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.

Maybe it's best if they stay in neighbouring countries then?

I do think that with climate change, the number of people seeking asylum is bound to increase and every country in the northern hemisphere will have to play its part in accommodating increasing numbers. What’s the alternative?
With current rapidly declining birth rates, that may well balance itself out. It may well not, I don’t know.
Populations have moved en mass for hundreds of thousands of years because of climate change, it’s just evolution. Modern homosapiens are no different but with technological and scientific advances, it ought to be possible to mitigate some of the challenges our forbears had to face. Laboratory produced meat, for example and desalination plants (I understand some ME countries already use them?).

Setting a limit is just not a practical solution, unless we’re willing to let millions die.

Why does the neighbouring country have any more responsibility than any other?

Easier for them to travel to and return from, cultural compatibility, plenty of good reasons.

Migration via skills based systems and work visas etc is different from asylum. I’m really very bored of repeating that.

“Why should we have to support people fleeing elsewhere” isn’t an ethics I can get on board with. It’s selfish, and lacks basic humanity.

We don’t need to look at societal implications, if people were less bothered about hearing others speak a different language or wear clothes from within their own culture. Mind your own business, nobody is making you learn that language and wear those clothes.

It doesn’t matter what you expect - staying or fleeing from a war torn country is individual choice, and if people don’t want to risk their lives staying where they are then IMO that’s fair enough.

It's closer, probably more culturally compatible. Why risk more and more and not just stay in the first safe country you find? Why we do have any responsibility whatsoever? We have an obligation to our citizens first.

I also looked at a map today. Lots and lots of safe countries to pass through before even getting to France.

I don’t disagree.

But I do disagree that this applies to the majority of those coming over illegally/in small boats.

This idea that someone is required to claim asylum in the “first safe country” is simply not true.

If the UK has no responsibility and its first duty is to its own citizens, surely that applies to every other country in the world? Why should they take in refugees because they have to be geographically closer?

They happen to be geographically closer, not have.

I appreciate the answer I just can’t see how socially and politically this can happen. If we really do see multiples of the numbers arriving rn I think we’ll see some more unrest.

Because it's a ready made excuse, easier to use than to say that they just don't want those people here.

We definitely do need to look at societal and cultural impacts. I can see the lack of integration myself living where I do in London. Some parts I genuinely do not feel like I'm in the UK. I'm British Indian myself. I went to the GP and a women was struggling with the receptionist because she couldn't speak English. Integration into British society is essential, many areas don't have this.

I do expect people to fight for their nation. I can judge their "individual choices" all I want. Ukrainian men haven't been allowed to leave.

We may well. I just don’t see what the alternative is, though? One part of the globe willingly allows another to die?

Puts me in mind of the very cheesey film The Day After Tomorrow, which I love 😁 The scenes towards the end where, because of climate change taking a bit of an unexpected and very, rapid turn, people in the north suddenly find themselves desperate to get to the south. Americans desperate wading across the Rio Grande. And being taken in.

Genuinely - what’s that got to do with you? That woman may be waiting for lessons, she might be midway through learning, a whole range of things which remain nothing to do with anyone else.

I’m perfectly happy for people to live in whatever culture they live in, within ours. I’m fine with us being a mishmash of multiculturalism and diversity, and I’m fine with someone speaking whatever language they speak. It doesn’t make me more or less anything, and doesn’t impact my life in any way.

So you support trapping people in a war torn country to fight a war they may not want to, because they happen to have been born there? Not for me thanks.

I also think, that if you self identify as British Indian, your family evidently migrated here at some stage. So did mine. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to judge others doing the same, don’t you think?

Yes it’s a great movie 😀, I’ve seen it a few times.

I think a few will say we should take a very high number but the majority won’t, and the messaging has always been that’s scaremongering we won’t need to do that.

I can’t understand that mindset, either. Most people in the Uk come from immigrant stock if they look back far enough. The pulling up the ladder behind them is inexplicable, Suella Braverman and her hatred for immigrants, for example. Despicable.

Unfortunately I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s not scaremongering. As with the cheesey movie, much more rapidly than we expected, too unless people in power worldwide get their arses in gear and commit.

Population shifts have always happened because of wars, famines, contagions etc, I agree @MrsSkylerWhite.

But the planet has never before supported a total population of c8 billion people. And if they all become aware of a fortunate prosperous country via the smart phone everyone has, then many will move heaven and earth to reach its gold-paved streets.

I understand the why, and sympathise with the unfortunate souls who find themselves in such extremis. But practically, I think the misguided generosity of Sweden and Germany towards the Syrian emigrants has poisoned Merkel's legacy and caused enormous social and cultural issues.

What is the alternative?

If people realise the high numbers part isn’t just made up as some kind of ‘culture war’ as claimed at the last GE they’ll vote accordingly.

You can probably have a low amount coming in with a bit of what we have now in terms of backlash. A very high number and it’ll get difficult to maintain order. And people can vote for a system that just ends it.

I mean hoarding. Keeping it for themselves. It’s obscene when we have a purported housing crisis and there are people living in giant mansions with acres of lands doing nothing really.
farming is different, that land has a purpose and is used to create food and other products we need.

whether she can run for office is irrelevant, her party still exist.
historically we have been less far right than France, or at least that is the perception lots of the asylum seekers have, which is what matters. They don’t feel safe in France.
’Just learn French’ is so ridiculously flippant, it takes years and years to be proficient enough in a language to work as a lawyer or a doctor or in an office etc, and for some people learning a new lanaguge isn’t possible at all. If they already speak English of course they are going to want to go to where they already speak the language.
Also, as I keep saying, France takes its share of refugees too, we should ALL do that. As it’s the right thing to do.

The high numbers of overall migration over recent years aren't a culture war myth. They were much higher than most people thought and that's been covered by people on the left as well as the right. There were a number of reasons for that

• Ukraine war
• Hong Kong scheme arranged by BJ
• the reduction in (more likely to be temporary) migration from the EU following Brexit and the need to make up the shortfall by recruiting from further afield. Those workers were more likely to stay permanently (having come further) and more likely to bring families
• A need to generate better economic growth rates post 2008 and especially Brexit. I agree that focussing only on overall economic growth is flawed if it ignores per capita GDP.

Essentially the Conservatives generated a lot of outrage/negative language about migrants while actively

The levels of "irregular migration" or people seeking asylum are much much lower. And the proportion of those is even lower. Now maybe this number is still too high and indeed having people arriving by boat is both dangerous to them and encourages illegal criminal gang activity which is bad. But they won't be having an impact on eg housing availability/costs even if the sight of migrants in a hotel is a useful focal point for very reasonable frustrations.

I’m focusing on non work visa immigration which is controlled.

I’m asking the pp about irregular migration only and the numbers expected for that. @MrsSkylerWhiteis talking about higher numbers for that not being scaremongering.

Regular immigration might also be too high. There might be a limit on how much the UK should be taking but:

• People already here are people who followed the process and rules set out by the last government. In many cases filling needed gaps in health care etc. In other cases actively invited by the last government. Demonising them is completely wrong.
• We do need people. Even Nigel Farage says that he wouldn't ban immigrants coming to work in the care sector. Even some people on last Saturdays march said they didn't have a problem with people coming " the right way". So on the right as well as in the country at large there is disagreement about whether this immigration is good/how much is good. I think splitting it into left V right or open borders V anti immigration is unhelpful as it creates an idea the government just aren't listening to those with immigration concerns. When even those with immigration concerns have different/sometimes contradictory beliefs. They couldn't make everyone on last Saturdays march happy because of this even if they made it their only priority.

People have been saying " wee need an honest debate about this". But maybe the people who consider themselves on the right/opposed to current immigration levels also need an honest discussion among themselves.