WE are where we are because of the division that has been created by politicians who want to remain in power at any cost. Migration has always have been a scapegoating method for those who have failed to deliver the promises they have made to voters.

The protests and mob attacks we are seeing now is not because of asylum seekers and refugees, it is because communities across the UK feel they're not consulted, not respected and not being warned of the changes in their area beforehand. That is why I believe they all have the right to be concerned and protest against the Government's plan to house hundreds of people in their area without notice.

What the UK Government doing is totally wrong at all levels. It is not right to not communicate with communities that you want to house asylum seekers in. It is also not right to put large numbers of vulnerable people in hotels, many of whom are suffering mental health problems, or have been victims of trafficking. It is not safe for the people in the hotel or the community.

READ MORE: Scotland's first refugee councillor slams Home Office handling of asylum seekers in Kent

Asylum seekers and refugees should not be held in hotels for months and months without proper support, especially mental health support. The communities and local authorities also should not be left alone to deal with asylum seekers and refugees’ needs in their area. There must be proper funding and planning in place. Funding to support education, health and wellbeing. Without proper funds, communities will take the burden for the Government's failures.

I believe the Government is deliberately putting pressure on communities and local authorities to cause reaction. Then, they can say: "There is a problem in the community, it's caused by migrants, and we are the only ones who can solve it, so vote for us." The senior government officials are also using their platform to fuel the anger that some people in their communities feel against migrants by using inflammatory language and dangerous rhetoric to divide the society between us and them.

At later stages, they “condemn” violence of the reactionary people in the communities. They also make the case that, actually, the violence happened because of the people crossing the Channel.

No one wants the Channel crossings. It is a deadly route. We have seen the loss of lives previously. But the Government can solve the problem easily if only they want to.

One of the things they can do is to have capped safe legal routes, somewhere around 10,000 to 20,000 per year, that brings the numbers down by more than half. The Government’s argument that people are safe in France is the distraction from reality. Because no European country, in fact, no country in the world will be willing to say "we will tackle the global migration issue on our own".

Every country must take their fair share. It is not good enough to say because France is safe, therefore, the UK will not take any asylum seekers at all. If the France also starts saying "Italy is safe therefore we are not taking any asylum seekers at all", we will end up in a position where we are telling asylum seekers: "We will not be taking you, because your head teacher’s house was safe, you should have just stayed there."

The whole concept of the 1951 refugees’ convention was to create a fair system for those who are seeking refuge, but also for state nations to spread the responsibility across the board to make sure that there is not one country that take all the burden for migration.

Do I think there might be a case to revisit the convention? Absolutely! It is not clear enough, or perhaps there are loopholes which allows some states to scapegoat their responsibilities such as Article 30 of the convention - about the first safe country that refugees arrive. Some states are using this to implement a no-asylum zone, especially those states that geographically will never be the first safe country.It is just not possible in the UK, Germany, Sweden, Finland and many other countries as they are far from the conflict zone countries that people fleeing from. Therefore, it will be a good decision to revisit the convention and clarify that point for legal purposes.

There is also a case to make to re-energise and allocate more funds to the UNHCR to be more present around hotspot areas such as Greece and Turkey. This could save many people from crossing oceans and borders, but also save lives. Most importantly it will be a fair system. If we take this approach, we will have a clarity on how many people will be coming in each year, there will be proper due diligence in which we will know about any criminal records or the vulnerability of people coming in.

READ MORE: FACT CHECK: Claim Scotland isn't taking a fair share of asylum seekers

It will also help local authorities to prepare themselves. This, with an integration plan, helps many refugees to become contributors to their families and the communities they are living. Above all this is a safe and legal route, which protects people’s lives and dignities. It will reduce the numbers of people coming to the UK by more than half, it will be capped, communities can rest assured that they know who their next-door neighbour is.

What is needed is unity in communities so they are at the same side of the battle. The responsibility lies on the government, it is not the communities to be blamed nor asylum seekers for fleeing war and persecution and held in the hotels against their will. We need to know who is really responsible for the mess we are in now.

Savan Qadir is project manager at Refugees for Justice, and is based in Kilmarnock