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.

<laughs out loud>

Remember when they media tried to portray him as a "Welsh choir boy"

As previously mentioned, we're not falling for it any more, you can repeat it all you like, it won't work.

I mean, you started the comparison - but that’s fine. We were talking about empathy and it’s evolved in to a completely different debate.

As a side note, ‘your country’ is also my country. I have lived here for two thirds of my life and it’s all I know. So I am entitled to an opinion just as much as you are.

That's because they are.

In that case you would be really shocked at the opinions in DS's secondary PSHE class when they were discussing the flags situation. Rather right wing, maybe because kids have a very heightened sense of fairness? Consensus seemed to be to house asylum seekers on some Scottish Islands, in tents, make it unpleasant enough that only people genuinely in danger would accept it.

That doesn't answer my question.

Is it that you're not brave enough to say what you really think? Because you're ashamed of articulating it? Because you think it will get deleted?

The killer was born in the UK, grew up in the UK, was educated in the UK and held a British passport. What specifically causes you to insinuate that he isn't actually British, and what specifically are you no longer swallowing?

Stop making oblique references to unknown things that you claim you're no longer falling for, and have the courage to tell us what you actually think. If you believe you can justify it, why won't you just say it?

And I love having you here, genuinely.

It's evolved because you tried to pain the picture a certain way until I pointed out that you weren't the same as someone coming here from a non-European country. Have all the empathy you want, my son and his children may not appreciate your liberal views come the future though.

Why would I be shocked by that? The whole point is surely that these kids haven't been taught proper critical thinking skills, hence being so susceptible to the disinformation that they see all over the Internet?

They aren't expressing right wing views because they have a heightened sense of fairness. What on earth would make you think that? Far more likely that they're ignorant of the issues and parroting the views of their parents/what they have seen online.

The point is that the fairness thing is their view and its perfectly acceptable for them to hold it without being called ignorant, parrots, manipulated etc because they don't share your view. Sounds like you want to teach them what thoughts are acceptable. I think we're beyond that now thankfully.

Disgusting - I’m shocked and saddened that this view is displayed out and proud (twice) on this site.

Not at all, they can think whatever they like. And of course they will think they are being fair if they are basing their views on misinformation, which many people do. Unless we have a detailed breakdown of how exactly they arrived at those views, it doesn't really get us anywhere.

You haven't presented any evidence of their ability to think critically, which is what we were actually talking about, and the views of a group of random teenagers of unknown intelligence or exposure to education around critical thinking skillsdoesn't really tell us much at all. I have no doubt that I could find a bunch of different teenagers with totally different opinions, but I'm not sure how much further it would move us on in the debate.

Not quite "out and proud". The poster is not responding to my request that they say exactly what they mean instead of simply implying it.

They know that they will have crossed a line if they actually say it, so they veer as close to saying as they think they can get away with, but just stop short.

It's pathetic.

I’m not sure the system we have now would stand up to neutral people with ‘critical thinking’. It’s dangerous, rewards gangs and lacks security.

It’s what we have and it’s straining politics in many countries. I don’t blame the individual, say the poor Eritrean currently under Labour’s cosh for ‘one in one out’ but I do question the whole system. If people do actually think about it kind of is open to change.

But they do benefit from government support!

It’s possible to not be happy with both the individuals and the people smugglers.

There is an asylum hostel near me. A former 4 star Ramada, although to be be fair, it probably was in financial difficulty for some time before it was taken over.

It’a located near a “green trail” which leads from a nature reserve, along a stream, to another part of town.

Only now, groups of young men congregate by this trail, making me and probably others feel rather uncomfortable. I don’t claim to know if local crime rates have gone up but I probably wouldn’t go there in my own anymore.

If young British men were hanging around, I’d also feel uncomfortable, but that’s not the point, they’re there all day as they have nothing to do. Putting these individuals in local communities just builds resentment.

In the UK, asylum seekers who have applied for support can receive a weekly payment of £49.18 per person for essential needs like food, clothing, and toiletries, paid via an ASPEN card. An additional allowance of £9.95 per week is given to those in self-catered accommodatio

Because the people shouting at hotels are relishing the chance to punch down, for once in their miserable lives

This. They just come because the UK has too many pull factors.

Because they don’t speak French.
Because they have family in the uk.
becuase they DO speak English.
because it’s further away from where they are at risk.
Because France already has a lot of asylum seekers and they can’t all stay there
because France has taken far more than the U.K. historically.
because the U.K. suits their skill set to work better.
because they went on holiday to Penzance once and think the U.K. seems nice.
because British people are seen as nice people.

all kinds of reasons.

They have no money but have money for illegal crossings.

Because they are choosing to pass a safe country for one of their preference.

It’s not additional, they get £9 a week if they are fed, if they aren’t they get £49 a week.

It’s not illegal to cross by any means if you intend to claim asylum the other end. They can’t come over on a flight because if they come on a tourist visa they can’t claim asylum, and you can’t claim asylum until you are on British soil. So what do you want them to do?

If you had £9 a week to live on, in a country you don’t know, wouldn’t you probably spend some time just hanging out with other people in a nice place?
you don’t know if the crime has gone up, so you don’t know if they’ve done anything wrong , they’re just existing on the same path as you. And you’re mad at them….because?

Why do they need British asylum if they've passed multiple safe countries?

Yes, I guess they didn’t quite - I see that thing on here where folk say ‘I spat my tea out’ or ‘I lol’d so much’ and I tend to think ‘course you did’ 🙈
well I did have a physical reaction to this - so appallingly awful and so I missed they didn’t quite say it.

Yep, they said enough without actually articulating it explicitly. A cowardly approach in my view.