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.

Okay? Probably still better than a warzone. If we didn't lay out the red carpet for them they wouldn't want to come here. I wouldn't risk death on the channel. We don't have to take them in.

They are not in the uk illegally!

Seeking asylum, however you arrive, is legal. Your case is then assessed.

If it is considered valid, you are granted leave to remain. If it is not, you are reported.

It’s really not that hard to understand.

My husnsnd’s surgeons were very unlikely to have arrived in the UK via small boat. My point was that, however people arrive here, they are more likely than not to contribute to the betterment of the UK.

You aren't responsible the majority of people aren't. I also agree that government shouldn't be cutting as much foreign aid, even where they do it, they need to be thoughtful about it. At a time when conflict, war, terror, violence is getting worse is not the time. Even for example with USAID, they cut funding for things already bought, so for example they bad already bought lots of boxes of the pastes and food they use specifically for malnourished children, these were in a warehouse about to be sent, the flight wasn't being paid for my USAID. But they stopped the funding and as the food, pastes etc were USAID property they didn't give it to them, they let it rot in a warehouse for 2 months, it is now unusable and that is a complete waste. Money which had already been appropriated by Congress as well, which is the legal process in the U.S.

What I would say is the only thing seperating you from being a refugee is luck. Luck that you were born in a safe and somewhat prosperous country. Luck that a dictatorship hasn't taken over, that a terrorist group doesn't displace you. Luck that a tyrant doesn't invade your country, luck that you don't endure famine or violence from your own military, or attacks of sexual violence on mass (DRC currently). If you were one of these people you'd likely want that empathy and it's not far fetched that the UK could be in that position and you may want the empathy of other countries as well. As I said the East of Africa, 5.7 million refugees whilst having their own issues of 18 million internally displaced people, which if far more dire. Again the West of Africa has taken 2.55 million refugees as well. The MENA region around 16 million, so it's quite unfair to say that other nations or regions don't do their part or offer their country up for these people.

Even in comparison to France who took around 150k last year and Germany 220k, whereas we took 100k. Technically only 39k were accepted however the Home office lacks so many staff that it the amount of claims taking months and years for them to even get through simple steps and that means lots of people claims who may not be accepted, are still being processed for way too long and then decisions can't be made on whether they can stay or not. Which is also a major issue.

You’re very, very fortunate that you have never had to weigh up the value of your life. Whether attempting to cross a dangerous channel might be worth the risk.

Just try to imagine for a moment thinking the life you are trying to leave behind you is so terrible that you would choose that possibility, drowning.

We should do them a kindness then and make sure it’s never an option available to them.

come on now - you cannot seriously believe that many, if not most, of those on the small boats are genuine asylum seekers and not economic migrants? Nobody can be that naive surely?

Or alternatively put in place safe, legal routes. The human thing to do.

I’m not naive. I have no issue with economic migrants. Economic migrants want to work and contribute. Wouldn’t you?

Yes I would but I realise that unless I have skills a country needs, I am not going to be given permission to live there. I wouldn’t just rock up and try to enter illegally. How many more Just Eat delivery drivers do we need?

An unskilled, unvetted, non-English speaking man with medieval views on women and girls is not who I’d welcome to this country. I’d much rather make certain jobs (eg carer) more attractive to our own citizens (who have police records etc so can be vetted) by making work pay significantly more than benefits.

I don’t consider your ‘alternative’ to be either viable or particularly humane.

Because it’s easy racism. It’s that simple, as are the people shouting about it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about asylum seekers. War doesn't discriminate, you know. Well educated people aren't exempt from suffering. I've worked with many, many asylum seekers who have experienced unimaginable trauma. Many more highly educated than you, I expect.

Yeah you’re making a lot of assumptions too though - about how “highly educated” I am (or not).

I’ll repeat - genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants are two different things. Not everyone who tries to come to the UK is fleeing war and/or persecution. Even if they were - the UK cannot take everyone who is fleeing.

Genuine question @ForgetMeNotRose - do we just keep taking anyone who wants to come here? 1 million, 5 million, 100 million? Where would your line in the sand be? Given that as much as 14% of the world’s population are living in a conflict/was zone (University of Southampton research) ie 455million to 1 billion people - how many can a small island like the UK safely accommodate? How will we pay for them? How will our infrastructure support them? And how many illegal migrants on top of this can we accommodate? Genuinely - what would your answer be?

And with regards to my education, let’s just say you can call me Dr Youdontseehow. And I think you mean “you suspect” rather than “you expect”.

I don't really care about your level education, the point I'm making is that there's no reason why an asylum seeker would necessarily be less well educated than anyone else, including yourself.

Yeah but you brought it up with your passive aggressive comment about “expecting” them to be more educated than me. I wouldn’t have mentioned it otherwise.

And as I’ve repeatedly said - I’m not talking about genuine asylum seekers. I’m referring to unskilled, unvetted, illegal economic migrants. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yes, I am sure some of them are better educated than you. Because why wouldn't they be?

And yet someone else said it WAS the cost.
this is what pisses me off about people raving about boat people.
me: what’s the issue?
them: the cost!
me: ok but that’s not much at all. give fact
them: well it’s not that! It’s the number of them filling us up!
me: no they aren’t, give fact
them: well that’s not the problem anyway, it’s that they rape our women
me: not really, white men do it more give fact
them: well that’s not it anyway, it’s the fact they paint hippos toenails green every third Wednesday.

they skirt around the fact the REAL issue is them being brown and Muslim, and I wish they’d just strap on a pair and admit it.

Where are all these unskilled, unvetted illegal economic migrants you speak of?
not in the hotels where people are protesting because they are not illegal migrants.
illegal migrants are by virtue of being illegal somewhere in society laying low and being exploited probably.

But we don’t just take anyone who comes here. Around half who claim asylum are returned to their home countries.

France will be the second to last if the final destination is UK.

I suspect that's more what PP is asking... why IS their final destination the UK? Surely it should be the first safe country they arrive at?

I do live alongside people who dislike me and my values and principles. Many of them are posting ok this thread spouting shit about what makes you a ‘Briton’.
the dictionary defines Briton as either a Celtic Briton which is a Celtic inhabitant of the British isles before and during Roman times.
or
A person who is a native or inhabitant of the U.K.
the colour of your skin or where your parents come from has fuck all to do with being British or not.

A lot of them are not asylum seekers, I firmly believe that if you had to leave a country because you life was in damaged you would stay in the first safe country and ask for asylum there. Why would you trade, through numerous countries on the back of a lorry or whatever and get in a boat when you could be safe?

I firmly believe most are not asylum seekers but economic migrants who are trying to get in via the back door rather than seeking a proper visa etc

And for the 860th time, there is no requirement to stop at the first safe country. Refugees are allowed to have a preference for where they live. Throughout this thread there are tons of reasons why they don’t stop in France. Usually it’s language or family reasons, better chance at using their skills when they speak the language.

and also, how is it fair that France should take them all and we don’t take any? Every country should be helping out with refugees if they can, becuase it is the right thing to do. We are not special.

What do you think England will be like in a few years time if we keep on allowing the boats to come in?
(I think another 1000 people crossed the other day), where do you think we'll put these "asylum seekers' when we can no longer accommodate them in hotels?

How do you think we'll be able to afford to pay for their upkeep?

well you see, if the 1% who hoard more than 50% of the land in this country and wealth in this country were slightly less disgustingly greedy we’d have more than enough of both.
the truth is asylum seekers and refugees combined make up less th an 1% of our population. We are not being over run how ever much people like to claim it. Only about half are granted asylum. When they are granted asylum they have to leave the hotels, and try to find housing the same as everyone else.