Calais

[22A]

Monday night on our local news it showed a Somalian who made it through the tunnel by clinging to the bottom of a lorry. As a reward / punishment (you decide) he has been housed in Peterborough.

He said he wanted to come to Britain as he really likes the country and hopes to improve his English and provide for his family. He then added he did not come for benefits but is aware he will receive some.

Hmm just a few things to consider if he and any others bring their families here

1; we don't have enough social housing.,

2; we don't have enough school places and

3; the NHS cannot cope with the population size.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Monday night on our local news it showed a Somalian who made it through the tunnel by clinging to the bottom of a lorry. As a reward / punishment (you decide) he has been housed in Peterborough.

He said he wanted to come to Britain as he really likes the country and hopes to improve his English and provide for his family. He then added he did not come for benefits but is aware he will receive some.

Hmm just a few things to consider if he and any others bring their families here

1; we don't have enough social housing.,

2; we don't have enough school places and

3; the NHS cannot cope with the population size.

 

4) Mrs Bung who has paid in all of her working life and never claimed one penny from the state had her pension brutally put back 4 years.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Monday night on our local news it showed a Somalian who made it through the tunnel by clinging to the bottom of a lorry. As a reward / punishment (you decide) he has been housed in Peterborough.

He said he wanted to come to Britain as he really likes the country and hopes to improve his English and provide for his family. He then added he did not come for benefits but is aware he will receive some.

Hmm just a few things to consider if he and any others bring their families here

1; we don't have enough social housing.,

2; we don't have enough school places and

3; the NHS cannot cope with the population size.

I don't think anyone on here has suggested that we can continue to accomodate thousands of migrants every year. The debate has mainly revolved around how we prevent it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I don't think anyone on here has suggested that we can continue to accomodate thousands of migrants every year. The debate has mainly revolved around how we prevent it.

 

it should have been prevented 12 years ago and wasn't, when Spunkett insisted on Sangatte closing and letting them loose, instead of funding and staffing it and actually processing them properly and either allowing asylum or repatriation and keeping the lawyer parasites away.

[BS2 Red]

As a matter of interest how would you define 'racist' and 'bigot' ?

A racist would be someone that discriminates people based on their race.

A bigot is somebody that discriminates based on other factors such as sex, sexuality, religion, nationality etc.

[chipdawg]

Regular readers of non-football threads will undoubtedly have me down as a 'bleeding heart liberal' and in general I am. But there is no justification for any of those people being there. The genuine asylum seekers should be claiming asylum at the first country they arrive at and they certainly shouldn't be traveling to the western most point of the EU, while the economic migrants should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. I'm actually deeply cynical about the majority of the migrants coming across the Mediterranean at the minute. They're being charged upwards of $1500 to be trafficked across the sea which for me doesn't fit the narrative of 'impoverished sub-Saharan farmers trying to make a better life for themselves. If each of those people from non-war zone countries spent their $1500 on setting up a business, what would be the effect on those economies? I actually think that narrative in itself is based in racism because many people see a black or brown face in this context and assume their poor and ill-educated. In fact we don't know where most of these people come from and that feeds into the problem

That said, there is some pretty disgusting language and sentiment being thrown about in relation to other HUMAN BEINGS, so sort it out please. In the context of the EU we actually don't get a vast number of illegal immigrants and running through the Channel Tunnel isn't their major route here (overstaying visas, for example, is a much bigger issue), but it is obviously causing a big problem

The elephant in the room of course is that many of those who have least sympathy to these people are also against the EU but the only solution to this is an integrated EU asylum system; centrally funded, with centres at the borders of the EU where people must present themselves and are subsequently processed then allocated to a country based on a quota derived through negotiation. The fact of the matter is though that no one in the establishment wants that solution. Cameron can't suggest it because he's beholden to the right of the party who won't accept any solution to any problem which involves further integration (and I'm not talking about loss of border control, just on the issue of asylum) while the liberal left aren't going to get behind something which looks like a tightening of borders by the use of quasi concentration camps. So everyone sits on their hands

Anyway, that's my two penneth

[marshy]

Regular readers of non-football threads will undoubtedly have me down as a 'bleeding heart liberal' and in general I am. But there is no justification for any of those people being there. The genuine asylum seekers should be claiming asylum at the first country they arrive at and they certainly shouldn't be traveling to the western most point of the EU, while the economic migrants should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. I'm actually deeply cynical about the majority of the migrants coming across the Mediterranean at the minute. They're being charged upwards of $1500 to be trafficked across the sea which for me doesn't fit the narrative of 'impoverished sub-Saharan farmers trying to make a better life for themselves. If each of those people from non-war zone countries spent their $1500 on setting up a business, what would be the effect on those economies? I actually think that narrative in itself is based in racism because many people see a black or brown face in this context and assume their poor and ill-educated. In fact we don't know where most of these people come from and that feeds into the problem

That said, there is some pretty disgusting language and sentiment being thrown about in relation to other HUMAN BEINGS, so sort it out please. In the context of the EU we actually don't get a vast number of illegal immigrants and running through the Channel Tunnel isn't their major route here (overstaying visas, for example, is a much bigger issue), but it is obviously causing a big problem

The elephant in the room of course is that many of those who have least sympathy to these people are also against the EU but the only solution to this is an integrated EU asylum system; centrally funded, with centres at the borders of the EU where people must present themselves and are subsequently processed then allocated to a country based on a quota derived through negotiation. The fact of the matter is though that no one in the establishment wants that solution. Cameron can't suggest it because he's beholden to the right of the party who won't accept any solution to any problem which involves further integration (and I'm not talking about loss of border control, just on the issue of asylum) while the liberal left aren't going to get behind something which looks like a tightening of borders by the use of quasi concentration camps. So everyone sits on their hands

Anyway, that's my two penneth

 

Well Chipdawg it was going so well until we got to the third paragraph.

 

''where people must present themselves''

makes me wonder who is going to make them

.

''allocated to a country based on a quota derived through negotiation.''

 I would suggest these negotiations could go on for a very long time. Besides with open borders once allocated who is going to force them to stay where they've been placed?

 

Believe me if Italy were an independent sovereign nation with no open border to the North this problem would have been solved a long time ago.

 

The EU is presiding over a disaster, a massive economic disaster in its southern states, huge shifts of population, the Baltic states having lost nearly 25% of its people and 800 000 Poles over here. Yet the holders of the faith continue to say that the answer is more Europe not less, more decisions taken from the centre that effect us all. For me belief in the EU has been reduced to the status of a religion...blind faith.

[chipdawg]

Well Chipdawg it was going so well until we got to the third paragraph.

''where people must present themselves''

makes me wonder who is going to make them

.

''allocated to a country based on a quota derived through negotiation.''

I would suggest these negotiations could go on for a very long time. Besides with open borders once allocated who is going to force them to stay where they've been placed?

Believe me if Italy were an independent sovereign nation with no open border to the North this problem would have been solved a long time ago.

The EU is presiding over a disaster, a massive economic disaster in its southern states, huge shifts of population, the Baltic states having lost nearly 25% of its people and 800 000 Poles over here. Yet the holders of the faith continue to say that the answer is more Europe not less, more decisions taken from the centre that effect us all. For me belief in the EU has been reduced to the status of a religion...blind faith.

You only seem to have 'condescending' setting Marshy

It wouldn't be a case of 'making' anyone present at an EU immigration centre, if they try to bypass them and are picked up they are sent back home. The EU would have to pick up the tab for it, but it's costing EVERYBODY money at the moment anyway

As for the idea that if the EU was dissolved and all borders reinstated, that's laughable. There would still be trade across said borders and there would still be illegals trying to cross them. You think that if 200,000 people rock up in Italy one summer saying "we'd like to go to Germany/France/Sweden/UK please" they'll say "no, we must detain you here and pay for your upkeep"? They'll help them into the back of a passing lorry and wave them over the border

Out of interest, could you quote where your figures on Baltic immigration are obtained from? You and others routinely dismiss EU figures, so I'd be interested in what you believe to be a more reliable source. Anyway, immigration from Eastern Europe is an entirely different debate. The figures I've seen relating to this suggest we're only the 6th most popular destination for illegal migrants and asylum seekers, whilst Germany has to deal with 10 times more. I'm not suggesting that makes what's happening at Calais alright, but perhaps adds a little context

[Nibor]

I have to say I don't really understand this one.

 

Why don't we simply return everybody who enters the UK illegally to either the country they entered from, or their country of origin?

 

So - they can apply for asylum in the UK from anywhere except the UK if they've entered illegally, removing any temptation to do so and reducing the unnecessary risk taking.

 

It's not like France isn't a safe place.

 

Economic migrants from outside the EU will fail asylum applications, people genuinely in need of asylum should and will be accepted.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I have to say I don't really understand this one.

 

Why don't we simply return everybody who enters the UK illegally to either the country they entered from, or their country of origin?

 

So - they can apply for asylum in the UK from anywhere except the UK if they've entered illegally, removing any temptation to do so and reducing the unnecessary risk taking.

 

It's not like France isn't a safe place.

 

Economic migrants from outside the EU will fail asylum applications, people genuinely in need of asylum should and will be accepted.

 

The problem arises once they arrive in the UK the human rights lawyers descend like the vultures that they are.

[Red-Robbo]

I have to say I don't really understand this one.

Why don't we simply return everybody who enters the UK illegally to either the country they entered from, or their country of origin?

So - they can apply for asylum in the UK from anywhere except the UK if they've entered illegally, removing any temptation to do so and reducing the unnecessary risk taking.

It's not like France isn't a safe place.

Economic migrants from outside the EU will fail asylum applications, people genuinely in need of asylum should and will be accepted.

Es hits on the reason. You cannot under present law deport people to an "unsafe" place, so Afghans and Syrians cannot be returned.; Sudanese from Darfur; even Eritreans, as they face torture for fleeing military service.

And of course, many migrants have no documentation and obfuscate their country of origin or lie about the circumstances of their departure. "I am gay and face persecution in my home country" is currently the most popular.

Other EU states are refusing to have back migrants who make it here as they correctly point out that the UK has taken far fewer than they have. In theory, EU law says the migrants should return to the first safe country they arrived in. In practice, there is no way we can make them take them.

[Nibor]

Es hits on the reason. You cannot under present law deport people to an "unsafe" place, so Afghans and Syrians cannot be returned.; Sudanese from Darfur; even Eritreans, as they face torture for fleeing military service.

And of course, many migrants have no documentation and obfuscate their country of or

Other EU states

 

Nobody enters illegally direct from those states.  If we tell someone who entered illegally we will repatriate them to either the country they entered from or their country of origin then presumably they will choose France over some wartorn shithole.

 

And the point is not stopping asylum seekers, it's stopping dangerous attempts at illegal entry.  No reason someone can't apply for asylum in the UK from France or Italy is there?

[Red-Robbo]

Nobody enters illegally direct from those states. If we tell someone who entered illegally we will repatriate them to either the country they entered from or their country of origin then presumably they will choose France over some wartorn shithole.

And the point is not stopping asylum seekers, it's stopping dangerous attempts at illegal entry. No reason someone can't apply for asylum in the UK from France or Italy is there?

I think you can only apply when you are in. Otherwise Lampadusa would be full of people applying for UK asylum.

As I've said before, the number of lorry jumpers is dwarfed by the asylum seekers arriving on visas via the airports, or those who have gained asylum in other EU countries and then legitimately move here. The latter accounts for 250,000 arrivals last year.