| Something is going down in Portsmouth… 22:54 - Sep 6 with 7959 views | SitfcB |
But it’s not yet on BBC or Sky News…?
Why? [Post edited 6 Sep 22:54]
|  |
| |  |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:33 - Sep 7 with 712 views | naa |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:16 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Had I have typed 'many' rather than 'most' then I wonder if you would be taking this angle.
*Ps you're doing it again. 'everyone can see'. No, those who choose this tactic of screaming racist and fascist can. |
I see that you are avoiding answering the question as to where anyone has insinuated you are racist.
I've followed the thread, seems a simple case of being called up on an inaccuracy to me.
I can't see any insinuation and it feels as if you have derailed the conversation by doing so, possibly deliberately. |  | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:35 - Sep 7 with 706 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 18:39 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Don't have 'it' then.
I accepted my wording could have caused confusion. I accepted that. Let's not get too excited about it. I corrected it within my response. |
No. You tried to fib again, saying it wasnt quite accurate. When it was wildly false. | |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:50 - Sep 7 with 667 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:35 - Sep 7 by redrickstuhaart |
No. You tried to fib again, saying it wasnt quite accurate. When it was wildly false. |
You are such a sausage, and a really consistently angry man (I assume).
Again, can you help me find the source of the study which was referenced earlier. I noticed that you 'uppied' when I said I wanted to read it. I'm still waiting. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:54 - Sep 7 with 660 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:33 - Sep 7 by naa |
I see that you are avoiding answering the question as to where anyone has insinuated you are racist.
I've followed the thread, seems a simple case of being called up on an inaccuracy to me.
I can't see any insinuation and it feels as if you have derailed the conversation by doing so, possibly deliberately. |
Nothing deliberate here 'Naa'.
Focusing on a single word in a single post in a 7 page thread. Which was then corrected. Please don't join in the nonsense of playing dumb about why I have said it. They'll label you as soon as they disagree with you. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:00 - Sep 7 with 629 views | naa |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:54 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Nothing deliberate here 'Naa'.
Focusing on a single word in a single post in a 7 page thread. Which was then corrected. Please don't join in the nonsense of playing dumb about why I have said it. They'll label you as soon as they disagree with you. |
Sorry, still don't see it. You used the word 'most 'incorrectly. Were called out on it and you corrected yourself, to an extent.
I still don't see any insinuation on anyone's part.
This thread has now been totally derailed by your obsession that you are being labelled when I see no such labelling. Everything appears to be your inference. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:09 - Sep 7 with 593 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:50 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
You are such a sausage, and a really consistently angry man (I assume).
Again, can you help me find the source of the study which was referenced earlier. I noticed that you 'uppied' when I said I wanted to read it. I'm still waiting. |
My guess is that such a specific reference is fairly easy to find on a Google search if you can be bothered:
https://immigrationlab.org/202
EDIT: I think this is the one involving over 200,000 subjects: https://immigrationlab.org/pro [Post edited 7 Sep 20:11]
|  |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:13 - Sep 7 with 577 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:50 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
You are such a sausage, and a really consistently angry man (I assume).
Again, can you help me find the source of the study which was referenced earlier. I noticed that you 'uppied' when I said I wanted to read it. I'm still waiting. |
Angry? No. But I do think its important to call out the misinformation peddled by the likes of Farage and his supporters, which is creating serious issues for our country and creating a real risk of an appalling authoritarian / semi fascist regime in the style of Trump. | |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:14 - Sep 7 with 572 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:54 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Nothing deliberate here 'Naa'.
Focusing on a single word in a single post in a 7 page thread. Which was then corrected. Please don't join in the nonsense of playing dumb about why I have said it. They'll label you as soon as they disagree with you. |
Its not the word. Its the meaning. Which even when corrected you maintained as being "not quite" accurate. When it was wildly out. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:34 - Sep 7 with 517 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:14 - Sep 7 by redrickstuhaart |
Its not the word. Its the meaning. Which even when corrected you maintained as being "not quite" accurate. When it was wildly out. |
Wildy out. Using the word most rather then many. I personally think you have found something to cling onto here to discredit my entire side of the discussion. That's fine though. Should have expected nothing less. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:41 - Sep 7 with 499 views | naa |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:34 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Wildy out. Using the word most rather then many. I personally think you have found something to cling onto here to discredit my entire side of the discussion. That's fine though. Should have expected nothing less. |
Out of interest, what are the numbers you were referring to? | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:11 - Sep 7 with 426 views | noggin |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 20:34 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Wildy out. Using the word most rather then many. I personally think you have found something to cling onto here to discredit my entire side of the discussion. That's fine though. Should have expected nothing less. |
You also claimed that I insinuated that you are a racist. You made that up. |  |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:23 - Sep 7 with 407 views | TownieRob |
Thanks for these links Nthsuffolkblue. I was hoping that eireblue would provide the source as I had googled and found what you have provided below and found them to not be so useful in the context he was suggesting. Therefore, I wondered and hoped it was a different source.
For the sake of order. The 200,000 immigrant study is genuine, but it looked at immigrants already living in America and whether better Medicaid/healthcare benefits would make them move from one US state to another. They didn't. Fair enough. That's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about whether making one country more or less attractive can influence migration to that country.
While I was bothered (I see your sarcasm in the post, don't worry it wasn't missed), I did research the topic and brilliantly, there is a study which tested pretty much exactly the discussion point. Denmark cut welfare benefits for non-EU immigrants by around 50%. Researchers found net immigration fell by about 5,000 people per year. Denmark then reversed the policy and immigration went back up. When restrictions were introduced again, it fell again. If anyone can be bothered in this then it's published in American Economic Review: Insights and, rather brilliantly, the paper is literally called The Welfare Magnet Hypothesis
That doesn't mean someone in Eritrea is sat checking benefit rates on Gov.Uk Of course they're not, I'm also not saying benefits are the only reason people come. The point I have been making is that making a destination more or less attractive can influence people's decisions.
The study 200,000 subjects study shows one particular healthcare benefit didn't make immigrants already in America move states. The Denmark study shows reducing welfare actually reduced international immigration, both things can be true.
So yes, despite me told it isnt 'a thing', pull factors are a thing.
*Now I sit here thinking about it, I wonder if I haven't been given a source for the original study because it was hoped I wouldn't check it as it wasn't any use in the given context. [Post edited 7 Sep 21:24]
| | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:28 - Sep 7 with 397 views | Wheres_Burns |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 19:50 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
You are such a sausage, and a really consistently angry man (I assume).
Again, can you help me find the source of the study which was referenced earlier. I noticed that you 'uppied' when I said I wanted to read it. I'm still waiting. |
Why do all the horrible unsavoury people on social media always use ‘sausage’ and ‘petal’ in their replies? A lot of parroted language on certain echo chambers and usually followed up with a laughing emoji 😂 It’s all very tiring. |  | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:33 - Sep 7 with 384 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:11 - Sep 7 by noggin |
You also claimed that I insinuated that you are a racist. You made that up. |
As above and for the final time.
'It was way off, but you know that' quite clearly suggests I deliberately used a figure or statement I knew was wrong. Why would I do that? What exactly are you suggesting my motive was?
In conversations like this on here we all know where that sort of accusation normally ends up, which is why I called it out. If you're saying now that wasn't what you were insinuating, then fine, but please don't tell me I 'made it up'. I interpreted your words exactly as they were written. Funnily enough in exactly the same way you've taken an implication from my words.
If you're saying that wasn't what you meant, fine, I accept that, but then perhaps afford me the same courtesy rather than telling me what I meant. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:37 - Sep 7 with 368 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 18:55 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
This isn't my first rodeo on here. The 'final boss' move by many on here is to get into a position to call someone with a differing view a racist or a fascist. That's the celebrated by the usual crew. One of the best approaches that the most skilled posters often use is by stating those they don't agree with them make things up or don't listen or understand 'facts or data'. I can see that you are jumping on this angle for me.
Please don't insult my intelligence by making out this isn't your 'play'. |
Paranoid too! |  |
| "They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches." | | Poll: | What you watching. |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:39 - Sep 7 with 364 views | eireblue |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:23 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Thanks for these links Nthsuffolkblue. I was hoping that eireblue would provide the source as I had googled and found what you have provided below and found them to not be so useful in the context he was suggesting. Therefore, I wondered and hoped it was a different source.
For the sake of order. The 200,000 immigrant study is genuine, but it looked at immigrants already living in America and whether better Medicaid/healthcare benefits would make them move from one US state to another. They didn't. Fair enough. That's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about whether making one country more or less attractive can influence migration to that country.
While I was bothered (I see your sarcasm in the post, don't worry it wasn't missed), I did research the topic and brilliantly, there is a study which tested pretty much exactly the discussion point. Denmark cut welfare benefits for non-EU immigrants by around 50%. Researchers found net immigration fell by about 5,000 people per year. Denmark then reversed the policy and immigration went back up. When restrictions were introduced again, it fell again. If anyone can be bothered in this then it's published in American Economic Review: Insights and, rather brilliantly, the paper is literally called The Welfare Magnet Hypothesis
That doesn't mean someone in Eritrea is sat checking benefit rates on Gov.Uk Of course they're not, I'm also not saying benefits are the only reason people come. The point I have been making is that making a destination more or less attractive can influence people's decisions.
The study 200,000 subjects study shows one particular healthcare benefit didn't make immigrants already in America move states. The Denmark study shows reducing welfare actually reduced international immigration, both things can be true.
So yes, despite me told it isnt 'a thing', pull factors are a thing.
*Now I sit here thinking about it, I wonder if I haven't been given a source for the original study because it was hoped I wouldn't check it as it wasn't any use in the given context. [Post edited 7 Sep 21:24]
|
Oh dear boy, you think I would just give you one piece of research.
There has been lots of research, including meta analysis.
This is not even all the research on pull factors, just a couple of papers, and some referenced material.
Fill your boots.
1. Research cited in the Lucy Mayblin paper
Lucy Mayblin – Access to the labour market as a 'pull factor' for asylum seekers
Mayblin’s 2016 paper is particularly useful because it says it conducted a systematic review of research on asylum destination choice, covering research from 1997–2016. It reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies and concluded that no study in its review found a long-term correlation between labour-market access and destination choice.
Key references worth looking at
Reference Main relevance
Brekke & Aarset (2009) – Why Norway? Understanding Asylum Destinations One of the most directly relevant studies on why asylum seekers choose a particular country. Examines social networks, perceptions, information and destination choice.
Robinson & Segrott (2002) – Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers Home Office-funded research examining why asylum seekers come to the UK and what they knew about the UK before arriving.
Castles & Loughna (2003) – Trends in Asylum Migration to Industrialized Countries Looks at broader patterns in asylum migration and the factors influencing flows to industrialised countries.
Neumayer (2004) – Asylum Destination Choice Quantitative analysis of factors influencing where asylum seekers apply, including political conditions and destination characteristics.
Hatton (2004/2009) Research into asylum applications and the economic, political and policy factors associated with asylum flows.
Thielemann (2004/2006) Research examining asylum policies and whether differences between countries influence asylum destination choice.
Koser & Pinkerton (2002) Research into asylum seeker decision-making and the role of information, social networks and migration processes.
Crawley (2010) Qualitative work challenging simplistic assumptions that asylum seekers make fully informed, economically rational choices.
The Mayblin paper identifies four particularly important factors influencing the choice of the UK:
1. Presence of family and friends
2. Language
3. Belief that the country respects human rights and the rule of law
4. Colonial or historical ties
It also identifies asylum recognition rates as a potentially important factor once people are already within Europe, although information may be incomplete or unreliable.
Particularly important conclusion
The paper also cites qualitative studies, including Home Office research, suggesting that many asylum seekers had little or no prior knowledge of specific UK policies, including welfare benefits and labour-market rules.
⸻
2. Research and references highlighted in the 2022 Home Office report
Home Office – Asylum seeker decision-making in journeys to the United Kingdom (2022)
This report is arguably even more useful for your purposes because it takes a much broader view. It was based on a rapid evidence assessment covering 200 academic and policy reports, alongside interviews with stakeholders.
Its central argument is that destination choice cannot be reduced to a simple “pull factor” calculation.
A. Robinson & Segrott (2002)
Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers
This appears repeatedly and is probably one of the most important original sources to examine.
Key themes include:
* Why the UK was selected
* The role of agents and smugglers
* Family and social connections
* Limited information about destination countries
* The fact that destination choices often developed during the journey
* The limited choices available to many asylum seekers
The 2022 report notes that people using agents were often presented with a limited set of destination options, with the eventual destination influenced by factors such as:
* Ease of entry
* Demand for a destination
* Profitability
* Agent networks
* Availability of people and infrastructure to facilitate entry
In some cases, the agent effectively determined the destination rather than the asylum seeker.
Why it is useful: This is a strong source if you’re investigating whether people independently select the UK because of government policies, versus whether the journey and destination are heavily constrained by networks and facilitators.
⸻
B. Crawley & Hagen-Zanker (2019)
Deciding Where to Go: Policies, People and Perceptions Shaping Destination Preferences
This research is important because it explicitly challenges traditional economic “push-pull” models.
Its general argument is that migration decisions are influenced by:
* Aspirations
* Capabilities
* Social networks
* Available resources
* Routes
* Borders
* Information
* Constraints
Rather than simply comparing which country offers the best economic benefits.
The Home Office report specifically notes that traditional push-pull models based on rational choice, full information and wage differentials have been criticised as overly simplistic for understanding forced migration.
Why it is useful: Excellent for challenging simplistic claims such as:
“Country X has better benefits, therefore asylum seekers will choose Country X.”
⸻
C. Koser & McAuliffe (2013)
This research addresses the fact that many asylum seekers have heavily constrained choices.
Factors include:
* Lack of money
* Geography
* Available travel routes
* Border restrictions
* Access to documents
* Availability of facilitators
The destination someone ultimately reaches may therefore be very different from their original preference.
Why it is useful: Shows that the question is often not simply:
“Which country would you prefer?”
but instead:
“Which countries are realistically available to you?”
⸻
D. Gilbert & Koser (2006)
The Role of Smugglers and Agents
This research addresses the role of intermediaries in migration journeys.
The Home Office report highlights evidence that smugglers and agents can:
* Suggest destinations
* Control information
* Influence perceptions
* Change destinations during journeys
* Make decisions on behalf of migrants
* Prioritise their own profitability and operational convenience
Why it is useful: Particularly relevant to debates around whether asylum seekers have full agency and make carefully researched destination choices.
⸻
3. Social networks and diaspora
Koser & Pinkerton (2002)
The Home Office report identifies social networks as a major source of migration information.
These include:
* Family
* Friends
* Previous migrants
* Diaspora communities
* Communities in transit countries
Information received through trusted personal networks can carry significantly more weight than official government information.
Important finding
Information is often:
* Incomplete
* Anecdotal
* Based on individual experiences
* Outdated
* Incorrect
* Filtered through the interests of others
This is important because it undermines the assumption that asylum seekers systematically research official government policy before selecting a destination.
⸻
4. Social media and migration decision-making
The Home Office report cites several studies here.
Dekker & Engbersen (2012)
Social media is described as a significant source of informal migration information.
Migrants can obtain information about:
* Routes
* Border crossings
* Accommodation
* Jobs
* Destination countries
* Other migrants’ experiences
However, information is generally filtered through existing social networks.
⸻
Sanchez et al. (2018)
Examines the role of digital communication and information technology in migration processes.
Relevant themes include:
* Digital communication
* Information sharing
* Network effects
* Real-time migration information
⸻
Dekker et al. (2018)
Research involving Syrian migrants found extensive use of smartphones and social media both before and during migration.
However, migrants tended to place greater trust in information originating from:
* Family
* Friends
* Existing social relationships
* Personal experience
rather than anonymous online information.
⸻
Fiedler (2020)
Research involving migrants found that social media can significantly influence perceptions of migration and destination countries.
However, migrants themselves acknowledged that information could be inaccurate.
Examples include people:
* Presenting a more successful image of life abroad
* Hiding hardship
* Sharing misleading information
* Repeating rumours about immigration policy
* Creating unrealistic expectations
The Home Office report specifically discusses how social media may portray a much more positive version of migration than reality.
Why this is useful: It provides a more nuanced explanation of how perceptions of the UK might develop without assuming that people have accurate knowledge of actual government policy.
⸻
5. Mayblin & James (2016)
This research is particularly relevant to diaspora communities and social networks.
The Home Office report identifies diaspora communities as part of the social information ecosystem influencing migration decisions.
This connects closely with Mayblin’s own conclusion that one of the strongest factors influencing destination choice is:
The presence of family and friends in the destination country.
⸻
6. Brekke & Beyer (2019)
Research involving migrants in transit found extensive access to:
* Smartphones
* Internet
* Facebook
* WhatsApp
* Viber
Migrants actively discussed migration through these channels.
However, information tended to circulate through trusted networks rather than formal government sources.
⸻
7. Neumayer – Asylum Destination Choice
This is one of the more important quantitative research streams.
Research in this area attempts to statistically identify relationships between asylum applications and destination-country characteristics.
Factors investigated typically include:
* Existing migrant populations
* Colonial links
* Language
* Geographic distance
* Economic conditions
* Political stability
* Recognition rates
* Asylum policies
* Welfare systems
This type of research is important because it attempts to distinguish between different possible explanations rather than relying purely on anecdotal evidence.
⸻
8. Recognition rates
Both the academic literature and the Mayblin review identify asylum recognition rates as potentially significant.
In simple terms:
If people believe they have a better chance of being granted asylum in Country A than Country B, this may influence their destination preference.
However, there are major qualifications:
* Information may not be available
* Information may be inaccurate
* Recognition rates change
* People may receive information through informal networks
* People may not be able to act on their preference anyway
Mayblin specifically notes that information about recognition rates is often obtained through social networks and may not be reliable.
⸻
9. The role of agents and smugglers as “information providers”
One of the strongest themes in the 2022 Home Office report is that agents and smugglers are not merely transportation providers.
They can also function as:
Information providers
Telling people:
* Which countries are accessible
* Which countries are desirable
* Which routes are available
Marketers
Creating positive narratives about destination countries.
Decision-makers
Sometimes effectively selecting destinations.
Commercial actors
Choosing routes based on:
* Profit
* Operational ease
* Existing networks
* Border conditions
* Demand
* Risk
The report explicitly warns that information provided by agents may serve the interests of the agent rather than the migrant.
⸻
10. A useful consolidated list of factors
Stronger recurring factors
1. Family already living in the destination
2. Friends and social networks
3. Diaspora communities
4. Shared language
5. Colonial and historical connections
6. Perceptions of human rights and rule of law
7. Perceived likelihood of being granted asylum
8. Information from previous migrants
9. Information from family and friends
10. Social media
11. Smugglers and migration agents
12. Available migration routes
13. Financial resources
14. Geography and proximity
15. Border controls and practical accessibility
16. Previous experiences in transit countries
17. Discrimination or poor treatment in transit countries
18. Ability to establish a sustainable life
19. Perceived future opportunities
20. Random or changing circumstances during the journey
Factors where evidence is weaker or more contested
1. Welfare benefits
2. Specific asylum policies
3. Right to work while awaiting an asylum decision
4. Economic benefits
5. Wage differentials
The important distinction from these sources is that the latter factors may be part of a much larger decision environment, but these sources do not support a simple model where asylum seekers systematically compare government policies and select the country with the most generous benefits.
The Home Office report’s overall conclusion is that decision-making is dynamic, non-linear and shaped by interconnected individual, social, institutional and practical factors.
Your turn.
“ If we made the UK less attractive in terms of what we give away then of course we wouldn’t get the same amount of people trying to arrive.”
Evidence? |  | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:54 - Sep 7 with 329 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:39 - Sep 7 by eireblue |
Oh dear boy, you think I would just give you one piece of research.
There has been lots of research, including meta analysis.
This is not even all the research on pull factors, just a couple of papers, and some referenced material.
Fill your boots.
1. Research cited in the Lucy Mayblin paper
Lucy Mayblin – Access to the labour market as a 'pull factor' for asylum seekers
Mayblin’s 2016 paper is particularly useful because it says it conducted a systematic review of research on asylum destination choice, covering research from 1997–2016. It reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies and concluded that no study in its review found a long-term correlation between labour-market access and destination choice.
Key references worth looking at
Reference Main relevance
Brekke & Aarset (2009) – Why Norway? Understanding Asylum Destinations One of the most directly relevant studies on why asylum seekers choose a particular country. Examines social networks, perceptions, information and destination choice.
Robinson & Segrott (2002) – Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers Home Office-funded research examining why asylum seekers come to the UK and what they knew about the UK before arriving.
Castles & Loughna (2003) – Trends in Asylum Migration to Industrialized Countries Looks at broader patterns in asylum migration and the factors influencing flows to industrialised countries.
Neumayer (2004) – Asylum Destination Choice Quantitative analysis of factors influencing where asylum seekers apply, including political conditions and destination characteristics.
Hatton (2004/2009) Research into asylum applications and the economic, political and policy factors associated with asylum flows.
Thielemann (2004/2006) Research examining asylum policies and whether differences between countries influence asylum destination choice.
Koser & Pinkerton (2002) Research into asylum seeker decision-making and the role of information, social networks and migration processes.
Crawley (2010) Qualitative work challenging simplistic assumptions that asylum seekers make fully informed, economically rational choices.
The Mayblin paper identifies four particularly important factors influencing the choice of the UK:
1. Presence of family and friends
2. Language
3. Belief that the country respects human rights and the rule of law
4. Colonial or historical ties
It also identifies asylum recognition rates as a potentially important factor once people are already within Europe, although information may be incomplete or unreliable.
Particularly important conclusion
The paper also cites qualitative studies, including Home Office research, suggesting that many asylum seekers had little or no prior knowledge of specific UK policies, including welfare benefits and labour-market rules.
⸻
2. Research and references highlighted in the 2022 Home Office report
Home Office – Asylum seeker decision-making in journeys to the United Kingdom (2022)
This report is arguably even more useful for your purposes because it takes a much broader view. It was based on a rapid evidence assessment covering 200 academic and policy reports, alongside interviews with stakeholders.
Its central argument is that destination choice cannot be reduced to a simple “pull factor” calculation.
A. Robinson & Segrott (2002)
Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers
This appears repeatedly and is probably one of the most important original sources to examine.
Key themes include:
* Why the UK was selected
* The role of agents and smugglers
* Family and social connections
* Limited information about destination countries
* The fact that destination choices often developed during the journey
* The limited choices available to many asylum seekers
The 2022 report notes that people using agents were often presented with a limited set of destination options, with the eventual destination influenced by factors such as:
* Ease of entry
* Demand for a destination
* Profitability
* Agent networks
* Availability of people and infrastructure to facilitate entry
In some cases, the agent effectively determined the destination rather than the asylum seeker.
Why it is useful: This is a strong source if you’re investigating whether people independently select the UK because of government policies, versus whether the journey and destination are heavily constrained by networks and facilitators.
⸻
B. Crawley & Hagen-Zanker (2019)
Deciding Where to Go: Policies, People and Perceptions Shaping Destination Preferences
This research is important because it explicitly challenges traditional economic “push-pull” models.
Its general argument is that migration decisions are influenced by:
* Aspirations
* Capabilities
* Social networks
* Available resources
* Routes
* Borders
* Information
* Constraints
Rather than simply comparing which country offers the best economic benefits.
The Home Office report specifically notes that traditional push-pull models based on rational choice, full information and wage differentials have been criticised as overly simplistic for understanding forced migration.
Why it is useful: Excellent for challenging simplistic claims such as:
“Country X has better benefits, therefore asylum seekers will choose Country X.”
⸻
C. Koser & McAuliffe (2013)
This research addresses the fact that many asylum seekers have heavily constrained choices.
Factors include:
* Lack of money
* Geography
* Available travel routes
* Border restrictions
* Access to documents
* Availability of facilitators
The destination someone ultimately reaches may therefore be very different from their original preference.
Why it is useful: Shows that the question is often not simply:
“Which country would you prefer?”
but instead:
“Which countries are realistically available to you?”
⸻
D. Gilbert & Koser (2006)
The Role of Smugglers and Agents
This research addresses the role of intermediaries in migration journeys.
The Home Office report highlights evidence that smugglers and agents can:
* Suggest destinations
* Control information
* Influence perceptions
* Change destinations during journeys
* Make decisions on behalf of migrants
* Prioritise their own profitability and operational convenience
Why it is useful: Particularly relevant to debates around whether asylum seekers have full agency and make carefully researched destination choices.
⸻
3. Social networks and diaspora
Koser & Pinkerton (2002)
The Home Office report identifies social networks as a major source of migration information.
These include:
* Family
* Friends
* Previous migrants
* Diaspora communities
* Communities in transit countries
Information received through trusted personal networks can carry significantly more weight than official government information.
Important finding
Information is often:
* Incomplete
* Anecdotal
* Based on individual experiences
* Outdated
* Incorrect
* Filtered through the interests of others
This is important because it undermines the assumption that asylum seekers systematically research official government policy before selecting a destination.
⸻
4. Social media and migration decision-making
The Home Office report cites several studies here.
Dekker & Engbersen (2012)
Social media is described as a significant source of informal migration information.
Migrants can obtain information about:
* Routes
* Border crossings
* Accommodation
* Jobs
* Destination countries
* Other migrants’ experiences
However, information is generally filtered through existing social networks.
⸻
Sanchez et al. (2018)
Examines the role of digital communication and information technology in migration processes.
Relevant themes include:
* Digital communication
* Information sharing
* Network effects
* Real-time migration information
⸻
Dekker et al. (2018)
Research involving Syrian migrants found extensive use of smartphones and social media both before and during migration.
However, migrants tended to place greater trust in information originating from:
* Family
* Friends
* Existing social relationships
* Personal experience
rather than anonymous online information.
⸻
Fiedler (2020)
Research involving migrants found that social media can significantly influence perceptions of migration and destination countries.
However, migrants themselves acknowledged that information could be inaccurate.
Examples include people:
* Presenting a more successful image of life abroad
* Hiding hardship
* Sharing misleading information
* Repeating rumours about immigration policy
* Creating unrealistic expectations
The Home Office report specifically discusses how social media may portray a much more positive version of migration than reality.
Why this is useful: It provides a more nuanced explanation of how perceptions of the UK might develop without assuming that people have accurate knowledge of actual government policy.
⸻
5. Mayblin & James (2016)
This research is particularly relevant to diaspora communities and social networks.
The Home Office report identifies diaspora communities as part of the social information ecosystem influencing migration decisions.
This connects closely with Mayblin’s own conclusion that one of the strongest factors influencing destination choice is:
The presence of family and friends in the destination country.
⸻
6. Brekke & Beyer (2019)
Research involving migrants in transit found extensive access to:
* Smartphones
* Internet
* Facebook
* WhatsApp
* Viber
Migrants actively discussed migration through these channels.
However, information tended to circulate through trusted networks rather than formal government sources.
⸻
7. Neumayer – Asylum Destination Choice
This is one of the more important quantitative research streams.
Research in this area attempts to statistically identify relationships between asylum applications and destination-country characteristics.
Factors investigated typically include:
* Existing migrant populations
* Colonial links
* Language
* Geographic distance
* Economic conditions
* Political stability
* Recognition rates
* Asylum policies
* Welfare systems
This type of research is important because it attempts to distinguish between different possible explanations rather than relying purely on anecdotal evidence.
⸻
8. Recognition rates
Both the academic literature and the Mayblin review identify asylum recognition rates as potentially significant.
In simple terms:
If people believe they have a better chance of being granted asylum in Country A than Country B, this may influence their destination preference.
However, there are major qualifications:
* Information may not be available
* Information may be inaccurate
* Recognition rates change
* People may receive information through informal networks
* People may not be able to act on their preference anyway
Mayblin specifically notes that information about recognition rates is often obtained through social networks and may not be reliable.
⸻
9. The role of agents and smugglers as “information providers”
One of the strongest themes in the 2022 Home Office report is that agents and smugglers are not merely transportation providers.
They can also function as:
Information providers
Telling people:
* Which countries are accessible
* Which countries are desirable
* Which routes are available
Marketers
Creating positive narratives about destination countries.
Decision-makers
Sometimes effectively selecting destinations.
Commercial actors
Choosing routes based on:
* Profit
* Operational ease
* Existing networks
* Border conditions
* Demand
* Risk
The report explicitly warns that information provided by agents may serve the interests of the agent rather than the migrant.
⸻
10. A useful consolidated list of factors
Stronger recurring factors
1. Family already living in the destination
2. Friends and social networks
3. Diaspora communities
4. Shared language
5. Colonial and historical connections
6. Perceptions of human rights and rule of law
7. Perceived likelihood of being granted asylum
8. Information from previous migrants
9. Information from family and friends
10. Social media
11. Smugglers and migration agents
12. Available migration routes
13. Financial resources
14. Geography and proximity
15. Border controls and practical accessibility
16. Previous experiences in transit countries
17. Discrimination or poor treatment in transit countries
18. Ability to establish a sustainable life
19. Perceived future opportunities
20. Random or changing circumstances during the journey
Factors where evidence is weaker or more contested
1. Welfare benefits
2. Specific asylum policies
3. Right to work while awaiting an asylum decision
4. Economic benefits
5. Wage differentials
The important distinction from these sources is that the latter factors may be part of a much larger decision environment, but these sources do not support a simple model where asylum seekers systematically compare government policies and select the country with the most generous benefits.
The Home Office report’s overall conclusion is that decision-making is dynamic, non-linear and shaped by interconnected individual, social, institutional and practical factors.
Your turn.
“ If we made the UK less attractive in terms of what we give away then of course we wouldn’t get the same amount of people trying to arrive.”
Evidence? |
Evening. If you had all of this at the tip of your fingertips, why did you provide something so irrelevant to your initial argument/post?
That's the importance of checking sources and data, whatever side of the political fence you sit on, kids. It could all be utter garbage or irrelevant in the context. Good job I wanted to understand your point a bit more and actually went and read the study you cited
Safe to say I'll be paying a little more attention to sources and citations on here in future. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:59 - Sep 7 with 314 views | noggin |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:33 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
As above and for the final time.
'It was way off, but you know that' quite clearly suggests I deliberately used a figure or statement I knew was wrong. Why would I do that? What exactly are you suggesting my motive was?
In conversations like this on here we all know where that sort of accusation normally ends up, which is why I called it out. If you're saying now that wasn't what you were insinuating, then fine, but please don't tell me I 'made it up'. I interpreted your words exactly as they were written. Funnily enough in exactly the same way you've taken an implication from my words.
If you're saying that wasn't what you meant, fine, I accept that, but then perhaps afford me the same courtesy rather than telling me what I meant. |
You're disingenuous so I'm not going to engage with you anymore. | |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:02 - Sep 7 with 306 views | eireblue |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:54 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Evening. If you had all of this at the tip of your fingertips, why did you provide something so irrelevant to your initial argument/post?
That's the importance of checking sources and data, whatever side of the political fence you sit on, kids. It could all be utter garbage or irrelevant in the context. Good job I wanted to understand your point a bit more and actually went and read the study you cited
Safe to say I'll be paying a little more attention to sources and citations on here in future. |
People have other things to do, and I have more than that, it very easy to find.
And you did say you will read it.
Now, you made an assertion.
Your evidence?
Which of course, will have to contradict, all of the above, and more. It better be good. [Post edited 7 Sep 22:04]
| | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:12 - Sep 7 with 272 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:59 - Sep 7 by noggin |
You're disingenuous so I'm not going to engage with you anymore. |
That's another board fave..
Ok. It's been informative. Thank you for your engagement. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:27 - Sep 7 with 235 views | TownieRob |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:02 - Sep 7 by eireblue |
People have other things to do, and I have more than that, it very easy to find.
And you did say you will read it.
Now, you made an assertion.
Your evidence?
Which of course, will have to contradict, all of the above, and more. It better be good. [Post edited 7 Sep 22:04]
|
Why would my evidence need to contradict 'all of the above and more? That's not how it works is it.. You made an assertion and supported it with a study that I actually went and read, and it didn't demonstrate what you hoped it did. That's the only reason we're here.
As I also mentioned, I did look further. The Danish study is far more relevant to the point I actually made. Denmark cut welfare for non-EU immigrants by around 50% and the research found net immigration fell by around 5,000 a year. When the policy was reversed, immigration increased again.
I'm not claiming that study proves every supposed UK 'pull factor' is real. It doesn't. It does however provide pretty relevant evidence that making a country more or less attractive can influence migration to that country. Which was my point in the first place.
Lastly, I don't need to spend my evening disproving every paper you can find via Google or AI. Perhaps sense check whether they actually support your position before posting them. It could have saved both you and me some time today. | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:52 - Sep 7 with 172 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 21:23 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Thanks for these links Nthsuffolkblue. I was hoping that eireblue would provide the source as I had googled and found what you have provided below and found them to not be so useful in the context he was suggesting. Therefore, I wondered and hoped it was a different source.
For the sake of order. The 200,000 immigrant study is genuine, but it looked at immigrants already living in America and whether better Medicaid/healthcare benefits would make them move from one US state to another. They didn't. Fair enough. That's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about whether making one country more or less attractive can influence migration to that country.
While I was bothered (I see your sarcasm in the post, don't worry it wasn't missed), I did research the topic and brilliantly, there is a study which tested pretty much exactly the discussion point. Denmark cut welfare benefits for non-EU immigrants by around 50%. Researchers found net immigration fell by about 5,000 people per year. Denmark then reversed the policy and immigration went back up. When restrictions were introduced again, it fell again. If anyone can be bothered in this then it's published in American Economic Review: Insights and, rather brilliantly, the paper is literally called The Welfare Magnet Hypothesis
That doesn't mean someone in Eritrea is sat checking benefit rates on Gov.Uk Of course they're not, I'm also not saying benefits are the only reason people come. The point I have been making is that making a destination more or less attractive can influence people's decisions.
The study 200,000 subjects study shows one particular healthcare benefit didn't make immigrants already in America move states. The Denmark study shows reducing welfare actually reduced international immigration, both things can be true.
So yes, despite me told it isnt 'a thing', pull factors are a thing.
*Now I sit here thinking about it, I wonder if I haven't been given a source for the original study because it was hoped I wouldn't check it as it wasn't any use in the given context. [Post edited 7 Sep 21:24]
|
I'm not sure why economic benefits from easy movement isn't a valid study but there we are. Maybe there was more to the changes in Norway than simply removing payments to migrants and then reinstating them but I haven't got time to look into that.
One thing I would ask (perhaps you missed it above) but what are the benefits that illegal immigrants are paid when they come to this country? https://parliamentnews.co.uk/d
You never replied to whether you thought it was right to remove the right to:
safety;
a roof over their heads;
food;
because a straightforward reading of what you posted suggested you thought that was the correct thing to do.
You also couched some of what you posted in the image of only being entitled to attend a party if you are contributing to the food/drink/music at the party. This would suggest that non-contributing members of a society should be considered of no value. Perhaps I am taking your comments too far but that appears to be a straightforward reading of them. | |
| |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:54 - Sep 7 with 164 views | naa |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:12 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
That's another board fave..
Ok. It's been informative. Thank you for your engagement. |
You were though | | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 23:18 - Sep 7 with 107 views | Kievthegreat |
Have we touched on some of the cowardly little sh1ts harassing the RNLI, calling them traitors and trying to doxx them on Twitter?
Over on X, the far-right British Patriots have launched a hate campaign against the RNLI
They are recording RNLI volunteers in order to dox them, reveal their identities and publish details of where they and their families live
These men are dangerous — Louis 〓〓 (@louishenwood.bsky.social) 2026-09-07T16:21:06.856Z
It's also a pretty quick way to make enemies of many local communities where the RNLI is far more popular than the Far Right — Alexander Clarkson (@aphclarkson.bsky.social) 2026-09-07T08:52:24.294Z
I'm sure those 'protesters' have very legitimate concerns, harassing and wasting the time of some of the most badass brave MFs around. I wonder if our resident Troglodytes agree with their brethren in Portsmouth? |  | | |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 23:26 - Sep 7 with 98 views | eireblue |
| Something is going down in Portsmouth… on 22:27 - Sep 7 by TownieRob |
Why would my evidence need to contradict 'all of the above and more? That's not how it works is it.. You made an assertion and supported it with a study that I actually went and read, and it didn't demonstrate what you hoped it did. That's the only reason we're here.
As I also mentioned, I did look further. The Danish study is far more relevant to the point I actually made. Denmark cut welfare for non-EU immigrants by around 50% and the research found net immigration fell by around 5,000 a year. When the policy was reversed, immigration increased again.
I'm not claiming that study proves every supposed UK 'pull factor' is real. It doesn't. It does however provide pretty relevant evidence that making a country more or less attractive can influence migration to that country. Which was my point in the first place.
Lastly, I don't need to spend my evening disproving every paper you can find via Google or AI. Perhaps sense check whether they actually support your position before posting them. It could have saved both you and me some time today. |
Was that the only change Denmark made, or the only one the paper considered?
Did they consider what was happening in other countries.
Anyhoo, you maybe interest in this conclusion
“ My revised estimates may inform policymakers that benefit reductions are, in fact,
not very effective in achieving the goal of reducing migration or increasing the
average skill level of migrants”
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstr
The reason you need to have lots of research, is that one data set, interpreted in a specific frame, may not be as useful, as multiple different pieces of research, on different datasets, that provide a degree of consistency. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
