News3 mins ago
No Wonder They Are Queuing Up Across The Channel To Come Here.
34 Answers
http://
While our own ex service men are sleeping on the streets, and our poor are attending soup kitchens and living on food parcels, our Government are putting up 'Asylum seekers' up in £100 per night 4 star hotels.
While our own ex service men are sleeping on the streets, and our poor are attending soup kitchens and living on food parcels, our Government are putting up 'Asylum seekers' up in £100 per night 4 star hotels.
Answers
Exactly, naomi. The government of the UK is elected (and paid) to look after the best interests of UK citizens. Everything else comes a not very close second. Actually, Jim, I could not give a tinker’s cuss about the situation in other countries. How they view and treat the problem is their affair, as it should be ours to deal with it in the way we think fit....
12:48 Sun 18th Jan 2015
You seem to have no knowledge whatsoever so this does not surprise me at all!
http://
But they are already suffering, Jim. Surely sleeping in a tent in the Calais "jungle" can be no different to kipping in a shop doorway in The Strand. But the main point is that these people are already in a safe country so they have no need or right to enter the UK. Their asylum applications should be heard in the first safe country in which they arrive (which for many of them was probably Greece or more usually Italy). The UK has no obligation to provide facilities for them when they arrive here illegally and this means no hotels and no converted army barracks.
But the real story of course is that they are not asylum seekers at all but simply economic migrants for whom the UK is (for various reasons) their "destination of choice". They are not desperate. Their desperation - such that it was - ended when they reached mainland Europe and there is no reason why the UK taxpayer should improve their lot simply because they manage to stow away on a lorry crossing the Channel.
But the real story of course is that they are not asylum seekers at all but simply economic migrants for whom the UK is (for various reasons) their "destination of choice". They are not desperate. Their desperation - such that it was - ended when they reached mainland Europe and there is no reason why the UK taxpayer should improve their lot simply because they manage to stow away on a lorry crossing the Channel.
Those people are chancers who risk all, if they can take the chance and lose so be it. No-one asked them to come here so they must face whatever the consequences are. Problem is there are not enough tough conseqences to stop them arriving here. No-one seems to be doing anything to halt them. It is Not the Present Government's fault entirely, but it is now down to them to put a stop to it and stop pussyfooting. It galls me to think that our services are so overloaded and third-rate, and our people relying on food banks. The Labour party did not do their sums when they started inviting people here unchecked.
It just strikes me that the approach you and other posters are advocating is rather too heavy on the stick. Rather than trying to make it harder to live here for those who do come, a more effective approach is surely to provide them with fewer reasons to come by working to improve living conditions abroad. This should also, to be sure, be accompanied by more effective border controls, but no I don't agree that these people deserve to be treated with contempt or derision. Some maybe, but then harsh measures would end up catching those who did want to come here for honest reasons along with the guilty.
Jim, the rules are that they are to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. For those coming from France that first country is not the UK. If they are not applying for asylum then their applications to settle here should be made from their country of origin. The conditions pertaining in other nations are not a consideration when considering applications to settle here (unless they are asylum applications).
This country is effectively under invasion from these people. They may not have guns but the effect they are having is profound and everlasting. The notion that they should be accommodated in agreeable hotels having arrived here illegally is simply preposterous. It is a betrayal of taxpayers' trust and it is outrageous, at a time when we are told that "savage" cuts are being made, that money is being squandered in this way. The French seem perfectly willing to allow them to live rough. We should do the same.
This country is effectively under invasion from these people. They may not have guns but the effect they are having is profound and everlasting. The notion that they should be accommodated in agreeable hotels having arrived here illegally is simply preposterous. It is a betrayal of taxpayers' trust and it is outrageous, at a time when we are told that "savage" cuts are being made, that money is being squandered in this way. The French seem perfectly willing to allow them to live rough. We should do the same.
rodders123, // Roll on May 7//
Why? What’s going to change?
Jim, I agree with NJ. It’s high time we got seriously cynical. Those seeking asylum have presumably fled their homelands in fear of their well-being, and often, allegedly, their lives. If that’s true, then any safe haven should be welcome to them. If we offered them less than we do, they wouldn’t be making this country their goal.
Why? What’s going to change?
Jim, I agree with NJ. It’s high time we got seriously cynical. Those seeking asylum have presumably fled their homelands in fear of their well-being, and often, allegedly, their lives. If that’s true, then any safe haven should be welcome to them. If we offered them less than we do, they wouldn’t be making this country their goal.
At the very least, it should be accepted that the measures you're both suggesting are only solutions in the short-term, if at all, and don't do anything to address the underlying problem. Additionally the UK isn't the only country with large numbers of Asylum seekers, and indeed France actually received over two times as many over 2013 as we did (and Germany almost twice as much again). This concept that the rest of Europe is just a stopping point for the majority of asylum seekers is highly misleading.
(see http://
(see http://
//it's also reasonable to assume that each country's figures are underestimates//
Not with you. Why is it reasonable - and do you include UK figures in that assumption?
//...don't do anything to address the underlying problem.//
When people already in safe countries aren't content to stay there, what in your estimation, is the underlying problem?
Not with you. Why is it reasonable - and do you include UK figures in that assumption?
//...don't do anything to address the underlying problem.//
When people already in safe countries aren't content to stay there, what in your estimation, is the underlying problem?
" Why is it reasonable - and do you include UK figures in that assumption? "
Yes, I did include the UK in that assumption -- actually I'd tend to expect the figures to be broadly accurate, especially for asylum seekers who ought by definition to appear in official figures. However it's generally accepted that we underestimate the number of people coming to this country, perhaps by a huge margin, so I wanted to say that I'd taken that into account. The main point is that we receive proportionally far fewer Asylum Seekers than three other EU countries (namely France, Germany and Sweden), and about the same number as three more.
The underlying problem is people wanting to seek asylum in the first place. If we managed to successfully close our borders to such people or otherwise discouraged them from coming here, then evidently they would just go somewhere else, and in particular to countries who already have a fairly high number of Asylum seekers.
Yes, I did include the UK in that assumption -- actually I'd tend to expect the figures to be broadly accurate, especially for asylum seekers who ought by definition to appear in official figures. However it's generally accepted that we underestimate the number of people coming to this country, perhaps by a huge margin, so I wanted to say that I'd taken that into account. The main point is that we receive proportionally far fewer Asylum Seekers than three other EU countries (namely France, Germany and Sweden), and about the same number as three more.
The underlying problem is people wanting to seek asylum in the first place. If we managed to successfully close our borders to such people or otherwise discouraged them from coming here, then evidently they would just go somewhere else, and in particular to countries who already have a fairly high number of Asylum seekers.
Jim, //I'd tend to expect the figures to be broadly accurate, especially for asylum seekers who ought by definition to appear in official figures.//
Exactly – hence my confusion at your assumption.
//However it's generally accepted that we underestimate the number of people coming to this country, perhaps by a huge margin, so I wanted to say that I'd taken that into account.//
This discussion doesn’t require us to take that into account – we’re talking about asylum seekers.
//If we managed to successfully close our borders to such people or otherwise discouraged them from coming here, then evidently they would just go somewhere else, and in particular to countries who already have a fairly high number of Asylum seekers.//
Why should that concern us?
Exactly – hence my confusion at your assumption.
//However it's generally accepted that we underestimate the number of people coming to this country, perhaps by a huge margin, so I wanted to say that I'd taken that into account.//
This discussion doesn’t require us to take that into account – we’re talking about asylum seekers.
//If we managed to successfully close our borders to such people or otherwise discouraged them from coming here, then evidently they would just go somewhere else, and in particular to countries who already have a fairly high number of Asylum seekers.//
Why should that concern us?
Exactly, naomi. The government of the UK is elected (and paid) to look after the best interests of UK citizens. Everything else comes a not very close second.
Actually, Jim, I could not give a tinker’s cuss about the situation in other countries. How they view and treat the problem is their affair, as it should be ours to deal with it in the way we think fit. However, I accept that the problem is not confined to the UK and that other nations accept greater numbers of asylum seekers than we do. Since you mention three specific countries it might be worth taking a look at their population densities. Sweden has around 60 people per square mile, France 306 and Germany 585. The UK figure is 679. I don’t doubt that similar features apply to the other countries but the UK figure is somewhat misleading. The equivalent figure for England (where most of them seem to want to settle) is well over 1,000.
This is indeed a Europe wide problem but Europe (by which I mean the EU) is not dealing with it in the best fashion. In particular the Schengen Agreement simply exacerbates the problem. This agreement (I was castigated for continually calling it “ridiculous” a couple of months ago so I’ve stopped doing that – but that has not stopped it being ridiculous) allows free movement of people across the area (which thankfully does not include the UK). It was designed to facilitate the movement of those entitled to be in the area. But of course the abandonment of internal borders has meant that it also facilitates the movement of those not entitled to be here (a problem that was widely highlighted – and brushed aside in the usual fashion - before it was signed). So we have scenes of mass arrivals in Italy on decrepit abandoned cattle boats. There the government is “proud” to be the destination of choice for African migrants but not so proud as to refrain from quickly ushering them across the border into France and thence all points north (including Calais).
We will never agree on this because I do not believe that the UK has the capacity to absorb any more migrants from anywhere for any reason. The pressure on healthcare, schools, housing and infrastructure is simply too great and is worsening daily. Accommodating illegal entrants in agreeable hotels and providing them with meals is not the way to deter them from coming here. If they were to be accommodated temporarily (for, say, a week or two at most) prior to them being returned either to France or elsewhere as the rules permit I would agree that it may be more acceptable than to see them wander the streets (and quickly disappear into the ether). But that’s not going to happen. Your suggestion that we address the conditions in their homelands so as to make them more likely to want to remain there is very laudable but hardly practical. It took England some four or five centuries to progress from the state that some of those nations are currently in to how it is today and that was with the benefit of progression, not the regression that many of those nations exhibit. In the meantime we should make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to remain here. It won’t stop them trying to come but it will make taxpayers here, who are constantly being urged to tighten their belts, feel a little less aggrieved.
Actually, Jim, I could not give a tinker’s cuss about the situation in other countries. How they view and treat the problem is their affair, as it should be ours to deal with it in the way we think fit. However, I accept that the problem is not confined to the UK and that other nations accept greater numbers of asylum seekers than we do. Since you mention three specific countries it might be worth taking a look at their population densities. Sweden has around 60 people per square mile, France 306 and Germany 585. The UK figure is 679. I don’t doubt that similar features apply to the other countries but the UK figure is somewhat misleading. The equivalent figure for England (where most of them seem to want to settle) is well over 1,000.
This is indeed a Europe wide problem but Europe (by which I mean the EU) is not dealing with it in the best fashion. In particular the Schengen Agreement simply exacerbates the problem. This agreement (I was castigated for continually calling it “ridiculous” a couple of months ago so I’ve stopped doing that – but that has not stopped it being ridiculous) allows free movement of people across the area (which thankfully does not include the UK). It was designed to facilitate the movement of those entitled to be in the area. But of course the abandonment of internal borders has meant that it also facilitates the movement of those not entitled to be here (a problem that was widely highlighted – and brushed aside in the usual fashion - before it was signed). So we have scenes of mass arrivals in Italy on decrepit abandoned cattle boats. There the government is “proud” to be the destination of choice for African migrants but not so proud as to refrain from quickly ushering them across the border into France and thence all points north (including Calais).
We will never agree on this because I do not believe that the UK has the capacity to absorb any more migrants from anywhere for any reason. The pressure on healthcare, schools, housing and infrastructure is simply too great and is worsening daily. Accommodating illegal entrants in agreeable hotels and providing them with meals is not the way to deter them from coming here. If they were to be accommodated temporarily (for, say, a week or two at most) prior to them being returned either to France or elsewhere as the rules permit I would agree that it may be more acceptable than to see them wander the streets (and quickly disappear into the ether). But that’s not going to happen. Your suggestion that we address the conditions in their homelands so as to make them more likely to want to remain there is very laudable but hardly practical. It took England some four or five centuries to progress from the state that some of those nations are currently in to how it is today and that was with the benefit of progression, not the regression that many of those nations exhibit. In the meantime we should make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to remain here. It won’t stop them trying to come but it will make taxpayers here, who are constantly being urged to tighten their belts, feel a little less aggrieved.
Latest Posts
Crosswords12 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.