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:

To be clear, asylum seekers are not economic migrants. Completely different type of migration.

In a manner of speaking.
When there is not enough supply to meet demand, this makes prices go up so only the better off demanders can buy the scarce resource.

The demand is driven by everyone who needs a house, not just those who can afford to actually buy one.

I don’t think it’s “rent-a-racist” to feel concerned that a load of single men from countries with backwards views towards women, gay people and religious and civil liberties are gaining entry and, in many cases, have no interest in assimilating

Unfortunately living in Wales we haven't found an effective way of keeping the English out

There literally does have to be a saturation point and we all disagree on when that should be.
For some, it seems as if the whole population of the rest of the world -every last person -wanted to come here they would say, 'yes, come'

If they say that is nonsensical hyperbole, then where would they draw the line? Do they acknowledge that, at some point, a line will have to be drawn?

If they accept that, then when?
If they don't accept there has to be a line, do they think that there is room for the whole world if they choose to come?

It really is silly thinking.

There may be plenty of green fields but I don't want every field built on. I don't want to pay higher taxes to fund all this.

Nor me

@Discovereads

Your basic facts are wrong.
It's Leave to Remain, given for different periods of time depending on what status the asylum seeker granted (5 years for refugee status, 2-3 years for discretionary leave to remain, for example).

Then the person is expected to leave the U.K. or apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. ILR has its own set of rules and criteria and is obviously not just for those who were granted asylum protection of some form. They are just potentially eligible to apply too.

If the U.K. wants to take fewer asylum seekers than the tiny, tiny number it takes (82 million people displaced worldwide), then it should stop creating conflict and take proper responsibility for the mess it has created for years and years around the world.

We teach kids to say sorry, take responsibility, and accountability. We also teach them to share. But grown adults, particularly those running countries don't need to do those things, apparently.

The nonsense being spouted on this thread to justify racism and hostility towards refugees is shameful.

According to Migrationsverket the ratio of asylum seekers accepted in Sweden in 2021 was 1:1387. And Sweden may be 12x the size of the UK but most of that is unihabitable. Stop telling lies to further demonise vulnerable people.

Yes, but it is the politicians allowing these bogus asylum seekers into these European countries.
The people certainly don't want it.
Saying that " this country accepts X " and "this one accepts Y" is meaningless.
There's a real feeling in Ireland now that enough is enough and they don't really have a proper right wing party.
I feel for any European countries having to put up with this nonsense.

I liked the suggestion made by a PP that a fairer way of working out how many asylum seekers each country should aim to accept would be to calculate a number based on that country's contribution to wars and repressive regimes. The UK is one of the biggest arms dealers on the planet. Which means we're responsible for many of the situations which people are being forced to flee (and seek asylum) from.
This entire thread has brought out some really ugly, ignorant commenters, and the opening premise is completely flawed.

That's all very well but it's the government's who conduct these policies such as Tony Blair and his weapons of mass destruction but he is very wealthy so he's not affected in the same way as jo public

The UK a democracy @woodhill . I guess we'd just have to think more carefully about who we vote in.

I know but they are all pretty awful in all honesty

So how would that calculation work?
Add up arms exports, exclude any arms sent to worthy causes/just wars…? Who decides which is worthy & just and which is not?

Are we going by £ value of arms, or how many weapons? Cause one fighter plane is worth about a billion guns…with bullets.

Right now we are exporting arms mostly to the Ukraine. Does that mean we are somehow responsible for Russia having invaded the Ukraine?

You say my premise of factoring population density is flawed, but you haven’t explained how the premise of using arms dealing would work? If we applied the chart below, asylum seekers should be mostly being send to the US, Russia, France, China, Germany, and Italy….compared to the U.K.

Would this mean towing the boats back to France? After all, they are responsible for 10.7% of arms dealing compared to our 2.9%….so by this premise they’re far more responsible than we are.

I’m using the Eurostat numbers updated as of 10/26/22 for accepted asylum seekers initial + final in 2021 and the World Atlas figures for 2021 population

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/migration-asylum/asylum/database
www.worldatlas.com/countries

The figures used to calculate the ratios are also in the tables I posted upthread with the source of the data noted.

I’m not lying in the slightest. I haven’t demonised anyone at all.

I am not agreeing with the narrative that the U.K. isn’t doing it’s fair share to help.

It isnt justifying racism in the slightest to do this. I don’t need to agree that my own country is shit to want to help and take in asylum seekers.

I know Sweden is less temperate than the U.K., but only 3% of it is inhabited. The remaining 97% isn’t all uninhabitable.

@hooksb
If the U.K. wants to take fewer asylum seekers than the tiny, tiny number it takes (82 million people displaced worldwide), then it should stop creating conflict and take proper responsibility for the mess it has created for years and years around the world.

I don’t want to take in fewer asylum seekers. I’m happy to take them in. I just don’t agree with the smearing of the media saying the U.K. is shit and is not doing it’s fair share to help. The data suggests we are taking in a fair share of asylum seekers.

Im not sure why “taking responsibility” means accepting asylum seekers? Surely we would accept asylum seekers no matter who is “responsible”? I don’t agree with a “not my mess, not my problem” approach to who we accept or reject. Accepting asylum seekers should be based on their need, not who put them in their situation.

Given that the UK has the 4th largest arsenal in the world and has more fighter planes than we have pilots to fly them, by your reckoning we’d be taking a LOT of refugees! (I dont disagree with you btw).

@SundownOnTheStair This hopefully goes some way towards explaining the increase in asylum seekers from Albania (it’s from a thread written by a specialist in international refugee law)

“The two predominant nationalities trafficked in the UK, particularly children, are UK citizens and Albanians. Albanian gangs do control a lot of trafficking, but they predominantly traffic Albanians. The UK, for various reasons is their preferred center to traffic people to.

Men/boys tend to be trafficked for labour, including things like being forced to work in cannabis factories, while women/girls are trafficked for sexual exploitation, both prevalent in the UK.

Statistically those trafficked for labour tend to be brought through "irregular routes", such as channel crossings, whereas those trafficked for sexual exploitation are brought through "official ports", i.e. airports hence why you see more young Albanian men than women on boats.

A confluence of circumstances, including global crisis, Covid etc, have led to increased destitution in Albania, making people easier targets for trafficking gangs to exploit, with complicity of the Albanian government, leading to an increase.

The actual gangs aren't traveling by small boat and risking their lives though. Why would they? It is their victims who end up in that position, exactly the people who if provided with safety could give information to shut the gangs down.”

mobile.twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1586815896894541824?s=20&t=nPv8EOCdeJY6-hVLQQsvmw

Slightly more on topic, I noticed the other day that, when speaking about be “migrant crisis”, the BBC showed footage of Manston which clearly showed children who looked under the age of 10-ish, playing on a playground there. They later showed footage of a migrant camp in France, focusing on a man who looked in his 20s/30s before pulling back to show the young teen/preteen boy sitting next to him. Perhaps after the Dover incident they’re keen to distance themselves from the Home Secretaries rhetoric.

The Home Sec, Braverman, needs to go. I know she hasn’t had time to fix the Home Office so isn’t responsible for the poisoned chalice she was handed, but it’s her speech rhetoric and her comments in Parliament,….they are what make her wholly unsuitable for the role and making the public despair over the Home Office ever having a chance of being reformed to what it should be. I hope Rishi sacks her soon.

I know Sweden is less temperate than the U.K., but only 3% of it is inhabited. The remaining 97% isn’t all uninhabitable.

You've clearly never been. 70% is unihabitable boreal swamp forests. 15% in the Arctic Circle. 3% is uninhabitable islands. Then there's the mountain regions.

As I said, spouting nonsense.

These countries are struggling too though. Ireland has accepted about 64000 refugees so far this year. That's almost the size of my nearest city. Its a staggering amount when you think of having to find homes for an entire city of people. This is in the middle of a huge housing crisis where in some cities there rentals are in single numbers. In my nearest city with a population close to that of the amount of refugees we have taken in there are 32 properties to let. The cheapest 3 bed house appears to be €2000 a month. A bedroom in a shared house will set you back €1000 a month.

Sure we have space, a 6th of our country is bog land which is sparsely built upon for obvious reasons. We don't have any actual houses though.

Every single country will have reasons why it is hard for them to take in 10s of 1000s of refugees. The UK is not alone on that at all.

I’ve been to Iceland and Greenland which are even less inhabitable than Sweden.

Lots of people live in the Arctic circle.

You can say “spouting nonsense” all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that Sweden is accepting a fair share of asylum seekers imho. By your logic, there’s no inhabitable land left at all! But if that were truly the case, then why are they accepting a few thousand asylum seekers a year?

Because it’s not the case. Because despite a lot of it being further north, they do have the room, infrastructure and land to support them.

Completely agree. You can’t tell “fair share” from a simple ratio of
applications to population. It’s more complex.

@Fladdermus Thats interesting about Sweden. A while back I found an interesting site that showed population density by “liveable” areas rather than landmass as a whole. Don’t know if I’ll ever find it again, but it was a useful resource for working out population density/available space in reality, rather than expecting people to live up a tree.