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.

@Papyrophile I didn't say they were mostly full of anyone (except genuine asylum seekers). I challenged the idea that well educated or skilled people wouldn't be arriving by boat. I don't see any basis for that assumption.

I’m very well aware that life isn’t fair. I’m also well aware that what I’m saying I’d like to see doesn’t reflect the world. The question(s) I was asked, asked what MY opinion is and what I think is right.
So you can patronise me all you like, I know the world is full of selfish, self obsessed, self important, greedy people who think they deserve the wealth they have because they Worked Hard. They don’t like to admit to themselves that it’s mostly sheer luck as to where and to whom you are born whether you will be wealthy or not.
and none of that changes the fact that there are people in this country and the world over who are starving and others who are obscenely wealthy. The truth is there is plenty of resources to go round, but people are selfish and don’t want to share. You’ll never change my mind that a palace with hundreds of rooms being used for one family and hosting scum like Donald Trump over housing human beings is right, 🤷🏼‍♀️

I’m not assuming anything, I regularly meet with asylum seekers and refugees.

Because it fits your narrative it’s more credible. I work with asylum seekers all across the country, I’ve personally been in contact with probably 7 or 8 thousand in the last 5 years.

we have also been part of destabilising yhe middle east and Africa but let’s conveniently forget that eh?
if you’re as old as you say you are, maybe your memory is failing you.

There are doctors and nurses and lawyers and physiotherapists and experienced carers and psychologists and teachers and many many more in those boats

No-one believes that any more.

we have also been part of destabilising yhe middle east and Africa but let’s conveniently forget that eh?

So immigration/asylum is our sins-of-the-fathers punishment?

No, taking in asylum seekers is a ‘being a decent human being and giving a shit about other people’ thing.
That comment was in response to some bullshit about how we deserve to have a nice time because we ‘put time into making the world we live in’, as if the West are the hero in an action movie. If the sins of the father are not ours to bare, then by the same logic we aren’t worthy of better because of our ancestors successes, are we? Can’t have that both ways, I’m afraid.

You don’t count as everyone. Plenty of us do believe it, as we see it, and know the people involved. I worked with a doctor who came as a refugee from Syria for years. My neighbours are both teachers from Afghanistan.

And yet anyone who had actually recently worked in the asylum hotels speaks of mostly uneducated young men.

For the highly educated, there are legal, professional immigration pathways.

The royal family generate more in tourism and revenue than their living allowance.

If you have any extra spare rooms or extra space would you be willing to take in a refugee?

Your success is down to you.

@OwlBeThere you are clearly very naive if all these thousands of refugees and asylum seekers you have met told you they are doctors, physiotherapists, lawyers. Maybe they are, but strange ones indeed who instead choose to hang around in tracksuits, phone in hand.

“We need them to work in the NHS/ care for the elderly” yep - these men are all desperate to do care work. And, of course, they must be allowed at the earliest opportunity to bring over multiple family members all needing healthcare themselves.

We don't need to. It doesn't benefit it. And actually makes life in the UK worse. So just don't have them.

Yeah but you did assume I’d not met any.

I don't think that there was much resentment against the Ukranians?

No, the majority are not granted asylum. Less than 50% of claims are granted, and not all of those are granted refugee status; a significant minority are granted other types of leave such as humanitarian protection.

The UK still has significantly higher grant rates than our European neighbours; we often receive those who have been rejected elsewhere, in part because it’s well known that once you’re on this island you’re very unlikely to ever be removed. We’re basically just the recipient for those which European doesn’t want.

Between 2018 and 2024, the asylum grant rate for people who arrived by small boat was 68%.

We likely have more people aiming for the U.K. for various reasons than just this.

So predictable: they bring in more money in tourism and anyway why don’t you put up a refugee.Everyone always trots that out as justification.
The tourists would still come to see the palaces and trooping of the colour and all that stuff, how often do said tourists clap eyes on one of the royals? Rarely. Also they would still come if Charlie and co lived far less ostentatious lives and shared the wealth around.
I have had refugees stay in my house. I think at last count it was 12. I don’t have much room, but I turned my dining room into my bedroom. They have always been pretty good house guests. I had one once who was not the nicest woman, but I’m not sure I’d be very nice if I grew up in Eritrea.
I’m sure you believe that is how success works but it really isn’t. Research shows that the biggest predictors of academic success are based on family and genetics, ie DNA and socioeconomic status. So, luck basically.

Don’t be disingenuous, I didn’t say they were ALL those things did I? Obviously they aren’t all well educated, and the longer their countries are in disarray the less likely they will be those things due to lack of education and opportunity, particularly the women.
However lots of them are, or were studying to be before things fell apart.
The ones ‘hanging around on their phones in tracksuits’ are people who are not allowed to work. They don’t have any money to do much except hang around. What do you expect them to do? Not sure what tracksuits have to do with anything. Are tracksuits not allowed if you’re not British?!

I refer you back to the ‘giving a shit about people’ thing.

but actually we do need to, the refugee convention of 1951 obligates countries to allow people to seek asylum within their borders, and not to re-patriate people who will be persecuted if they are.

I didn’t assume it, I just doubted you ever had. That isn’t the same thing. And I still doubt you’ve ever had any decent conversations with any of them. Took any time to get to know them as people.

I wouldn't want a single refugee in my house or in my area. I can see the negative societal effects in the UK and what happened in the EU.

I can talk about success. DH and I grew up with very little in India. Honestly next to nothing, we just believed in education and working hard. Moved over to the UK (legally and didn't claim a single penny from the tax payer) and built a life for ourselves. Have instilled the values of hard work onto our kids.

I think for any physically healthy person your success is down to you. If you're able bodied, got 2 arms and 2 legs, what you do in life is down to you. I'd also like to thank billionaires for the many tech products we are both using to write on this thread

Between 2018 and 2024, the asylum grant rate for people who arrived by small boat was 68%.

So then if 32% were refused the right to remain presumably they were deported. If that is the case, why has Keir Starmer brought in ‘one in one out’ if people were already being deported.

That rate is for a grant of protection, meaning that the individual does NOT meet the criteria to be granted refugee status, but it’s recognised that they cannot or are unlikely to be able to return home. It is not the same as being a refugee, although the burden to the UK taxpayer is the same. Even when protection is not granted, it’s very unlikely that an individual will ever be returned anyway, that’s why they continue to come and actually being granted protection doesn’t really make any difference.

Those figures include Ukrainian refugees, which also skews the figures.

According to Home Office figures, “The average grant rate between 2001 and 2018 was 29%, with the highest grant rate in this period being 41% in 2014.” Do you think this means that fewer people were genuine refugees during that period, or just that we had better processing procedures?