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.

Why? I can see people working in a system might be the strongest advocates for it, of course there’s a whole industry around the system we have - legal and not legal participants. Huge amounts of money involved.

I don’t think it’s those views that take place over the electorate.

I already agreed that it referred to those on boats, and it still does not mean they are not economic migrants; it’s recognised that they cannot or are unlikely to be able to return home. Fleeing poverty, in certain circumstances, is a reason for a grant of protection; fleeing somewhere because you are poor and going somewhere that will give you money is absolutely economic migration, but the claimant knows they have no realistic chance of being accepted on a visa as they will likely have little or no needed skills.

They don’t take priority, but they are reasonably more informed views.

I don’t believe setting numbers and thresholds in an area that you don’t understand and have no control over is useful. Where does it get anyone?

Over the last few weeks, we’re supposed to be having reasonable discussions about asylum with people who still believe you can seek asylum illegally and don’t know the difference between an asylum seeker and a migrant.

People who set their own random thresholds for asylum without even knowing what it is.

I would rather trust the experts than “angry of Internet,” in all honesty.

I haven’t set a threshold I asked if you had an upper limit, or a point where you felt there was an issue. People feel differently on that.

Your answer was no, fine but I think it’s a minority who are ok with however many apply. Politically it would be hard for anyone to sell that in.

I didn’t say you had, I was explaining why I don’t see the value in setting one myself or others using their arbitrary threshold to apply pressure.

I think you’re right, most do want a threshold - some would prefer net zero, and/or no applications. I think as a country we’re leaning towards anti-immigration, and becoming less compassionate to the needs of others.

You won't be granted asylum or humanitarian protection because you are poor and want to make more money.

You're just making stuff up.

Good grief you really are an extremely narrow minded and blinkered individual! Just because I don't agree with you or fit your "right wing racist" narrative, you are clutching at straws to demonise me.

Yes, I have had "decent converstions" with them, I advocate for them on a daily basis, I ferry many around to appointments as part of my job in public health, I've been working with asylum seekers for more than 10 years. I have my own donation service where people can donate toys, clothes, soft furnishings etc which I then arrange to have delivered to their homes. Is that enough for you?

However as I have stated on numerous occassions, genuine asylum seekers are not the same as illegal economic migrants. And the UK cannot safely accomodate an infinite amount of any migrants - legal or otherwise.

Amnesty disagrees with you. The moment a migrant on a boat lands on the UK shores and claims to be an asylum seeker, they are treated as such, whether that was their original intention or not.
”Who is a migrant?
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees.

Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home.
It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.”

We literally just had a judge prevent the deportation of an Indian man back to France because if deported, he “would face destitution”. Thankfully that was overturned and he was deported.

Do you think all conservative-leaning people are nice, and tell the truth at all times?

“However as I have stated on numerous occassions, genuine asylum seekers are not the same as illegal economic migrants”

How do you reliably tell the difference? How do you think the authorities tell the difference, if they all claim the same thing, and none have documentation?

@usernamealreadytaken

I am genuinely confused. What is your standpoint?

Do you personally take issue with asylum, or migration? Or both?

If this is the definition of economic migration.. what’s your issue?

Economic migrants are people who move to another country to improve their livelihood and economic situation, such as by finding better-paying jobs or greater economic opportunities.

Indeed this is a big part of the problem. The illegals make it more difficult for everyone - which is why we need to control migration/asylum numbers.

The asylum seekers I work with don't tend to throw away their passports/documentation like the illegals do. But I do appreciate that some people will lose their documentation/be unable to get it etc but that is the job of the assessors to work out who is genuine and who is not.

Now you're just talking about something totally different that has nothing to do with the fact that of the 99% of people arriving by small boats who put in a claim for asylum, in 2018-24, 68% were granted asylum or humanitarian protections.

You may say that you can be granted asylum due to being economic migrant, the law does not agree with you. They are totally different things.

If you're just going to share random stuff that doesn't relate to the above, you can just read this one comment on repeat and I won't bother replying.

I absolutely believe that a large number of economic migrants claim asylum because firstly, they know they have no chance of being admitted legally anywhere to improve their lives because they will worsen the lives of those already in the receiving country, and secondly because they can be pretty certain that if they claim asylum then they are extremely unlikely to ever be returned to their country of origin.

I object to economic migrants being able to claim asylum and we have to pay to accommodate and support them in perpetuity.

I fully support economic migration where the migrant brings something which is needed to a country, and integrates rather than living in a silo. Yes, that also applies to Brits moving to Benidorm. I do not support economic migration where the migrant is the only one to benefit economically.

Do you think the Afghans who are refugees in the UK because their home is unsafe for them, are taking the piss by going home for holidays?

If you were an economic migrant with an absolutely horrible life at home, wouldn’t you just jump on a boat and claim to be gay, for a better life? The criteria for claiming asylum isn't just to have to prove you are in danger, you can be unwilling to return - the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees -
“…being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

How do you prove somebody isn't scared and is just saying that to stay?

At the end of the day, once somebody reaches the UK it doesn’t matter whether they are a genuine asylum seeker or an economic migrant pretending to be; they are very unlikely to be removed.

In 2023, 2% of all asylum claims cited sexual orientation as part of their reason for seeking asylum.

So no not boats full of poor fake gay unskilled economic migrants. But I suspect you already know that.

You can claim asylum in the UK due to persecution, or perceived persecution due to:

• your race
• your religion
• your nationality
• your political opinion
• anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation

So basically you can claim anything you deem yourself to be at risk because of, such as being either a man or woman or child in a backwards Middle Eastern culture. If you had a crap life, wouldn’t you claim to be at risk of something, in order to make it better?

I’ll ask you again, as you seem to have overlooked answering previously; Do you think all conservative-leaning people are nice, and tell the truth at all times?

I didn't answer as I don't know why that matters... I think there are nice/mean/truthful/dishonest people of every political persuasion.

But not including asylum seekers? Apparently, they are all telling the truth though?

I have no problem with migration, provided it's along the lines of the UAE. You get a visa to do a job, and when you leave, it is cancelled. No right to remain, unless you have bought your home. No path to citizenship. No health provision, no pension other than those you provide for yourself and your family.

From gov website:
The most common nationality among small-boat arrivals in the UK (for the year ending June 2025) is Afghanistan.

I don’t think we have to ‘make up’ why someone’s running from the Taliban.

You have a real, deep mistrust.

Economic migration that involves someone bettering their life by earning more, for the most part involves paying into the UK taxation system, and working within UK services/businesses. I fail to see how that only benefits the migrant.

I have no idea how or why someone’s life would be worsened by someone else bettering theirs. Unless they just didn’t want to live amongst those from different cultures, countries or backgrounds - and that’s a them problem.

It is a shame that you only support people fleeing persecution or bettering their life if it benefits yours. Fairly selfish way to live but each to their own.

Brits moving to Benidorm should learn Spanish, but I sincerely doubt they speak Spanish to each other or in their own homes.

I think it’s nothing to do with me where people go to visit their families. One of my colleagues visits Pakistan fairly regularly, that doesn’t mean he has to live there.

And the ones who are going home for holidays?
https://news.sky.com/story/afghans-relocated-to-uk-exaggerating-taliban-threat-ex-interpreter-says-13423813

I’ve answered that, you just didn’t like the answer.

The majority of people coming on boats will never be net contributors; they lack the skills and education for higher paying jobs and will likely always be supported by taxpayers. Those who are highly skilled and educated are more likely to come via legal visa routes. Whichever way they decide to come here, don’t you think the developing nation they are leaving might need them too, having educated and trained them?

“I have no idea how or why someone’s life would be worsened by someone else bettering theirs.” - how about having to pay for the majority of refugees and economic migrants because they will never be able to support themselves and their families? That severely impacts the UK’s ability to spend money on its own people. Seeing the nature of their area change when they have had little or no say in it? Hotels no longer available for use, HMOs taking housing away from local people?

If somewhere it
s safe enough for a holiday, it’s safe enough to live in.

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.

https://public.tableau.com/views/AsylumYEDec2024/Fig14?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no&:host_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublic.tableau.com%2F&:embed_code_version=3&:tabs=no&:toolbar=yes&:animate_transition=yes&:display_static_image=no&:display_spinner=no&:display_overlay=yes&:display_count=yes&:language=en-GB&:loadOrderID=15

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.

I had a Uber driver from Afghanistan a few months ago. He'd moved many many years ago but he told me he went back on holiday a few months ago and just loved it there. And that's it's all good.