 12 in the 8 seater boat, which with the 7 already there comes to 19 and you sink it.

You’d put 10 in the 16 seater boat, which with the 6 already there would be full but ok. They’d have to ration food and water and be uncomfortable.

Youd put 8 in the 24 seater boat, which with the 5 already there means it’s just over half full. They’d have plenty of food and water and almost twice the space of the medium sized boat.

Countries are a lot like lifeboats. You have to consider how much space there is plus how many people are already there. More people already there doesn’t mean more capacity to take the most.

And the 8 seater with 7 people already in it should not be called racist and not doing their fair share because they can only take 1 more person.

On empty homes, here we don’t have any empty homes, what we do have are tons and tons of new builds being thrown up. And lots of second/third home owners AirBnBing instead of housing families as long term tenants. AirBnB is contributing to the housing crisis imho.

Use of the hash to mean number is yet another thing we've adopted from the USA - it's been a thing there since way before keyboards were anything like so ubiquitous, but it was unknown in my youth in the UK.

It was in use in the 1800s in the UK. Suggesting the US inherited it, rather than exported it.

#justsayin'

I'm an historian by training; I still struggle not to read the hashtag as an abbreviation for weight.

Or did you not realise it had a history before it was adapted to refer to a number? Where did you think it came from?

I'm afraid I have to admit the OP's inability to communicate clearly, and dogwhistle racism, made me assume the most likely possibility in her garbled post was she'd mis-typed the symbol for %. I've not yet seen anything from her that makes me think I underestimated her, TBH.

Exactly my point. They’re counting applications (not actually granting asylum) on a per capita basis. In that graphic Lichtenstein is shown as doing more than the U.K. when they have granted asylum to exactly ZERO people over the past two years. The number of applications doesn’t matter if the country has a 100% rejection rate.

I know the media is trying to counter the awful racist shit Braverman is spouting, but they’re going too far in the other direction. Actual quality measurements that are easily available could counter it without giving misinformation that we are doing next to nothing compared to other countries.

If that’s the analogy then why only the fuss about people arriving on boats? How many people arrive as non doms, economic migrants, visa entrants etc?

It’s not volume that’s the issue. Or capacity.

We have a shortage of affordable housing because houses are too expensive. We keep building houses which are sold at over inflated prices when they should be at lower prices. We should pay higher wages so people can cover their costs. Then they wouldn’t get so angry about asylum seekers.

We should pay higher wages so people can cover their costs. Then they wouldn’t get so angry about asylum seekers.

The common meme is one where someone with £1,000,000 is warning someone with £1,000 that someone with £0 pounds wants to steal their money.

I’m British born and bred. My DH is the immigrant. And yes, he is an economic migrant. He’s waiting for ILR approval from the Home Office right now. The backlog has meant we’ve been waiting since March.

I admit I have no experience with this type of thing, but can he work whilst waiting?

I know some friends who’ve moved to Aus and had to wait a fair while for a visa but not sure how it compares.

Not really
Ratio of numbers of asylum seekers accepted to population
1:4,108 U.K.
1:4,523 Ireland, they accept less per capita than we do and have 4x the room
1:2,953 Sweden, they accept more per capita than we do but have 12x the room

Yes. How did Hitler rise to popularity? What were his roots? He was an angry man, who sought to blame a particular group for no tangible reason and it chimed because of the state of Germany’s economy post WW1!

I hate the fact that "economic migrant" has become a pejorative term.

What the hell is wrong with wanting to move somewhere and work in that country to earn enough for a good life for yourself? Brits do it all the time when they go abroad.

We have a skills shortage in the UK. Economic migrants with skills who are keen to work are not a bad thing.

Fair enough

But do we want all the unskilled ones coming here

Plus we should be training people already here

Yes, he can because prior to ILR (Settlement visa), he was on a partner visa which allows the right to work, but no recourse to public funds. So he keeps that while waiting. When he was waiting for his first partner visa he could not work.

I completely agree. I just feel a bit uncomfortable about people happily immigrating here (I have no problem with this) but simultaneously complaining that anyone else wants to do the same thing

This thread has been derailed slightly but IP’s original point was a good one. The BBC does have a tendency to deploy statistics in a way that supports a particular agenda. More balance is needed. When the BBC do this, the far right latches onto it and it fuels racism and paranoia. It’s really important for the BBC to be scrutinised so that it reports in a fair and balanced way.