How the UK’s intake of asylum seekers compares to nations across Europe
This number places the UK as the fifth highest country in terms of asylum applications in Europe in 2022, according to figures by Eurostat, behind Germany, France, Spain and Austria.
Figures show Germany received almost two-and-a-half times the 89,398 asylum claims the UK got last year – a total of 217,735 from first time asylum applicants. France received 137,505, Spain 116,140 and Austria 106,375 in the same time period. European figures also take dependents into account.
Those figures also do not include Ukrainian refugees, of which more than one million arrived in Germany last year and similar numbers also registered for support in Poland.
How the UK’s intake of asylum seekers compares to nations across Europe
This number places the UK as the fifth highest country in terms of asylum applications in Europe in 2022, according to figures by Eurostat, behind Germany, France, Spain and Austria.
Figures show Germany received almost two-and-a-half times the 89,398 asylum claims the UK got last year – a total of 217,735 from first time asylum applicants. France received 137,505, Spain 116,140 and Austria 106,375 in the same time period. European figures also take dependents into account.
Those figures also do not include Ukrainian refugees, of which more than one million arrived in Germany last year and similar numbers also registered for support in Poland.
For balance, it is only fair to point out that the UK allowed 150,000 Ukrainian Refugees. Which is probably our fair share.
It is interesting to note our different treatment of White people wanting to come to this country. Irish people have an historic right. Americans, Australians (as well as Chinese/Japanese etc) are often economic migrants to this country, and are welcomed with open arms. Just because they are not unfortunate enough to want to claim "asylum".
It annoys me that we treat economic migrants from developed countries in the opposite way to those from 3rd World and war-torn countries.
If this hapless Government want to be able to bar these people for life, there needs to be a way of allowing these people to legally apply to live here. Whether that is here or abroad. Unless we want to become an international pariah.
Let's turn this round for a second. And put ourselves in the other shoes. Suppose Australia said that they were willing to accept applications from Japanese and Chinese immigrants, but anyone seeking to come from White countries, say the UK, Croatia & Greece were not allowed to enter Australia.
The people from predominantly White countries were not allowed to apply from abroad, only when physically in Australia. But they were not allowed to enter Australia and, if they did, deported to Mongolia.
Does anyone think that would be fair? Because that is what is happening here.
Whoever thought up the current system was an idiot. The fact that you have to be on British soil in order to apply for asylum can only increase small boat crossings, and keep the people smugglers in business. I believe that if you wish to stop people arriving illegally, then you have to impose a punishment for doing so. Otherwise people will continue to make further attempts. If you were in France, and had the option of submitting an asylum application, or pay the people smugglers thousands of pounds, you would surely make the application. If this choice was reinforced by the fact that you would be immediately returned, and never allowed to reapply, the people traffickers would be out of business, and the boats would stop. As I said previously we should also institute easy to access legal routes.
The Government is doubling the number of staff to deal with the backlog of applications, by taking on a further 2,000. Unless something changes this number could only increase. As will the £3 billion per year in hotel costs. It seems ridiculous that we are prepared to put people up in hotels for a couple of years, feed them, and give them a few quid, while we consider their application, irrespective of their circumstances, or where they have originated from. It is also worth considering that the overwhelming majority of the small boats that arrive, have come from France. France is a safe country. As are a number of countries that they will have passed through in order to reach France.
If this hapless Government want to be able to bar these people for life, there needs to be a way of allowing these people to legally apply to live here. Whether that is here or abroad. Unless we want to become an international pariah.
Let's turn this round for a second. And put ourselves in the other shoes. Suppose Australia said that they were willing to accept applications from Japanese and Chinese immigrants, but anyone seeking to come from White countries, say the UK, Croatia & Greece were not allowed to enter Australia.
The people from predominantly White countries were not allowed to apply from abroad, only when physically in Australia. But they were not allowed to enter Australia and, if they did, deported to Mongolia.
Does anyone think that would be fair? Because that is what is happening here.
Whoever thought up the current system was an idiot. The fact that you have to be on British soil in order to apply for asylum can only increase small boat crossings, and keep the people smugglers in business. I believe that if you wish to stop people arriving illegally, then you have to impose a punishment for doing so. Otherwise people will continue to make further attempts. If you were in France, and had the option of submitting an asylum application, or pay the people smugglers thousands of pounds, you would surely make the application. If this choice was reinforced by the fact that you would be immediately returned, and never allowed to reapply, the people traffickers would be out of business, and the boats would stop. As I said previously we should also institute easy to access legal routes.
The Government is doubling the number of staff to deal with the backlog of applications, by taking on a further 2,000. Unless something changes this number could only increase. As will the £3 billion per year in hotel costs. It seems ridiculous that we are prepared to put people up in hotels for a couple of years, feed them, and give them a few quid, while we consider their application, irrespective of their circumstances, or where they have originated from. It is also worth considering that the overwhelming majority of the small boats that arrive, have come from France. France is a safe country. As are a number of countries that they will have passed through in order to reach France.
It rather depends on what the Government are trying to achieve.
If they really are trying to solve the migrant crisis then, regardless of anyone's position on immigration, then "idiot" is exactly right.
If, however, a Government fearful of being near wiped out at the next Election, and have no coherent economic plan, want to play the Race card to try and drum up votes, then it makes rather more sense. Politically, that is. Not morally.
If this hapless Government want to be able to bar these people for life, there needs to be a way of allowing these people to legally apply to live here. Whether that is here or abroad. Unless we want to become an international pariah.
Let's turn this round for a second. And put ourselves in the other shoes. Suppose Australia said that they were willing to accept applications from Japanese and Chinese immigrants, but anyone seeking to come from White countries, say the UK, Croatia & Greece were not allowed to enter Australia.
The people from predominantly White countries were not allowed to apply from abroad, only when physically in Australia. But they were not allowed to enter Australia and, if they did, deported to Mongolia.
Does anyone think that would be fair? Because that is what is happening here.
Whoever thought up the current system was an idiot. The fact that you have to be on British soil in order to apply for asylum can only increase small boat crossings, and keep the people smugglers in business. I believe that if you wish to stop people arriving illegally, then you have to impose a punishment for doing so. Otherwise people will continue to make further attempts. If you were in France, and had the option of submitting an asylum application, or pay the people smugglers thousands of pounds, you would surely make the application. If this choice was reinforced by the fact that you would be immediately returned, and never allowed to reapply, the people traffickers would be out of business, and the boats would stop. As I said previously we should also institute easy to access legal routes.
The Government is doubling the number of staff to deal with the backlog of applications, by taking on a further 2,000. Unless something changes this number could only increase. As will the £3 billion per year in hotel costs. It seems ridiculous that we are prepared to put people up in hotels for a couple of years, feed them, and give them a few quid, while we consider their application, irrespective of their circumstances, or where they have originated from. It is also worth considering that the overwhelming majority of the small boats that arrive, have come from France. France is a safe country. As are a number of countries that they will have passed through in order to reach France.
It rather depends on what the Government are trying to achieve.
If they really are trying to solve the migrant crisis then, regardless of anyone's position on immigration, then "idiot" is exactly right.
If, however, a Government fearful of being near wiped out at the next Election, and have no coherent economic plan, want to play the Race card to try and drum up votes, then it makes rather more sense. Politically, that is. Not morally.
I really dont object to asylum seekers, in manageable numbers. I was listening to a debate on this topic yesterday. There are apparently up to 100 million displaced people in the world, at any one time. In the light of this it would seem ridiculous to have no controls in place. Particularly controls that worked, and that could be enforced.
2 quick things to say on the subject of impartiality.
1. People need to separate what people say while working for the BBC, and what they say at other times. So-for example-Gary Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes when he is not working for the BBC. But not while he is.
2. People are being incredibly 2-faced about all this. You cannot both demand that football presenters (including Lineker) call out Human Rights abuses in Qatar and/or criticise them for going to Qatar for the World Cup. And demand that they are silent in relation to Human Rights abuses in this country
He is entitled to his personal views. He is not employed by the BBC, he is a freelancer. Not sure why anyone thinks that his personal views should reflect on the BBC.
I love watching Question Time. However, and I am sure that she does not do it deliberately, Fiona Bruce shows a very apparent bias towards the Conservative Party. Is far more brutal in questioning of people from other parties. Allows the Tory to routinely interrupt other guests, while insisting other people do not. Most weeks, the Tory speaks as much as the other 4 combined.
When the Express feels compelled to report on anything anti-Tory, you know there is a story there. Not like it's the Mirror/Grauniad.
Last night's QT included an incredibly one-sided attack on Gary Lineker's use of language. And when the only person on the panel who is talking sense is Richard Madeley, you know you have a dodgy list of guests. Jenryk was as odious as ever, Ken Clarke was rather past it and sad, the Labour woman was hapless, and the other woman a bit weird.
I find it a bit strange that a BBC sports freelancer is not allowed to give his opinion in his non-BBC tweets, but an employed BBC host of a political programme is apparently free to give her opinion on that self-same tweet.
Comments
This number places the UK as the fifth highest country in terms of asylum applications in Europe in 2022, according to figures by Eurostat, behind Germany, France, Spain and Austria.
Figures show Germany received almost two-and-a-half times the 89,398 asylum claims the UK got last year – a total of 217,735 from first time asylum applicants. France received 137,505, Spain 116,140 and Austria 106,375 in the same time period. European figures also take dependents into account.
Those figures also do not include Ukrainian refugees, of which more than one million arrived in Germany last year and similar numbers also registered for support in Poland.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/how-the-uk-s-intake-of-asylum-seekers-compares-to-nations-across-europe/ar-AA18kQ98?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=953477ce96204b2db5e60ac4b2f13c36&ei=23
It is interesting to note our different treatment of White people wanting to come to this country. Irish people have an historic right. Americans, Australians (as well as Chinese/Japanese etc) are often economic migrants to this country, and are welcomed with open arms. Just because they are not unfortunate enough to want to claim "asylum".
It annoys me that we treat economic migrants from developed countries in the opposite way to those from 3rd World and war-torn countries.
The fact that you have to be on British soil in order to apply for asylum can only increase small boat crossings, and keep the people smugglers in business.
I believe that if you wish to stop people arriving illegally, then you have to impose a punishment for doing so.
Otherwise people will continue to make further attempts.
If you were in France, and had the option of submitting an asylum application, or pay the people smugglers thousands of pounds, you would surely make the application.
If this choice was reinforced by the fact that you would be immediately returned, and never allowed to reapply, the people traffickers would be out of business, and the boats would stop.
As I said previously we should also institute easy to access legal routes.
The Government is doubling the number of staff to deal with the backlog of applications, by taking on a further 2,000.
Unless something changes this number could only increase.
As will the £3 billion per year in hotel costs.
It seems ridiculous that we are prepared to put people up in hotels for a couple of years, feed them, and give them a few quid, while we consider their application, irrespective of their circumstances, or where they have originated from.
It is also worth considering that the overwhelming majority of the small boats that arrive, have come from France.
France is a safe country.
As are a number of countries that they will have passed through in order to reach France.
If they really are trying to solve the migrant crisis then, regardless of anyone's position on immigration, then "idiot" is exactly right.
If, however, a Government fearful of being near wiped out at the next Election, and have no coherent economic plan, want to play the Race card to try and drum up votes, then it makes rather more sense. Politically, that is. Not morally.
I was listening to a debate on this topic yesterday.
There are apparently up to 100 million displaced people in the world, at any one time.
In the light of this it would seem ridiculous to have no controls in place.
Particularly controls that worked, and that could be enforced.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/8-times-suella-braverman-can-t-explain-how-cruel-channel-migrants-plan-will-work/ar-AA18moHq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=eba1bd4b07fe4f1f9988514a5e1ab202&ei=36
1. People need to separate what people say while working for the BBC, and what they say at other times. So-for example-Gary Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes when he is not working for the BBC. But not while he is.
2. People are being incredibly 2-faced about all this. You cannot both demand that football presenters (including Lineker) call out Human Rights abuses in Qatar and/or criticise them for going to Qatar for the World Cup. And demand that they are silent in relation to Human Rights abuses in this country
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ashamed-civil-servants-lodge-slew-of-complaints-about-suella-braverman-s-illegal-migration-bill/ar-AA18o0pJ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=004408af45754905a1dae33f4b6216e0&ei=18
Any views on the Gary Lineker situation?
He is not employed by the BBC, he is a freelancer.
Not sure why anyone thinks that his personal views should reflect on the BBC.
100% agree.
Worth noting, that by going public on such a divisive issue, he knew full well that was the end of his (very lucrative) career in advertisements.
Bravo Gary.
I love watching Question Time. However, and I am sure that she does not do it deliberately, Fiona Bruce shows a very apparent bias towards the Conservative Party. Is far more brutal in questioning of people from other parties. Allows the Tory to routinely interrupt other guests, while insisting other people do not. Most weeks, the Tory speaks as much as the other 4 combined.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1744234/fiona-bruce-sacked-bbc-bias-poll-spt
When the Express feels compelled to report on anything anti-Tory, you know there is a story there. Not like it's the Mirror/Grauniad.
Last night's QT included an incredibly one-sided attack on Gary Lineker's use of language. And when the only person on the panel who is talking sense is Richard Madeley, you know you have a dodgy list of guests. Jenryk was as odious as ever, Ken Clarke was rather past it and sad, the Labour woman was hapless, and the other woman a bit weird.
I find it a bit strange that a BBC sports freelancer is not allowed to give his opinion in his non-BBC tweets, but an employed BBC host of a political programme is apparently free to give her opinion on that self-same tweet.
What a shame
Never mind