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.

I’m not posting about this. I’m asking @MrsSkylerWhitere the millions who are at risk of dying.

I could be wrong about this but I would have thought... To an extent those numbers will exist no matter what measures the government will have in place? (unless deterrence effect kicks in). Because even if the government returned every single person who comes by boat, they would still be counted in the figures as arrivaling (but also in departures). If those are the figures you mean... Correct me if I got it wrong again.

So it all depends on factors the government really can't control like the weather (nice summers =more boats) and events in other countries. And things which the government can only partially control (they can limit push factors by advertising the problems with immigration in places like Albania, they can I guess try to encourage stability in other countries. Not bomb Iraq for a while). But if for example, all the people in Gaza get pushed into Jordan and Jordan (already with 30%of its population being Syrian refugees) then starts to collapse under pressure, you would see more immigrants trying to reach Europe and also the UK. Regardless of who's in government. And the UK government (despite what protesters on the left think) have very.little.influence there.

The UK can choose to an extent how it handles immigrants once they get here. But they can't have absolute control over the push factors in other countries. Sending a legitimate refugee back to certain death in another country is morally rough if theoretically possible. But even if a government did, the fact they were coming at all would still be portrayed as an "invasion" by the right.

The funny thing is about this thread is that one day, not too far off into the future, all of the pro-migrant posters are going to say:

"oh, lord, what have I done"

That's a fact.

Err, why?

It’s not about migration, it’s about illegal migration. It’s as simple as that to me.

If by illegal migration you mean asylum seekers, it’s not illegal.

You are sure I would advocate for no one being returned are you? And you base that on what? Because I think it’s inhumane to treat humans like cattle or I don’t get all hysterical about all the men in boats who are coming to take over the country? I am equally sure many of the people objecting to asylum seekers would want none to be allowed to stay, at least none who are brown or black or Muslim. It’s funny I don’t see any objection to the many white immigrants in this country.
I can’t say exactly how many I think should stay, that depends on many factors, but I do think we should give someone seeking asylum a fair hearing. And if they aren’t deemed a refugee then they should be returned. The system should weed out criminals to an extent, though I acknowledge that it’s not perfect. But unless we close the borders entirely, including to tourists, then there is no way or entirely controlling crime.
and Yes I do think non-western values should be accommodated unless they pose harm to someone else. Why not? Embracing people from all walks of life is how we combat prejudice and bigotry.

the majority do:”^In reality, 70% of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their homeland. For example, Jordan currently hosts 1.3 million refugees from neighbouring Syria. ““https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/why-dont-refugees-stay-first-country-they-reach^

This page includes information on the multiple reasons why people might seek refuge further away including; conflict in the region, family ties. It also states that we accommodate 1% of the worlds refugees.

Yes, those people are a problem that needs tackling, I don’t advocate for that as those are the people most likely to be exploited in sweat shops and forced prostitution rings. I have spoken to women who came across and intended to claim asylum but were bundled into vans and forced to work. Those kind of things are problematic and definitely need addressing, I don’t disagree with that. But those are not the people being targeted at hotels and etc are they?
I’m not naive enough to think that every single person crossing that way has a legitimate claim to asylum, that’s what the process of claiming asylum is for to figure out which is which.

both or these issues are issues with government departments, not the fault of people in hotels and b&bs.

to answer your last question I think every country that is able to should be taking a share of the worlds refugees. What exact share that should be is way above my pay grade, but a fair share based on size of population, size of country, wealth of country etc etc.

No. If you intend to claim asylum then you can enter via small boat. That is not illegal. It is not illegal for anyone to make a claim to asylum. If that claim is rejected then at that point you are no longer an asylum seeker and you don’t a visa to remain, so you must leave.

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.

This has been said many times on here already, but do you know what happens to men of fighting age in e.g. Afghanistan? Have a google if not. It's not like in WW2 in the UK when the worst you could fear was someone shoving a white feather at you.

In countries where the Taliban etc are in charge, young men are drafted into their armies and forced to comply, if they don’t they are killed. Would you want your son/brother/husband/friend doing that? Maybe given the regime’s running the countries they don’t WANT to fight for their country. And that’s ok.

It’s peculiar then that those fleeing violence/war/peril become involved in crime….

Some posters might want to look at the Swedish experience - choose any news source, left, right or centre. They are really suffering with gang and drug warfare, with politicians admitting that integration has not happened and that the Swedish tolerant and liberal lifestyle has not been embraced.

I don't want them here. We do not benefit from having them here.

Great. We have progress. Who is “them.”

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.

Do you mean large gardens? If so, what’s the maximum size of garden anyone could have before it becomes obscene?
If you don’t mean that, can you give some actual examples of what you do mean?

@VindaloroYou don’t know what you’re talking about.

I like the countryside and I don’t care who owns it as long as public footpaths are honoured. I do not care at all to see it concerted over for new housing; plenty of brownfield for that. A population increasing at the rate of knots, with many demanding public housing - we’re all going to have to learn to like living in flats.

concreted over! Autocorrect has visions of Glyndebourne!

I don’t think we will have to. Or shouldn’t anyway. We don’t need to just keep going upwards on population.

Contraceptives in the water? Sorry, that's facetious of me, but any solution has to involve reducing the total global population. I would prefer it to happen humanely and gently but nothing I have read in history makes me think mass migration will be anything other than bloody and barbaric.

You could be a politcian, given your nom-answer. So, I'll ask again; 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?

I did answer. If there are no safe routes, how do you imagine that works? We're talking about asylum seekers here, people fleeing war, persecution.

I don't think multiculturalism and diversity has all been that great. We all live together in a society. You can't be a fully integrated and functioning member of society without knowing the language.

If you mention British expats moving to Spain, I would say, yes they need to learn Spanish.

I do think people should fight and defend their nation in times of dire crisis. Like how Ukrainian men (for the most part) haven't fled and have stayed.

I did migrate with my DH back in the 90s. We have never taken a dime from the tax payer and have always been self reliant.

You can be an immigrant and realise the damaging effects of mass migration be it legal, illegal or asylum shopping.

its not strange at all, desperate people do desperate things. Also please don’t suggest that crime is the norm for asylum seekers because it isn’t.