What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

[Lynds778]

I'm all for offering asylum to those genuinely in need but I've seen a lot of negative media recently around 'fake' asylum seekers; people pretending to be from war-torn countries etc to gain entry to the country. Also videos of men giving advice for future asylum seekers on where to say you're from so that you can get in.

Also seen a lot of uproar from local communities about asylum seekers behaving anti-socially, most recently hanging around outside a primary school in Deanshanger and it's got me worried.
I'm also wondering why the large majority of asylum seekers are men and there are less women and children?

So, what's your opinion?

Also, this isn't a racist post. I would have the exact same concerns if these were white asylum seekers from Germany for example. The worry is the system is being abused by some and that we are a bit too lax when it comes to documentation and monitoring of asylum seekers.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14058597/Fake-asylum-seekers-conning-way-Britain-telling-Home-Office-war-torn-Eritrea-bragging-thousands-followers-TikTok.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14185169/amp/Four-asylum-seekers-costing-taxpayer-estimated-160-000-year-living-575-000-luxury-home-accused-faking-Afghan-nationalities-UK.html

OP perhaps it's not asylum seekers that you are in particular concerned about, but you feel a general sense of unease about the volume of migration to the UK

There is plenty of information on this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20ending%20September,)%20(see%20figure%205).

www.statista.com/statistics/263423/major-refugee-hosting-countries-worldwide/

But the reality is, 70% of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their homeland. Turkey currently hosts nearly 4 million refugees - more than any other country in the world - and most are from Syria which has been torn apart by war since 2011. To put this in perspective, as of the end of 2023, the UK had approximately 448,000 refugees, which means refugees constitute around 0.7% of the population.

Copied from international rescue committee website

I think this is more the problem then. I have no issue a such with asylum seekers it just the sheer numbers and what England can realistically financially cope with.

It isn't as if people can just claim to be from Afghanistan (or wherever) without any documentation, and simply be believed without further scrutiny. They have to make a credible case for asylum, which would be impossible if they had never been to the country in question, didn't speak the language etc.

I am talking of the process. The granting of asylum requires legal documentation and multiple interviews. The documentation must reflect the reason for your claim and letters from friends and family are not admissible in the UK.

How will you get this documentation from somewhere you haven’t lived?

Certain grounds like a claim of forced conscription - which is essentially becoming cannon fodder in many countries - might be handled differently, but then the interviews will be deeply probing. Some documentation us still possible. How long could anyone untrained survive an in depth series of interviews about their fictitious life in a different country? Only a well trained spy.

^ first post is excellent advice. You need to think about where you're getting your information and who benefits from the information you're getting. Tabloids like the daily fail are very keen to scapegoat asylum seekers and other minority groups in order to divert the publics attention away from who is really at fault for our economic issues, housing and social care issues. It's not asylum seekers btw.

Having worked extensively with asylum seekers, yes people do often give each other advice and it can be very problematic but more so because a lot of times the advice is well intentioned but incorrect and can actually destroy a claim for asylum. Often people are totally genuine but just desperate and scared and want to make sure they are approved because the alternative could kill them. Its not that they're fake or disingenuous.

You wonder why it's mainly males who make the journey but think about what the journey entails and how often fatalities occur. Nearly all (and when i say that i mean 99%) of the people I've worked with have been SA or trapped into forced labour at some point on their journey. The majority of the accommodation in other countries is vastly unsuitable and unsafe and illegal pushbacks happen constantly in other countries. Plus the refusal by some countries to intervene and rescue people who are drowning that they could help. When you think of that, is it any wonder that men are seen as the better candidate for the journey with the hope their female or younger/older family members could follow in a safe way?

The idea that ANYONE is putting themselves through such trauma and risking their life on one of those boats just for the craic or to get one over on us by claiming benefits or to just come to cause trouble is actually ridiculous.

I'd say there are difficulties with cultural integration, but responsibility for that exists on both sides and often people are pigeon holed into segregated communities, experience racist abuse, become more isolated and are therefore more susceptible to radicalisation either online or by people who have been here since birth. Most people leave their countries because they are escaping extremist regimes in the first instance. Expecting someone to come to a new country and abandon their language/ religion/ culture/diet etc because "well this is England " is highly racist and shows a lot of ignorance and that type of thing happens all the time.

Our home office process is incredibly hostile, overly lengthy and not fit for purpose. Often people's mental health takes a significant dip while waiting years for any sort of progress on an application. During that time people can't work to support themselves/ use skills they've trained for/volunteer with certain types of organisations and claim a lesser amount than people on a flat rate of UC get.

England has a low number of refugees compared with the countries mentioned in the post you were replying to.

This^
its logical, man goes first and after finding job and getting a place he is trying to bring his family.
If we want to bring women and children we have to give them opportunity to apply at the places of conflict, not expect them to travel all the way here.
Saying this, of course there are false asylum seekers but it doesn’t change the principle.

Wiki is an excellent starting point for research - the key is to use it as a way of finding source material, and use it alongside other sources.

As to the second point - it’s tricky, isn’t it? My (imperfect) solution is to try and scatter my sources across academic papers, right and left leading papers and ‘public opinion’ sites like this / talk radio stations.

I fear things will get even worse with the rise of AI chatbots.

We currently take less than our fair share. I don't know why we expect other countries to shoulder more of the burden than we do. I don't suppose it's easy for them either.

PS I think a claimant with genuine grounds should be able to claim without papers, of course. But I think the process is rather brutal.

Thankyou for taking the time to post them figures. Where i live we don't have asylum seekers that I'm aware of but we do have a large population of migrants 13% which is obviously not the same but the impact is huge on services, housing, jobs, crime etc

Turkey's economy has genuinely suffered from the crisis. Yet they get on with it.

Yet here goes a thread, moaning about a tiny percentage of refugees compared to Turkey, with little effect on our economy, but surprise surprise, hre comes the typical victim attitude of a percentage of the population who probably e joy themselves a privileged life by comparison by virtue of birth.

See i didn't know this, this is why threads like this are important because I'm learning rather then reading the daily mail

My University has a warning to students on the link to the Daily Mail's archives, because it can't be trusted as a source for factual, accurate information. This warning isn't applied to any other newspaper or publication.

It worries me that people who get their information from the Daily Mail don't seem to recognise how biased and manipulative it is.

Have a Google of where refugees are located across the world and I think the numbers will surprise you. Not saying they are in the places you mentioned but we don't have that many compared to other countries in a similar area to Saudi and Dubai.

But your impression on the numbers and financial pressure they pose is based on inaccurate and biased reporting.

You are pushed to blame immigrant numbers for the infrastructure problems we face, instead of looking at the mismanagement of resources.

We have a poorly functioning system that takes months to process asylum seekers leaves them in limbo, unable to work or find accommodation - so the only solution is to have the tax payer fund them.

There is also a narrative pushed that these people are uneducated and have nothing to add to the economy - whereas many have skills and qualifications that we need.

If you are worried about how UK is funding this, be angry at the millionaires/billionaires and the companies who don't pay proportional tax, not the poor people fleeing war and persecution. As far fetched as it may seem living in Britain, the majority of us are more likely to find ourselves in the same situation as the latter group than the former

Yes my university did the same, but they also considered Novara Media to be a credible source 😂😂😂

Just leaving this here in anticipation of someone commenting "well why don't the men stay and fight for their own country? That's what we did in the World Wars"

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/08/syria-civil-war-brilliant_n_9186322.html

Now I know you're trying to wind people up.