AIBU to think the reason why many Asylum seekers come to UK is...

[SmallBoats]

a direct result of our imperialist past? People come to the UK in many instances because they are English speakers. English is widely spoken due to the massive British empire which used to exist. The British empire milked its territories, greatly increased its wealth despite causing massive human suffering in the process. The direct result of this is that English became a widely spoken language worldwide. It therefore isn't surprising many people seeking refuge from war torn countries try to get to the UK as they already speak English.

Many of the immigrants I work with don't even have basic conversational English, sadly.

They come because they are poor and they dream of a better life. They don't realise what a shithole it is here. I feel for them.

I know one woman who has already claimed asylum and one who is about to attend their first interview tomorrow. They are both Pakistani women, one from a very well off family and one from a less well off family but by no means poor or uneducated. They were both living here, one for five years and one for two as dependents on their husbands entrepreneur visas. Both women worked but culturally women do not contribute financially to the home. Both husbands did not make enough to meet their outgoings. They felt they were not living well as compared to their lifestyle back home but they were spending far too much unnecessarily. Their husbands ended up borrowing and losing their businesses when they couldn't repay debts etc. Both women called their husbands losers amongst other things and claim to be victims of domestic abuse including financial abuse and say they are unable to return home for fear of their safety from their husbands families back home. This left the family a little bemused the first time.

I spoke to the second woman a few years ago before she came here and told her that I didn't know anyone who was managing to keep a family without two incomes coming in especially when trying to establish yourself and get a business running from scratch. She said her 16 year old son would help her husband and that they would get a council house like it was that easy. Woman 1 as far as I know was supported financially by her family to stay here whilst making the asylum claim. Have no idea if that was successful or if it was just used to eek out time until she could apply for ILR based on how long she and her school age children had been here. Woman 2 is able to work whilst claiming asylum as she's already able to under their current valid visa. I guess she will be hoping for housing to be provided that's cheaper than private renting.

They want to be here because they love the lifestyle, freedom, free schooling, free healthcare etc.

The British Empire played a huge part in the spread of English across the globe (obviously!) but the US took up the baton in the twentieth century. Of course they might not be speaking English if it wasn't for our imperial adventures - it is interesting to imagine what the world would look like if the Dutch, French or Spanish had won the early battles for dominance in America.

So whilst we played our part, in reality it is due to US cutural and economic dominance that English is the preferred second language of pretty much the whole world.

It absolutely is because of the imperialist history and not because of soft arse policies and freebie. The average person does not know about a country's specific policies or benefit system. That is much more specialist knowledge that most people living elsewhere would not be aware of. Do you know what benefits you'd be eligible for in other countries? (Based on your post I think you don't even know what asylum seekers are entitled to in the UK so I guess you don't know much about other countries either).

People don't need to know about the imperialist history though you might be surprised by how many people do. Asylum seekers are often highly educated irrespective of their status in the UK. Besides, I'm from India and I genuinely don't know a single person in India from any economic background (including slum dwellers or those who can't read or write) who don't know that India was once a British colony and that is why one of the official languages is English.

(A lot of my points apply to immigration rather than asylum but when you are looking at where people want to live (rather than why theu are leaving their current country) the reasons are often similar.)

Many people do but my point is you don't need to know the details of what exactly went down between Britain and India (and I would bet good money that based on your post you don't have a very good grasp of history or how it has shaped the present situation). What people need to know is that:

1. in the UK English is spoken. Most people from ex colonies either speak English fluently or have a very grasp of it. This is of course because they used be a colony. When you are moving (be it as an immigrant or asylum seeker) language makes a massive difference. There are many countries with a much kinder asylum application process, better success rates, better job opportunities, etc but people flock to English speaking countries because language makes such a big difference to how successfully you can live somewhere.

1. Most people are very familiar with the UK because they see its influence in their own country. In India, we know British history (and not just the part that includes India). We know British bands, singers and artists. Movies. Geography, current affairs, etc. If you read aj Indian new paper you will be surprised how much of the international section is on the UK. People feel they know the UK better than any other country. They feel familiar and comfortable with it.

1. Because of the colonial history a lot of people have family members or relatives here. I think there was a time in the last century when Indians did not need a visa to come here and many did. So lots of family connections.

1. Related to point 2 but a lot of things in the UK work similar to the way it does in India. The school system, the political system etc. we even drive on the same side of the road.

You obviously can't understand the extent of the legacy that Britain has left in India. It's not that they came and then left again. They built an unbreakable tie with India. Britain is special to India (in both positive and negative ways) and that is a fact. It's the same with other regions. Where do people from Pondicherry go to? They go to France. Because pondy was a french colony. They don't go to the UK because its lovely soft arse policies.

Please don't talk about soft arse policies. A billion people in India (and more elsewhere) would laugh at you.

i think language is a large contributing factor yes

I work with asylum seekers.

Yes today family ties. A lesser extent to English speaking.

The biggest pull factor by far is how easy it is to work illegally. If you have ever ordered a a deliveroo or justeat type of delivery in a city, then there is a reasonable chance your delivery driver did not have leave to remain.

A huge proportion of houses that I go into have E-bikes and deliveroo / uber eats bags, coats etc. As an asylum seeker, you can sub-rent a legitimate driver's account for a small cost. Rent the bike. Charge it for free as Home office will pay the utility bills (even when it's £50+ a day in electric).

There is so little oversight at these companies. It's really horrendous, but such a draw for people who cannot work legally.

And that doesn't even include the more traditional underground employers (take away's, nail bars, restaurants, independent supermarkets, car washes etc).

It is definteily easier "disappear" in to the grey economy in the UK than it is in many other European countries.

I find it a useful exercise to ask yourselves - if the worse happened here where would you try and get your family to? I would like to say France as that is the nearest place, I could survive as i know the culutre well and can speak French but in reality my spoken and written French is of a standard would yield me little better than a low paid manual job. I would have a much better change of restarting my professional life in Australia or the USA.

I find it unbelievable that they bypass safe countries like Spain, to come here. Because they feel unsafe?! It's ridiculous. A local homeless charity has seen an increase of immigrants on the streets. They believe the high wages here will make them rich. They're genuinely shocked at the high costs e.g. tax, NI, council tax, rent, transport etc. They cannot afford to pay it all from one salary. Many are too ashamed to return home. This relocation project the government are proposing to do, would be amazing. Giving them skills and jobs. With nice cheap accommodation. I hope it would be extended to uk young people volunteering too. I feel like it's going to be an excellent training resource.

Also because "everyone" knows UK. It is a significant economy, in the news all the time, pop culture etc. Of course this is strong tied to reasons on the op. But it is a lot easier to aim for Uk (and France etc.) In comparison to Lithuania.

I think speaking English is a big driver. Also no national ID card. Government pays benefits. Free NHS. Get housed. Not hard to see why many might want to come.

Yes I think countries where England was present back in the days of colonialism will be more likely to want to come to Britain.

I think we are probably the only country with no ID card. I recall needing ID on me in Germany & in France at all times. I don't know why UK sees this as an infringement of human rights.

People moan about the UK but we get lots free. Medical treatment no payment up front - in Europe you have to pay & claim back. In schools in Europe you are required to buy all books, textbooks, pens yourself. In the UK it's all provided free. There's help with universal credit. In Spain you only get 2 years unemployment benefit & that's only if you paid in. People have to go & live with elderly parents otherwise they would be homeless.

I believe asylum seekers do stay in hotels. Probably not all of them but certainly some do. I personally would prefer my taxes to be spent on helping British people & making sure we have housing for them as a priority. However that is probably classed as racist.

I don't think it's fair on anyone. The asylum seekers get ripped off by traffickers, end up in dodgy shared housing, working unsociable hours, trying to make a life for themselves. You can't blame them.

There are a few misconceptions and misunderstandings here.

A very large number of Asylum Seekers speak either little or no English, the amount we need to pay for translators is massive.

I repeat - they think we are a "soft touch" for benefits and housing because that is the dream they are sold by the people who make a living from transporting them tell them so. And of course they are lied to by these same people about the ease of employment, benefits & housing

And yes there are a some put up in 4 star hotels - but that's because there just isn't the housing available in a county like Kent which sees thousands of Asylum Seekers coming in every year. Where do you think a comparatively small county is supposed to put all these homeless people? Central Government have said it's Kent's responsibility to home these people (though they don't assist in the costs in any way), but every time a cheaper more basic option is suggested there are complaints that the accommodation is unfit for purpose. So where on earth are they supposed to be housed? Waiting lists in the county for social housing are at record highs, there aren't enough homes for those who have lived in the county their entire lives.

Ireland does.

.

To those posters thinking asylum seekers get accommodation, I would encourage you to read this article from a couple of days ago, about homelessness in Liverpool.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hidden-humanitarian-disaster-unfolding-streets-28102889?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

However- you have assumed that the UK receives more refugees than other countries and this is not true at all. We are not even in the top ten. The 3 countries with the most refugees are Turkey, Pakistan and Uganda. The top European country for refugees is Germany.

Came on to say exactly this. Germany has a huge issue with illegal immigration.

Either you've never stayed in a Britannia Hotel or you've never stayed in a 5 star hotel if you think they are the same.

People don't need to be "clued up on imperialist history". It is deeply ingrained in the culture, politics, language, religion and infrastructure all over the world.

I've also volunteered with asylum seekers and second those posters that mentioned the underground economy. It is apparently far easier to fly under the radar in the UK and still build up a life/have good schooling for your kids/receive medical care in the UK than elsewhere in Europe.

Tell me you're racist without saying you're racist.

Why don't you reac the OP properly?

OP I agree with you

If you think Britannia Hotels are 5⭐️ establishments, you are sadly mistaken

Hi Suella

Honestly though - if the Govt. really wanted to clamp down on illegal immigration they would. They would implement measures imposed by other EU countries - ID cards for a start. All this "Stop the Boat" nonsense is just a smokescreen. Sending people to Rwanda is not only an infringement on their human rights but it's also not effective in any case because you'd ideally just put in place restrictions and mandatory checks that made working illegally hard, if not impossible in the first place. The reason people want to come here is, as others have said, because they know they can just disappear underground. Stop that from being a possibility and you have less of an immigration problem to begin with

So in a way, @orangegato does have a point

Yes, but that in itself does not explain the scale and speed of the growth of the English language under global American dominance.

The United States has dominated in the areas of business and entertainment. 20th Century was the first time in history when languages could spread at breakneck speed.

It happened much slower in the 19th Century, for example.

And only 13 States were British colonies at the time. The United States expanded itself to 50 and spread the English language even further than when it was a British colony.