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 sorry, but the audacity of you being an economic migrant and saying you don’t want refugees anywhere near you.

It doesn’t matter what you’ve claimed from the tax payer, you came here for a better life and received one. Allow others the same.

Unfortunately, the actual facts don’t support your feelz.
Refugees have lower qualifications and employment rates than the UK born
The data show that people who come to the UK to seek asylum tend to have lower levels of education compared to other migrants and the UK-born population (Figure 14). While around 16% hold high-level qualifications (NQF Level 6 and above), such as university degrees, a significant 30% have no formal qualifications – compared to just 8% among the UK born.
Figure 14

Research on resettled refugees indicates that employment rates are low. Similarly, labour market data on people who report arriving in the UK seeking protection find lower employment rates than among the UK born, with a particularly large gap among women (Figure 14). Several factors contribute to this trend, including low English proficiency and chronic health conditions. For those who arrive in the UK spontaneously (i.e., not through resettlement programmes), there is evidence that prolonged waiting periods during the asylum process can also hinder career progression.
Between 2020 and 2022, men who came to seek asylum at least ten years previously had much higher employment rates than recent arrivals, narrowing the gap with the UK born (Figure 15).
For women, however, disparities in employment persisted even after long periods of residence. Studies suggest that limited English proficiency and cultural norms around childcare—particularly common in regions such as North Africa and the Middle East, where many refugees originate—play a major role in women’s continued economic inactivity. Additionally, difficulties attending English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes, including due to childcare responsibilities, can further hinder refugee women’s integration into the labour market

Is that for the initial claim? Or with appeals

I can be an immigrant myself and realise the damage that mass immigration has and will cause to UK society. Immigration if needed should be limited to the areas we have shortages for.

Also we need to seriously look at cultural compatibility and immigration. That's something that's often overlooked. Everyone just focuses on economic numbers only.

(DH, myself, DS and DD all have or are working towards masters degrees in STEM fields)

We have always been able to deport people, we have detention centres where people are detained and then deported.
”one in one out” allows the uk to deport people to France if that’s where they crossed from before their claim has been processed rather than after. Some cases may then be processed while that person is in France from what I understand.
It replaces a similar arrangement we had pre-brexit that allowed people seeking asylum to be returned to the first EU country they had passed through. Part of the current backlog is due to this agreement no longer being in place and is why this has been introduced.

@Cosmicbroccoli thank you for answering my question.

Those figures relate to people who arrived by small boats, not asylum seekers in general. 68% have been accepted as at risk of serious harm or persecution - either refugees or in need of humanitarian protection. Therefore not economic migrants.

I’m sorry, but the audacity of you being an economic migrant and saying you don’t want refugees anywhere near you.

I'm also an immigrant to the UK and I agree with her. Immigration is needed but should be those who benefit the country and integrate, and not in the huge numbers we saw under Boris Johnson.

68% have been accepted as at risk of serious harm or persecution - either refugees or in need of humanitarian protection. Therefore not economic migrants.

"I'm gay". Job done.

So now they're boats full of fake homosexual economic migrants!

This is just getting silly now.

It seems some are keen to assume the worst of asylum seekers regardless of any sense or evidence.

I wonder why that is?

But I doubt I will get a sensible answer here.

OP, everyone dislikes asylum seekers because they are all unskilled, uneducated, poor, criminal, fake homosexual economic migrants with no British values.

No prejudice involved or anything 😆

@PurpleNurple23 / @SpaceRaccoon

So you both think it’s acceptable to either refuse people in genuine need asylum, or vilify those who are economic migrants and move here for a better life, when presumably that was your reasoning for moving too?

On this exact thread, there’s been remarks about staying in your home country and helping it prosper, rather than coming here for safety or for your own development. Do you not see that those who feel that way could ask you the same question? Why didn’t you stay put and prosper there?

My family didn’t. They’d have starved to death in their home country had they not migrated here. I don’t take that for granted or blame others for doing the same.

It’s hypocritical at best to be an anti immigration immigrant.

@SleeplessInWhereveris there an upper limit for you for how many the UK should take?

This.

Yes, there’s never a straight answer about what numbers would be acceptable or manageable. Opening all borders would create huge migrant camps, surely, even if any spare or under-occupied properties were commandeered.

Last I checked, that wasn’t my job!

I don’t believe however that zero is the answer. Which is at least implied by those who don’t want any migrants anywhere near them.

How are we all supposed to know those numbers? I genuinely do not work for the Home Office, or in any form of immigration services.

No idea. But what I can tell you is my “acceptable” line is the same as my “manageable” line, in that where we can manage to take them - we should.

It doesn’t need to be your job, but is there a point where it feels to high for you? If 2000 were arriving a day or higher? Do you think it could be an issue or is it ok

Arrivals don’t matter. The more reasonable figure to look at would be how many stay.

If after arrival the asylum process is (generally) followed, then those who are deemed able to stay can stay as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t believe in open borders, I believe in a fair and managed asylum and immigration system, and if the result of that process is that you’re approved to remain then.. great, welcome. If not, then time to go back.

On this exact thread, there’s been remarks about staying in your home country and helping it prosper, rather than coming here for safety or for your own development. Do you not see that those who feel that way could ask you the same question? Why didn’t you stay put and prosper there?

Because I met a British man and moved to be with him.

It's not hypocrisy, I have zero issues with other highly educated and law abiding immigrants who integrate.

Ok so this sounds like no upper limit, just that people are assessed. I think some will feel the same, but more will see high numbers and put political pressure to change. Particularly if we start seeing what @MrsSkylerWhitereferred to earlier (high numbers).

I don’t think some posters will accept any number is too high. I really don’t understand the mindset, particularly of advocating for clearly wrong’uns.

I looked who was defending The Hyde Park rapist (and wanted terrorist) and, lo and behold, it was an “activist” chambers - not just an allocated defence. So they had “picked” him. What motivates them to advocate for a nasty excuse for a human being and a danger to women and society?

Yeah, yeah, everyone is entitled to a defence but, as I stated, this individual was represented by a chambers known for a liking for anti-establishment causes; it was not chance he ended up with them.

We have only ever been able to deport people to a country which accepts returns. It’s also very difficult to deport somebody who has no papers and whose country of origin cannot definitively be established.

I’m well aware that some people think it reasonable to apply political pressure once we reach some arbitrary threshold that they’ve set themselves, with absolutely no involvement in the actual process, and societal pressure too - those people are wrong.

And then there's this, for instance:

Afghan asylum seekers ‘go home on holiday’ https://share.google/hJYn9ZzV4ogiPVaxU