2

In the newest BBC documentary Exodus: Our Journey to Europe, we see journeys of several Syrian refugees across Europe. The one that I followed closely was that of Ahmad's, who is desperate to reach the UK.

He appears to be an amazing man and I wish him all the best in his life (and similarly to all refugees), but I find his desire to specifically reach the UK (as opposed to any other EU country) somewhat unsettling and perhaps not properly addressed in the documentary. It seems that his family, which is still in Syria, is in a constant danger and fear for their lives, so why was he so persistent in reaching the UK as opposed to settling for, say, France or Denmark (which he visits on his way to the UK), which are both safe and prosperous countries? I might (and hope I am) wrong, but it seems that this perhaps unnecessarily prolonged journey meant his family was in danger for longer. Let alone the danger he put himself into in Calais, which could have easily resulted in his death.

Having consulted this page, it appears that the reason might have been that in the UK "Syrian asylum claims were being processed quickly", but can it really be the reason?. I find it impossible to imagine developed countries from the core of EU to be lagging so much behind the UK in processing genuine asylum claims that it is actually more reasonable to further endanger the life of you and your family by trying to reach the UK instead of settling in for another EU country.

So, as in the title - are there any genuine reasons for Syrian refugees who already reached EU borders and whose main intention is to get their families into safety, to try to reach the UK instead of settling for another EU country? I am sure that there are, but without it properly exposed, I do not think it is not reasonable to question Ahmad's actions once within the EU borders or even regard them as a reckless gamble.

closed as off-topic by March Ho, Oddthinking Jul 14 '16 at 12:07

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – March Ho, Oddthinking
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Welcome to Skeptics! This is a question about the motivation of an individual. We explicitly disallow such questions because there is no way of providing empirical evidence as to what he was thinking. – Oddthinking Jul 14 '16 at 12:08
  • Oh okay, I see, sorry about that. Could it be perhaps allowed if rephrased along the lines of "are there any significant differences in how the UK, France and Denmark process asylum claims from Syrian refugees, which would make one of these more desirable to claim asylum in?" – Pink and Floyd Jul 14 '16 at 12:20
  • 2
    To make it notable, you need someone to be claiming it. Ahmad may not be claiming that for the general case - perhaps he has family in the UK, or a job lined up, or similar? (I haven't seen the documentary.) – Oddthinking Jul 14 '16 at 12:26
  • 2
    Maybe he speaks English and therefore prefers to be in the UK? – Christian Jul 17 '16 at 13:10

Browse other questions tagged .