to be annoyed at so much racism re “the boat people”

[NavyOrca]

A large hotel local-ish to us (around 10 miles away) is currently closed for bookings as it is being occupied by just under 400 asylum seekers.

Recently, in our village and a couple of neighbouring ones, there has been a spate of parcels being stolen from doorsteps. I’m sure you can all work out who has taken the blame for this….! Even though one of the perpetrators is known to be a local lad, born and bred in our village, some people are still blaming others..

The comments on Facebook community groups are disgusting.

Since when has it been acceptable to so readily stick the blame upon those literally fleeing their countries?

I honestly feel that as a human race, we are devolving.

“There is no evidence that asylum seekers are more of a risk than other men in the UK.”

Could you explain by what procedure Germany have ended up with males who have 6x proclivity for sexual assault but you think the ones who come to the UK, for which we are not specifically recording the crimes of, do not have such a risk?

Why did Germany get the bad guys?

So where should they stay in the meantime?
If someone is threatened with death should they just sit around dwiddling their? Or flee and try to find asylum somewhere else?

Some people on here are talking about literally "pushing the boats back'
That's intentionally endangering life to start with before you even get to what country you want them to go back to.

They have fled to France. From there, they should apply to be given entry to here, but women and children (who have had tests to confirm they’re children) should be fast tracked and given priority.

Getting in the dingy is intentionally endangering their lives.
Pushing them back is protecting our border.

You can't see that literally pushing a boat back is intentionally endangering lives.
Ok then.

We didn’t put them in the dingy. They have made the decision to attempt to illegally enter a country without documentation. Pushing them back will deter this and ultimately save lives.

So you're saying you don't have a Problem with french women being in danger just not english ones?
What if France just sets them on a boat and let them cross illegally?

The diplomatic & trade costs would be huge, it would mean the end of EU/UK cooperation and unless we towed back all boats and accepted the deaths of 100s of migrants, wouldn't work.

However, i do believe its where we are heading & not just here either.

This is basically the crux of the matter

I sincerely hope you will never be in a situation where you have to claim asylum.

If I was in this situation, I would claim asylum in the first country which was safe. I wouldn’t travel through multiple countries and risk my life further by paying people traffickers £5000 to take me somewhere I prefer.
We should only be taking and children at this point. Not men who have paid people traffickers.

I was making a general statement.

You cannot save the whole world, you can only manage to save that which you have a semblance of political control.

I feel sorry for Afghan women, but we can not do anything to save them (America tried but failed because its own people did not care). Change has to come from their own people, so sadly it may never happen. But we can’t let that spread.

It would also be better if continental Europe thought more of its own people and rejected unvetted migrants. But they apparently do not.

Assuming that country would grant you asylum. And not send you on your merry way.

There is no evidence that asylum seekers are more of a risk than other men in the UK.

Because the relevant data isn’t being shared.

There would be articles and reports. People in the small boats have been coming over increasingly since Brexit.

Can you provide evidence that places with asylum seekers have seen an increase in crime?

Gladly

https://thecritic.co.uk/germany-is-acknowledging-the-unspeakable/

But what would you actually do when those male refugees suddenly would be rocking up at your shore. Because europe has actually done it's part. Capsize their dinghis, send the to Rwanda?

We’re talking about people coming over from France.
Why haven’t they been granted asylum there? Why are they more likely to succeed in the UK?

Because each EU country only takes in a certain number of migrants. Also many asylum seekers only speak english so going to the UK seems sensible. Also if they stay I might be easier for them to get integrated.

Language skills (or lack thereof) might be an understandable reason for wanting to move to a particular place, it’s not a reason to seek asylum though.

Or do you think France sends them “on their merry way” because they don’t speak French?

And what is the number of asylum seekers each EU country takes, are there certain quotas? As far as I know, the numbers vary vastly.

But would you impose yourself on a country that had a radically different culture and expect them to care for you? I hope you have better manners than that.

Boat pushbacks. French failure should not be anyone else’s problem

You need to think about incentives.

The right answer (to limit danger at sea) is to rescue boat arrivers and deport them immediately. That way you remove any reason for others to follow.

Rescuing and then processing applications maintains the incentive to try by boat.

I think adults can make the decision to take that risk if they want. But children can’t, so we should not do anything that maintains the sea as a viable route.