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.

can you really not think of a reason why you’d want to be as far away from a regime that wants you dead as possible? Really?

Ever heard of Marine Le Pen? There is a fair amount of anti-immigrant feeling in France historically.
most of the refugee community in France is from Africa, makes sense when they have French speaking countries there. Those who don’t speak French are going to have a much harder time finding work.

Of course I believe in border control. I know it
exists, it’s not the tooth fairy.

Probably for the same reason that MN blames the men that look at porn rather than the sites that show it, or the OCGs that enable it.

That’s a good analogy

I didn’t say any of that about his application. I said it wasn’t clear where it was at when he committed the crime, not that it was important, but he would now be deported and I’m glad he’s in jail.
The link posted didn’t say he was a terrorist, nor that he had asylum in Turkey - this is a failure of our system with backlogs and lack of access now to certain data then.
I also said that doesn’t mean all Egyptian males, or all asylum seekers, are rapists.
I added that it’s the hatred and poor facts that concern me most rather than different views on immigration.

The actions of one man are not the actions of an entire community. Harold Shipmsn murdered 250 people over 30 years as a doctor, do we say the NHS isn’t safe and a breeding ground for murderers? Or do we use our heads and understand one persons actions are just his?

well you see, if the 1% who hoard more than 50% of the land in this country

@OwlBeThere what is the maximum amount of land do you think should be owned by one person?
Also, what do you mean by ‘hoarding’ land? Do you mean not making it available for building houses?
Are farmers or owners of farmland ‘hoarding’ land?

Wasn't Marine Le Pen banned from running for office for 5 years? There is a lot of anti immigrant sentiment in the UK as well. We have Tomy Robinson and the whole of reform.

If they don't speak french, they can learn it.

@OwlBeThere @MrsSkylerWhite @TheLivelyViper and a few others

PLEASE say exactly how many refugees/asylum seekers/people arriving by any means you think this country can accommodate. Saying that some are sent back is disingenuous because I’m sure you advocate for no one ever being “sent back”.

No one has answered the very good question upthread of whether in the pursuit of “kindness” it is inevitable that a quantity of criminals should be accepted.

And do you think it is right that “non-Western values” should be accommodated? Eg in dd’s primary school there were girls already covered (not just heads) and excused from PE (although I would have been thrilled at this!).

The main thing our government, any government has a priority to is to their own citizens. Having these people in our country has a negative impact on our own citizens (unless someone argues otherwise).

I think this country has a responsibility to accept valid claims for asylum, and I think it needs other varieties of migration to function. We’re not full, we’re under resourced. And we’re under resourced because of successive government failures, not because of asylum seekers.

It’s not up to me (or you) to determine exact quantities, I’d just be picking an arbitrary number out of thin air.

But I don’t agree that no-one should be sent back. If a claim for asylum isn’t granted, that person becomes an illegal migrant, and their leaving is justified. Same for if a visa expires and isn’t renewed for whatever reason. That person loses their right to be here. Any crime.

I don’t see why it matters what someone else’s children wear. I’m not judgemental of other people’s cultural clothing choices, language spoken in their own home/with others that speak their language. I don’t find it offensive, or problematic, and I’m certainly not frightened of it.

I think what we need to do is have safe, legal routes for asylum, that work. If someone claims asylum and is rejected, they rightfully shouldn’t be here. But I don’t believe they should be sent away before that process has been followed.

Yip. Lots of neurosurgeons, high court judges and architects in those dinghies 🤣

Why claim it here? Why not in the first safe country they reach? Why not somewhere where they have a closer cultural similarity to? Even so, how does having them here benefit the UK?

Also (I'm okay to be challenged on this) why don't the young men stay and fight for a better country? The Ukrainian men are doing this. If Britain was under siege wouldn't you expect that the men of the country stay and fight for a better tomorrow?

Well this is the point though isn’t it. When they sprint across the beach after the boat lands or through the streets when they exit the back of the lorry, they don’t run to the nearest hospital to take up a post as a surgeon.

They run to places where people they know can hide them. They are lost into society. That is part of the problem.

Add to that - the people in boats are not all legal asylum seekers/refugees. They may claim they are - but they are not. That is why we need processing centres. If they were all coming legally, there’d be no need to process/check their claim is genuine.

And maybe you’d like to give an answer to the question @ForgetMeNotRose has swerved. Even if they were all legal, how many of the 1billion plus people living in conflict/war zones can the UK safely accommodate?

So you are refuting your previous claim that everyone in small boats is coming here legally?

Largely because there are existing communities, perhaps even people they know, that arrived here when migration was welcomed. I don’t know about you, but I’d want support in that situation, and would find it where there were already British people.

We cannot fill vacancies without migration. It doesn’t matter whether our own unemployment is high, people will not work in some of the roles migrants do. They add to the financial upkeep of our higher education system with student visas, work in some of our most difficult to fill vacancies with work visas, and for those who just require asylum - personally I find value in supporting them to build a better life here, rather than dying where they came from.

No, I wouldn’t. I would expect anyone who wanted to stay and fight for a better tomorrow to do so, and anyone who didn’t feel able or wasn’t willing to die for their country didn’t have to. It’s a choice.

I wouldn’t die for this country, I don’t see why someone else should be forced to. I would absolutely flee, and I’d be taking my partner and family with me.

Do you actually think any of those immigrants came on a boat? Or do you think these highly educated individuals already shared Western values and applied and paid to come legally?

Here’s a guide to which countries host the most refugees: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263423/major-refugee-hosting-countries-worldwide/
many refugees stay in countries bordering where they have fled from.
An example of why young men flee is from Sudan, there is civil war as I understand it two factions of the army are fighting one another for control, which goes against what the population want. Who do you stay and fight for if you don’t agree with either? If you want to defend yourself where do you get the weapons from? Also boys and young men are being systematically targeted and killed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjel2nn22z9o
"The RSF and allied militias have systematically murdered men and boys - even infants - on an ethnic basis, and deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of brutal sexual violence,"

OK.

It is not illegal to come to the UK to seek asylum.
If a person's application is rejected they must leave the country.
If they don't they then, at that point, become an illegal migrant.
If it is accepted they then, at that point, become a legal resident.

I absolutely do not advocate for that. Everyone seeking asylum, as is their right, should be given a fair hearing. If it is found that their case is without merit, they should be deported, according to law.

I imagine some of the HCAs were, yes. Consultants no, because they were from nations where they had the ability to apply through legal channels. Channels which ought to be available to anyone seeking asylum.

Do you have a view on the first question in the post?

I've known extremely successful architects who have lost everything through war. I've known people who are highly qualified in a range of fields, some with multiple degrees and successful careers, who are now living in tiny digs with an absolutely inhumane pittance to live on waiting for years for asylum to be granted. Not everyone is highly educated, what I'm pointing out is the false distinction about asylum seekers and people who have skills to contribute to society. People who are genuinely seeking asylum will hopefully be granted asylum (although the conditions are harsh and many don't get it). People, skilled or unskilled, who do not meet that criteria will not be. There are lots of people in hotels because the processing is so slow. It has been for years and years and it's building up. This is no picnic for people waiting, and I'm putting that lightly. Imagine having no home, no certainty about your future, no space for your children to do homework, you can't work and you have a tiny amount money to get through the week? Imagine how that feels as a parent? This isn't about people being put up in a hotel for a holiday. These are people whose whole livelihoods have been destroyed and are starting from nothing, because they are not safe where they came from.

You're forgetting that there are no safe routes for some asylum seekers. Being talented or well educated doesn't change that.

We should limit migration then to the number of vacancies in each industry we have a vacancy in. This is beside the point. Why should we as a nation have to support people fleeing elsewhere? How about we should Iook after our own citizens first?

Not everything is about the economy. We have to look at the cultural and societal implications as well. Especially the lack of integration.

What's the point of claiming somewhere as a home if when the nation is under attack men don't stand up to protect and defend their country? Russia would have fully conquered Ukraine if the Ukrainians had this view. If Britain was under attack from evil powers I'd expect people to band together to fight back.