Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…

[AnotherNC12345]

… rather than the smuggling / trafficking gangs that are responsible for the journey?

I think it’s very extreme to put all of the blame and the anger at the individual that arrives, rather than the people responsible for orchestrating the whole process. These individuals are often ‘sold the dream’ and hooked in by organised crime groups who direct them to the UK. I’ve looked at sample routes from different parts of the world (screenshots may be pending) and these are complex and would need local people, as well as law enforcement, customs officers and other government officials to turn a blind eye involved in smuggling across multiple borders.

It’s no secret that these crossings likely cost a lot of money, and I think it would be safe to assume that refugees would often be in crippling debt to the OCGs who will put pressure on them to pay it back, by threatening them and their families and I would go as far as to say they could then be coerced in to further committing crimes when granted asylum in order to pay back their debt.

These OCGs are likely involved in other trafficking / crime, not just of asylum seekers but likely drugs, weapons and sex as they have the connections across those borders.

I think it’s very unlikely that an asylum seeker is sitting there looking at all the European government websites and shopping for a country with the best benefits package and approaching a trafficker with a brochure like they’re picking a Jet2 holiday. But this is the narrative that’s often put us and fuelled in the media.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a better system and want to control our borders better on a whole, but this sheer anger and blame placed at the human in front of us seems very misplaced, when they were likely manipulated in to thinking they can have a better life in this particular country and not another, and the problem is way way bigger than an individual.

Ditto

It’s also a slap in the face to the welcoming country when arrivals commit crimes, be they minor (spitting) large (stealing) or hideous (sexual offences).

It’s all very well to say we have our “own” criminals. but do we really need to accommodate more? And most we have no idea of background and whether they are not fleeing hardship but escaping justice.

The people-trafficking gangs who make a fortune by endangering the lives of desperate people.

They are the ones to blame, not the poor souls who risk their desperate lives in the hope of a better future.

Why are they all “poor souls”? You don’t know that.

Makes no odds. Public purse supports them either way.

Because feelings. You don’t want people putting up tents in your garden.
You don’t want your neighbour to wander in when your front door door is open, and sit in your kitchen.
You don’t want your mother in law to look through your bedside table.
Boundaries, and feelings.

univited guests make people very uncomfortable.

its not rocket science.

It isn't illegal to enter a country to claim asylum.

This. It’s the economic migrants who throw away their passports and pretend to be under age, in order to exploit our benefits!

This!

I don't think anyone would risk their lives the way that they do if they weren't desperate.

Lots of things aren’t illegal. Doesn’t mean people have to like them, or approve of them, or want to encourage others to act similarly.

You’re free to feel that way. Others disagree.

Desperate for what?

They are given housing, food, mobile phone, assistance with claims, access to
NHS, schools.
We are paying for this.
Local government and Home Office are bidding for the same housing stock - Home Office always wins.
When UK citizens cant get a job, are sofa surfing and entitled to bugger all.... that's where the resentment comes in. I see it daily.

The cost to the taxpayer would be massively reduced if

1. asylum decisions were made more swiftly, and/or

2. asylum seekers were allowed to work while awaiting a decision

Some of the refugees I've supported have been highly qualified professionals who could have made quite a contribution if they'd been allowed to work during the couple of years that they had to wait for a decision.

Because large sums of (often ‘foreign’ ironically) is being mobilised into convincing people to think this way, and act as personal puppets, for some specific individuals’ own political/influential/financial gains, and sadly many seem to be unable/unwilling to resit that and think for themselves.

Where dd works every client has an interpreter. They are “entitled” to this and she says all the staff know it’s a complete farce. Many claim obscure dialects so jobs for more interpreters. The NHS alone spent millions on this last year alone. Can you imagine going to any country and being granted a Gaelic interpreter as your right?!

I wonder if it’s also that people who tend to follow the rules get angry at people they think aren’t following those rules and benefiting from it- so it becomes almost personal — and they get angry at that individual rather than the wider problem?

I can see your average Joe thinking, “I’ve spent my whole life following the laws, doing what I should, going to work and paying taxes but look at this person who isn’t doing that and they are getting rewarded more than me.”

Maybe they feel like the individual is more relatable to them than the government or traffickers? Not sure if relatable is the word but I often wonder if politicians (along with corporations, very rich people, celebrities and the royal family) seem so far removed from people that they are considered untouchable?

I don’t know if i”m explaining right - but I do see it often where the focus becomes an individual, everyday person when the responsibility/blame really should be higher up.

Well it is not clear if they are economic migrants. 48% of those processed ultimately get granted asylum which means they meet the criteria (that being your home country being unsafe for you). 52% don’t - but reasons are not published. They are just broadly described as ‘failure to provide information or documentation, deception, character or poor behaviour etc’, but we don’t know what that is. So for all we know 52% of people can be deceptive, or most of them just missed an appointment but that doesn’t automatically mean they’re not actually eligible.

@LakieLady why always that they are “highly qualified”? It’s simply not true.

Actually, yes. Specifically in healthcare situations in Europe - they would all provide translators.

Why does Starmer / Labour use the illegal line?

I found out yesterday that whilst the cost of asylum seekers seems large (and btw mostly goes to fat cat folk hoovering up defunct hotels) it is only 0.3% of gov’t budget. 0.3%. It will also go down as the gov’t is tightening a lot of stuff up and getting down the backlog.
But that is a negligible amount of budget and nothing is going to improve by stopping it.
They’re a tool right now for either discord, from which very rich bigwigs profit, or a tool for political points and getting people to avoid checking out other stuff.
As to why they come here that has been discussed over and over - in summary - UNHCR, U.K. case law, language, family/friends, helping British army in war zones.
Note only a small number of over 200 million displaced people in the world do, or try to, come here.
Further note - overall migrants are net contributors to the U.K. economy.

I agree, hence the last part of my OP says that it’s ultimately fine to question the process of granting asylum, or even the levels of which people arrive. The Canada example in this situation is not relevant IMO, as you wouldn’t qualify for asylum and you would have a fair and clear route for applying for a visa should you ‘fancy it’.

I do think that traffickers promote the UK as the best option, using a variety of tactics to sell it as the destination as it will make them more money - longer journey, more complex so costs more, therefore more appealing for their “business” than a traffic job to Greece.

If we look at ‘grooming’ in general, maybe even more locally in the UK, it’s quite common to engage vulnerable people in an opportunity of a lifetime as they’re willing to risk it all to better their situation. Hence why I wouldn’t be angry at Jimmy on the dinghy, but the wider problem.

Thank you for this. I knew it was low in terms of impact on the actual economy, just didn’t have the numbers.