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.

So 62% don’t speak English well if it’s their second language?

Where did he say that? I was born in the UK, and hold a UK passport. Other than a couple of spells of mat leave, I’ve worked all my life, and not claimed state support even when “entitled” to, because we had enough money (I know, what a mug!). Where did Farage say he wanted to deport me?

Retired British people who decide to settle overseas, for whatever reason, are not entering those countries via subterfuge. They come with return tickets and money to buy or rent property, and are required to have a minimum income (generally at least equivalent to local minimum wage) plus funding their own healthcare. It's possible to cope without more than a smattering of the language -- until you develop complex health problems.

We have both been migrants before, in our 20s and 30s, one in the US, via a first marriage, and t'other in the Middle East for work/travel/adventure, and were planning to retire in Portugal on a D7 visa. I am good at languages, but we have decided against moving since DH has twice been blue-lighted to hospital.

I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen anybody suggesting that immigrants should speak the language of their host nation all the time, in private and with friends or relatives; only that they learn to do so to communicate with people in the host nation, in public, medical, education settings etc. We spend an eye watering amount on interpretation services, far beyond the time when it would be reasonable to expect an adult to have a fair grasp of the language. IIRC the government was looking to cap the length of time that interpreters can be funded for, but not sure whether that ever happened.

Didn't I already mention the woman at the GP who struggled with the receptionist because she just couldn't speak English

You’re referring to migrants, but this thread is specifically discussing asylum seekers, who are supported from public funds as soon as they arrive. Once their claim is processed and if they are accepted as a refugee or given other humanitarian protection, they have the same access to public funds as any other citizen.

Refugees are less likely to work and if they do it’s more likely to be in low paid jobs, so are a net-drain on the economy. There are some exceptions, as there are in everything, and some will be highly skilled and highly paid and net contributors, but for the majority, that’s not the case.

It’s hard to find any definitive figures on how much is spent on interpretation services because different services keep their own records, but good old Google seems to indicate around £100mn a year between the NHS, policing, and DWP. That’s only the direct cost, it doesn’t count the indirect cost such as appointments taking longer due to three-way conversations.

Yes, some parents would not allow any socialising outside school.
this is how parallel communities can develop.

. Tried to delete as I’d missed off what I was replying to

It says 52% speak it as their main language and 38% speak it well despite it not being their main language.
that adds up to the 90% that speak English well
so it would be 10% that do not speak English well.

You did. That’s one woman, with limited language skills.

You don’t know many things about that situation. How long she’s been here, whether she’s waiting for English lessons, whether she’s actually trying to develop her English skills but is finding it difficult, whether someone more fluent usually goes either her.

You’re also not considering how difficult it must be for her to try and meet her basic needs, like a medical appointment, without the right skill set.

Not you specifically, but people do seem very quick to judge situations that they’re not privy to the full information about.

I have seen comments about people feeling “unnerved” because people around them are speaking different languages to each other.

However even using your example, if I’d just arrived in Spain, and had not yet been able to learn Spanish, I’d hope for some grace while that happened, and to still be able to attend a medical centre if I needed to.

On your first point, I do think context would be relevant. Somebody just out in public chatting with the person/people they're with, fine. Two men hanging around an area with lots of women or children, not so much (and I’d feel the same about men speaking English if they looked leery/dodgy).

Absolutely, which is why I indicated that I support a reasonable cap, not abolition.

Maybe she should have learnt the language before moving? Or at least developed a conversational understanding?

We don’t know the context of why she is/was here. If you were with a partner got a new job in a different country would you be able to learn the new language before moving? I know I wouldn’t in a few of months, as I have other commitments and family responsibilities.
Or say I was fleeing war or being persecuted - what would I do hold off until I learn the language or evacuate? Where am I going to access English classes or resources to be able to learn in those circumstances?

Maybe?

But maybe you also should mind your own business about conversations with receptionists that you’re not part of, with people you don’t know.

Maybe.

No. 52% use it as their first language, a further 38% speak it well but it is not their first language. Which means 10% don’t speak it well.

Then I dont understand what you’re saying, Spain also gives asylum seekers an allowance, and Refugees in Spain are entitled to same benefits are Spanish nationals once they are given refugee status. Which is the exact same as our system.

Ok…and what?
refugees and asylum seekers aren’t the only people who use interpreters. Other kinds of migrants and those who are deaf and deafblind also need them.

Or maybe I can understand that to truly integrate and be part of society you need to learn the language.

The woman was in her 50s at least. She had health records at the GP surgery and was struggling to communicate about her needs. Obviously I wish her well with her health issues, but had she been here for a while (which I assume but do not know) she probably should have picked up the language.

It’s very difficult, almost impossible to learn a language without having someone to speak it with. New languages with new sounds require the persons mouth to be used to new shapes and positions, that muscle memory doesn’t evolve without speaking it out loud.
So it’s easy to say learn it before you move, but it’s not that simple.

You don’t know that she isn’t learning it. You don’t know if she has access to any opportunity to learn it.

You don’t know how long she’s been here for, as you said yourself you assumed.

You know nothing about this woman, apart from what you’ve seen of her in a doctor’s surgery and have formed an uninformed judgement on.

You’re doing an awful lot of being bothered about someone you know nothing about.

I don’t know why you’re so deeply bothered by a woman you don’t know a thing about and have no dealings with.

and to still be able to attend a medical centre if I needed to.

@SleeplessInWherever you would be able to attend a medical centre in Spain if you needed to but you would have to pay for an interpreter.

Let’s face it, that’s actually quite unlikely, because many people in Europe have some level of English skill.

Sorry, two different conversation threads, getting confused. The discussion about Brits moving to Spain was originally brought up by another poster, and we went off on a tangent. Recourse to public funds depends on their visa type or immigration status; those with LLR, EU migrants with settled or pre-settled status can access public funds, as can others with NRPF in some circumstances, such as when there's a child involved or they are destitute. Arguably, if you come as a legal migrant with NRPF and can't support yourself, you should return home.