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 don't these "poor souls" get on a cheap flight to Britain instead of risking their lives and paying £££ to people smugglers? Could it be because then they'd need documentation - which they've 'lost'?
We don't have a clue who these men are (but I know they're not all doctors and engineers) yet we're expected to pay to house, feed and provide healthcare for them. It's not difficult to understand why people are resentful.

There are no British embassies in those countries. You can’t just pop over and apply for a visa and hop on a Ryanair flight. Most of those countries don’t support flights to and from. For example, you as an individual from a western country without restrictions on your freedom, would not be able to go on lastminute.com and book a cheap flight to Iraq.

@AnotherNC12345 "and that’s because it’s likely to be the route that’s dictated or sold to them by the gang in the first place, as opposed to them being born in to deciding the UK is their ultimate aspirational goal."

Untrue. They pay people smugglers to cross to Europe in boats from their home countries and they can claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive at. They pay extra to cross the Channel which is their individual choice based solely on a desire to come to the UK.

As for the general public taking their wrath out on people smugglers. How do you propose they do that then? If the Government can't find them and crack down on them, then how do you suggest ordinary working class people do? But if you do have any inside intelligence I'm sure Westminster would be very keen to hear from you.

I will never have any anger for those seeking a better life (due to fleeing war, persecution or simply wanting a safer, more secure, better life).

Any anger I would have would be squarely aimed at government and poorly managed policy.

Because it’s easy

I simply don’t understand why - and yes, at an individual level, campaigners fight for some pretty nasty characters who have turned up here.

Alarmingly I’ve even seen women defend sexual crimes as being merely misunderstanding of cultural norms here.

As it's ever been I'm old enough to remember the following.
Single mums
The unemployed
The Vietnamese boat people
The polish
The Ukrainians
The disabled
And now back too immigrants
The last four are of more recent times.

It is the anger at individuals that really troubles me. Shouting outside hotels, attacks. This is wrong, and some humanity to man wouldn’t go amiss before our society descends into a terrible place.
I will have different views on immigration to others, I accept that and it’s ok to debate, to argue - but not to attack people. Even if every last one were an ‘economic migrant’ in hotels (hint, they’re not) this way of dealing with them is unacceptable.
I hear that ‘they’ commit offences - not all white men are jimmy savile and not all asylum seekers are committing offences, so don’t lump them altogether and attack all.
The right place to protest about immigration, asylum seekers if you must, is Downing Street, or write to your MP.
It makes me incredibly sad and concerned that this is now seen as an ok way to treat actual people in some quarters. Best hope MSM don’t lead the vigilantes into despising you.

Genuinely though, how do you even know where you are half the time? How do you know you’ve reached the first safe country if you’re bundled at the back of a van or a shipping container? You’re not exactly walking through the border with a big sign saying “welcome to Italy”.

The bigger debate about why they don’t stay in France has been done already - some additional may be language (English is more widely taught abroad than French and certainly easier to learn, cultural ties so it’s easier to find your feet etc). They actually get more money weekly from France, and you can get a job faster there (6m not 12m wait), but police hostility towards refugees is harsher than UK, so I can imagine someone fleeing danger may not want to be subjected to that.

The last question is a tad pointless. Nobody is suggesting the ordinary people need to start hunting down people smugglers, just like they shouldn’t be hunting down asylum seekers. That’s not what the debate is about.

There's a hotel in a town near me that up until recently was used for women and children and families seeking asylum. They had integrated into the local community and the children went to the local schools but then some bright spark decided to house single males there. Some of the women were assaulted so the same bright sparks decided to move the families out and it will be all single males living there.

So yes, I can have anger for those 'seeking a better life' when they come here with no respect for anyone. Those families should not have been forced to move, the 'men' should have been put on the first plane back to their home country.

While unemployment is rising, it's around 4%, which is low. It's been significantly higher for most of my 70-year lifetime. And we have labour shortages in many areas, because successive governments have failed to invest in training.

Homelessness has been a problem for most of my lifetime, too: my own family came within a gnat's cock of being homeless in the late 1950s, and we had neighbours who had suffered homelessness in the 60s and early 70s. I spent 10 years working in homelessness prevention and resettlement, and am very aware of the causes of homelessness, the primary one of which is failure to invest in new homes for affordable rents.

Any UK citizen who hasn't recently arrived from abroad will be entitled to means-tested benefits, providing they don't have too much capital or income in excess of their maximum entitlement. Anyone unemployed who is "entitled to bugger all" is either disentitled on income/capital grounds, has recently spent a significant period living overseas or sanctioned for being unemployed without good reason. Refugees are treated exactly the same as UK nationals once they have been granted asylum, and providing that they have been here long enough to satisfy the "past presence" requirement of whichever benefit they are claiming. Asylum seekers get less than £50 pw if they are not in a hostel where meals are provided, considerably less than the £400 a month an unemployed UK citizen would get in Universal Credit.

Anyone who thinks that refugees are getting a better deal than UK nationals needs to do some research and apply a bit of critical thinking.

They could get on a flight from whichever European country they've travelled to Britain from.

Well being a man doesn't mean you can't be an asylum seeker. One of the reason more men go is because they often are subjected to more torture, they are often forced to be within the military, they can face worse consequences in countries like Sudan, or the DRC etc.

For example, in Eritrea, men are often subjected to indefinite national service. Those who try to evade conscription can face torture, imprisonment, or execution. Many Eritrean men flee for this reason.

In countries experiencing civil wars, like South Sudan, young men are especially vulnerable to being forcibly recruited into government or rebel forces. If they refuse, they may face violent reprisals.

Men in conflict zones are also victims of sexual violence, more than we expect. In the DRC, the UN has documented widespread cases of men and boys being raped in detention or conflict settings as a form of humiliation and control.

You also cannot claim asylum until you are on UK soil, unless you are coming from Ukraine and Hong Kong. That it is the only current programme which exists, and I'm happy about that but it means for anyone else from many countries in turmoil have to reach here before you can reach asylum seekers. There is UKRS which an existing scheme for vulnerable refugees. You have to be referred for resettlement by partners such as the UNHCR.

Also before Brexit we were part of the Dublin III Regulation in which the EU tried to determine which member state was responsible for examining an asylum claim. In practice states could return asylum seekers to the first “safe” EU country they entered - however since Brexit we can no longer do that. So that's another reason why we now have to take more asylum seekers.

Finally the reason why many asylum seekers lack passports or documents is because first many countries don't provide the documentation, if you are fleeing from a dictatorship or a violent regime you can't exactly go to the passport office and say can I have one before you try and escape.
If your facing, a girl facing FGM cannot ask the local authorities for a passport as the community is often complicit in the practice, making official documents impossible to access without flagging something.Or like in northern Mozambique last week when Al Shabbah forcibly displaced many from their homes and killed some people, children watching decapitation, displacing thousands, burning homes and committing atrocities. Families had no chance to retrieve personal documents before running for safety.

In northern Nigeria, Boko Haram raids on villages force mass displacement. When insurgents seize homes and property, residents not only lose shelter but also identity papers.

If you're escaping the sexual violence across Goma and the DRC, you are at risk of retribution from the military you cannot travel to your home (which many don't have any more), to get documents, you have to flee and do so as quickly as possible. Military forces, or militias often deliberately seize or destroy identity papers to control populations or prevent escape. For instance, Rohingya refugees in Myanmar were widely documented as having their papers confiscated, leaving them stateless, on purpose.

Just grabbed a few points from my dear friend ChatGPT. Based on some interviews and research with refugees:

• Refugees sometimes try to claim asylum earlier (in Greece, Italy, or France), but find:
• Overcrowded camps (e.g., Greek islands).
• Homelessness or poor shelter (e.g., Calais, Paris).
• Long waits and bureaucracy.

• After negative experiences, they keep moving west until they reach France — and from there, the UK is “just across the water”

• Smugglers often sell the UK as the destination because it’s more expensive — they make more money.
• By the time refugees reach northern France, the infrastructure (boats, lorries, routes) is mostly geared toward reaching Britain, not Germany or Spain.

The small boats are a distraction from the fact that the government allowed over a million legal migrants per year after 2020.

I think we have a moral duty to help refugees. The government loves the drama however because it distracts from its failure to plan for anywhere near enough housing, infrastructure or integration plans for the actual millions of people who have moved here and which is undeniably causing issues.

Try finding a flat or room in any city and you will start to question whether hmm there are actually way too many people here

Considering half dont get granted asylum they would appear to not qualify either.

And they also have the option of applying for a Visa should they fancy it... I wonder why they dont?

That’s not how the routes work though. An asylum seeker doesn’t travel independently, they are trafficked and have no say where you stop or even the capacity to tell where they are. Someone throws you out in the mountains and tells you to walk west then wait for the next truck, how are you to know if you’re in Italy or Macedonia?

I wonder why they don’t get angry at the Brexit lot, when immigration has increased tenfold since Brexit.

Nail on the head!

It depends on what you mean by “the public“.

IMO, the worst part of all this is the generalisation by media and the government, of “the public”, who they appear to regard as/confuse with “the Far Right:

Protesting parents of schoolchildren who have been aggressively targeted by residents of migrant hotels for sexual favours? They must be Far Right…

Protesting citizens who don’t want to see flags of other countries being flown proudly, while theirs are removed? They must be Far Right…

Protesting people who are fed up with the services, for which their taxes pay, being siphoned off to house and pay for legal aid for thousands of asylum seekers while they themselves are facing huge CoL increases? They must be Far Right…

Protesting people who want to uphold our ancient laws and not be subjected to suggestions or reality that Sharia law should be applied here with its inherent misogyny? They must be Far Right…

Protesting people who want to keep our traditional culture and customs alive and not have to stop practicing these in case they offend a minority (rather than educate them)? They must be Far Right…

These are “the public” - they have many legitimate concerns about the apparent disregard which the government are displaying towards them, and because a small minority are the Racists that are mentioned by the OP, they are tarring all of those who protest as “Far Right” or worse.

That’s where the anger is really directed - at those that have been elected to tackle these problem.

They, on the other hand appear to be blaming “the public” for their failures instead of addressing their own shortcomings in carrying out the task they have been elected to do, which is to process and integrate immigrants into OUR society.

Instead, they just abandon them, allowing a minority to practice their own preferred and unacceptable behaviours for an overly extended period before those that really want to live here can become net contributors in our society, while sending the economic and unwilling to integrate migrants to a previous safe country through which they have already travelled to get here!

The society that doesn't reward idlers you mean?

Many of those shouting long and loud wouldn't be any better off if there weren't migrants. But thats not the point.

I didn't say that they were "always" highly qualified, but that "some" of those I have worked with are. They include a psychiatrist, now working in the NHS in the Midlands, a surveyor, who was supported to get chartered status and got a job as soon as he did, an archaeologist, now running education programmes for a local museum, and a midwife (also working in the NHS).

Because you can’t apply for asylum from abroad, and visas are not available to people who don’t have the means to support themselves in the UK. Asylum is for people who are fleeing, not students or professionals who come for work or study. As mentioned before, we don’t know why the other half don’t meet requirements as this data is not published - that doesn’t automatically mean that they don’t qualify because of their circumstances, it could be because they don’t have a Filofax of evidence or because they missed appointments for whatever reason.

Just to clarify - I am in no way saying that 100% of people that reach this country are genuine asylum seekers. But I’m criticising the attitude towards those that are.

That’s anger at criminal activity.

An entirely different topic.

So that’s four productive people, great. Out of thousands of others who aren’t, and never will be, not having the language skills or education necessary.