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.

Dear God are these women sick or evil.

Ok, you seem dead keen on arguing the advantages so let's debate this one. I'll accept your stats though i know not if they're correct.

1. Only 0.3% - except that

(a) that's an ongoing cost (forever on current trends) for just the period during claim, and other benefits are paid out after acceptance (claimants do not suddenly acquire high paying jobs and private sector housing) (b) that's a sum that is not available for other things, such as WFA or 2 child cap, etc (c) taxes continue to rise so it's money that we simply dont have at present (d) those who are sofa-surfing or been ejected by parents aren't getting that money spent on them. (e) successful migrants have always been allowed to them bring family and dependents to join them here. Again a support cost that isn't included in your figures. Everybody was much more chilled about immigration when we all felt well-off.

1. they’re a tool right now... No. It's not like they've been imported to sow discord. They exist. People have opinions about that fact. You seem to be saying that people having an anti-migrant view are just being duped. Perhaps its you that's being duped.

1. only a small part of >200 million try to come here. That's a silly argument. It's like saying only 1 of 200k drug addicts burgled your home. The fact it could be much worse doesn't mean people should rejoice.

1. why they come here is as irrelevant as where I choose to shop or holiday. Unless you want to start meddling with those things to dissuade them. The fact that they prefer the UK to France doesn't seem like a positive reason to accept large scale immigration.

1. overall migrants are net contributors.

(a) only by a very narrow definition of contribution which excludes their use of existing resources and excludes the projected costs as they age and excludes the cost of educating their progeny etc Don't forget that low paid jobs still get tax credits (benefits) which perversely are then counted as actual wages paid when measuring this. (b) only by the narrow measure of contribution to GDP, not to per capita GDP. And that leaves aside the silly measure that it is whereby if you and I sell something to each other for £100 (effectively swapping goods) then GDP goes up by £200. (c) if immigrants are a net benefit and we allow immigration through regular routes for skilled people, then preventing irregular migration of low skilled people would be better wouldn't it?? (d) it is widely acknowledged that the increase in work force size has suppressed wage growth, particularly in the low skill economy.

I won't even get on to successive governments treating the need to house migrants as "a legal requirement" when actually it is not, thereby providing that feeling of a two tier system.

If >I< lost everything tomorrow I'd be dependent on finding a hostel every night (zero chance) or sleep on the street.

Exactly. I doubt if many on MN, for example, are familiar with Bradford or Luton.

This is the new buzz word isn’t it?

The first part has been addressed throughout the thread.

The latter - I suppose it’s very different when let’s say county lines and international drug traffickers bring crime and havoc in to our country, and without those who pay for a gram of coke on a night out we wouldn’t have the gangs. We then get upset at the traffickers but not their customers?

If it’s not safe to leave certain countries and people have to escape, how come when granted asylum their families are all able to join them straightaway?

No xenophobic fear of “brown people” here - I married one and birthed another.

We have idealogues on the left (team “poor souls”, most asylum claims are granted and it’s only 0.3% of budget anyway) vs. realists who think that the first responsibility of a government of any stripe is border control and that the arrival of undocumented migrants requiring bed, board, education and healthcare in their tens of thousands is problematic. More so when services are on their arse, with the declining number of working taxpayers about to be mugged for at least another 20 billion, most of which is just to keep the IMF at bay.

The unpalatable truth is that there are millions of people who would qualify for asylum in the UK - all women in Afghanistan for example, most of the population of Iran, gay people from anywhere in the Islamic world, etc. Self-evidently, we cannot take everyone. The current system is the worst of all worlds: a hunger games-style battle to reach UK shores undertaken (quite reasonably) by men. Some arrivals will inevitably have a history of criminality, but this cannot be checked if they are undocumented.

It’s a fallacy that anyone can “stop the boats” without fundamental law and policy changes, and any anger at the failure of successive governments to do so is misplaced. I would remove any chance of citizenship for these arrivals, after setting up legal routes from outside the UK offering asylum to a fixed number of people every year, depending on our own population trends and economy. This will mean ECHR withdrawal - but as a hastily drafted piece of law implemented in the wake of a humanitarian crisis, it’s not ideally suited to current levels of global mobility or indeed any proportion of economic migrants taking their advice from TikTok and criminal gangs.

And like a PP I can simultaneously be angry about the appalling mismanagement of legal migration under the previous government.

In other words, it’s a hugely expensive situation

I think we get cross at all those involved tbh. People who enter the country through illegal means are just as much to blame as the gangs who bring them here.

I have no issues ( and encourage) immigration through the proper channels. I don’t really have time / sympathy / empathy for any groups of people who use criminality to get what they want.

Exactly this.

@Vinvertebrateand I agree with a lot of the sentiment in your post. It is not a simple YES asylum seekers, NO asylum seekers. And there is nothing wrong with fundamentally wanting better laws, better processing systems, better screening and control over the border situation.

But ultimately, I find it hard to be angry at the person who arrives here. There are many many systemic faults that happen before this person even turns up in the UK. And that’s where the anger should be directed. Protest all you want, but do so under a government building, don’t loot and set on fire hotels, or chant outside places that house those people. It’s not their fault this country is currently shit, it’s been shit for years, and will likely be shit for years to come. Wave the flag in your MPs face, not someone who’s been given £7 a day to get by while they await their fate.

On a brief personal note, it’s hugely demoralising (and even when you begin with the best of intentions, it’s eventually aggravating) when you cannot communicate with people even at a basic level.

It’s impossible to deliver healthcare when there’s no way of ascertaining their medical history or asking them to describe symptoms or problems. When you can’t explain procedures to them or gain informed consent. So many vital appointments and so much valuable time was wasted, simply because we could not communicate. And cultural issues come into play here too - husbands speaking for their wives, wanting to make decisions regarding their treatment. Poor education meaning they argue with medical professionals and believe all kinds of nonsense. I’m just so tired of it.

There’s no advantages to this for anyone.
I was addressing some points of cost, which make people extra angry.
The asylum seekers are used, as they are here, as a tool by SYL, Musk et Al to increase discord/further their agenda - I hardly thought they brought them here though, the Tory gov’t did stop making asylum decisions more or less so didn’t help anyone there. Also used as distraction by gov’ts to avoid people asking other questions.

I know people have opinions on asylum seekers, people have opinions on all sorts of things and other people - but not to the point where they attack them surely?

My overriding point is aside from my views on immigration tbh - that we shouldn’t be turning on each other with violence - I say each other as I, you, and everyone in the U.K. whether visiting, living, working, or claiming asylum is a person. Society will be the worse for it - with or without immigration.

This and I wonder how many posters who are angry / against illegal migrants have teenage DD's or DD's in their early 20's.

Having lots of young men with outdated values towards women and a luck of integration will change some aspects of our society.

I’m the 0.3% girl!
But I do agree with a lot you say, and have said on many threads, small boats/asylum seekers will not stop - and I think all/any government should be open on this.
I definitely think we should have more safe and legal routes.
I do have an ideological dream though that as migration is a global need, and human drive, that will only get higher as populations increase and more areas are decimated then we need a global solution.
All work together - stop trashing places, invest in liveable places, work out how to help those who need to flee equitably. I am however aware this is not a practical option.
Today I’d just hope people can stop hating others, but expect that they should stop attacking individuals.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. If our country is so shit then why do these people risk their lives to come here? Our country in fact is brilliant in many ways compared to the majority of other countries around the world and it's about time people began to appreciate this more and understand that millions of people are desperate to come here for often very valid reasons. We obviously can't take that many people so we need a better system to set quotas and prioritise the people that we want rather than just accepting those who have the money, means and health to get here.

Unfortunately individual illegal immigrants to some extent now have to take the rough with the smooth. They know that sentiment in many European and Western countries is opposed to illegal migration. There is a chance you will come here and not be welcomed as you would like. It might still be worth it though for the potential advantages coming here might bring but you are doing something that the majority of the native population are against (illegal migration) and a large faction will resent your presence here.

Health and benefits systems are very favourable in France as well so that's not the explanation. Health care is free for asylum seekers and hotels and gov buildings are being taken over to house them.

I think that language is key here. People from Marocko, Tunisia, Algeria and other former French colonies where they speak French tend to migrate to France whereas refugees from English speaking countries want to go to the UK. Quite logic.

I had to do a bunch of fast track cancer visits to the hospital. It was nerve wracking. I had to wait hours past my appointment time because the people in front of me couldnt speak English…but their appointments weren’t cancelled or curtailed.. they were extended and extended… I was sitting in the waiting room crying, in pieces, listening to voices I couldn’t comprehend. It was absolute chaos and I just burst into tears as soon as I actually got into see the Dr, who, I have to say, seemed frazzled and benumbed. It’s absolutely terrible. I don’t have a solution, but it totally isn’t working. All the women there had a man sat next to them. None of them spoke English?!? The receptionist looked like she was drowning! Disaster, honestly.

You are much more likely to risk your life when you’re young - it’s part of growing up.

They risk their lives because in comparison it’s not as shit as their current situation.

My comment on it being shit is more to align with many posters on this thread whose views are that they are disadvantaged on the benefits / job seeker front.

I myself recognise that I’m very privileged in this country, fortunate to not feel friction with the NHS and have positive experiences only, I come from an immigrant background and have had some benefits while growing up (only housing really), I’ve grown up with a high work ethic and now I’m fortunate enough to own my own home and have a great career and give back in the same way that a native Brit would. Growing up there was constant stigma attached to where I was from, the media constantly made comments about us, but now they’re very used to us and that’s no longer the narrative. Perhaps this is where my empathy comes from.

We have to have a point of order here. No one in the UK is being angry directly to the economic migrants on a face to face level. The only time they are being made to feel uncomfy is when they've done something and a member of the public has had the bravery to make a stand against their behaviour.

The anger is being directed at the Government, not the economic migrant, so the who premise of the thread is false.

So you're Irish?

I don't think you should be comparing yourself to a <insert non european country here> migrant.

So when people were setting fire to hotels last summer, what had the migrants (who were actually asylum seekers rather than economic migrants) done to deserve that?

If people did have actual critical thinking skills, the liberal left don't realise what that would actually do to their numbers.

Imagine if critical thinking was taught in schools instead of the Left being mostly in charge of the entire education system.

No, Polish. Not comparing myself to an asylum seeker. I’m aligning with the comment around us recognising our privilege and why people would choose to come here.