UKC

Where's it going to end?

In reply to mypyrex:

Folkstone

In reply to Orgsm:

Is that you Num Num?

In reply to mypyrex:


Sorry but Mrs Num Nums tunnel is not accepting any asylum seekers, legitimate or not.

In reply to mypyrex:

Well Edward III sorted the problem out for a while.

In reply to Orgsm:


Are you sure? From what I've seen on the Tinternet, there is a lot of attempts at forced entry going on...

In reply to Orgsm:

Sorry but Mrs Num Nums tunnel is not accepting any asylum seekers, legitimate or not.

Which of the three tunnels are you referring to?

In reply to mypyrex:

F*ck knows, but I haven't seen anything on the news about debating how to fix the issue of all these desperate people. Justices on building higher fences. Can't see it being fixed.by security
They're here and need to go somewhere and that doesn't seem to be being discussed.

In reply to Scarab9:



Why this country? I'm sure they could have as good a life in France or Italy or Spain...








...or the US

In reply to mypyrex:

He said somewhere, he didn't say here.

By looking at security measures we are treating a symptom, not the root cause of it.

None if this is helped by the right wing press and politicians who don't want to look at the big picture; they would rather blame people who are escaping from some pretty f*cked up places.

In reply to DaveN:




>they would rather blame people who are escaping from some pretty f*cked up places.

How do you deal with it though?
Take them in and more and more will come.

Improve the conditions where they are coming from? Most of those places will only change if forced to but will going to war again and again help people? I doubt it.
Diplomacy only works if the leadership want to change things.

In reply to Scarab9:



Lots of guest rooms in Downing Street.......

In reply to mypyrex:

Not much action in this thread.....I would have expected a swarm of responses.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

How dare you belittle responses and liken them to insects..........!

In reply to DaveN:


But the OP was about Calais and the people descending on Calais from god knows where seem hell bent on reaching the UK.

In reply to DaveN:


Neither do I think it's helped by the left wing bleeding heart liberals who seem intent on allowing a free for all entry into this country irrespective of the problems it creates for resources and infrastructure.

In reply to Scarab9:



I think the lack of discussion is because no one has a clue what to do.

This isn't simply about letting a few thousand illegals across the channel. This is a global population shift. Africa is screwed. The umpteen trillion in aid over the years has kept various dictators in Mercs, palaces and private jets, (not forgetting weapons), but has had virtually no effect on the grinding poverty and routine brutality.

The only way out is north to Europe, which simply cannot cope with the sheer volume of people. Calais is a sideshow, and to be fair I have very little sympathy for those there who have deliberately destroyed their papers and are trying to bypass the asylum system for their own no doubt largely nefarious ends.

This is a far bigger problem than finding a big lorry park to hide the parked trucks from the ratepayers and tory voters in Kent and providing not-very-bitey dogs at the French end of the chunnel.

In reply to mypyrex:

As a thought experiment, how practical would it be to get a wetsuit, snorkel and fins and swim to the UK?

In reply to Morgan Woods:


Don't give them ideas!

In reply to Morgan Woods:


It's been done. Two bodies found so far, no doubt a few have succeeded.

In reply to Dax H:




"These places" do not stand in isolation though, we are one of the big players in creating instability in the middle east and north africa for our own economic and strategic gain - perhaps if we stopped doing that there would be less refugees?


Which leaders are you talking about? It's easy to blame others for being poor, but as I see it, it is our leaders in the West who need to change things. In order for that to happen we are the turkeys who need to vote for christmas - the world does not have the resources to support a substantial raise in the standard of living in the poorest countries without a corresponding substantial drop in the standards of living for the richest.

In reply to Ridge:


On top of dealing with fairly complex tides (apparently most official crossings end up doing about 30 miles of swimming to cross the 21 miles), you have to cross one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world - I'd be surprised if anyone was making it without coastguard support.

In reply to Ciro:

That's a reasonable point, western intervention in the Middle East post the first Gulf war has been fairly disastrous. North Africa is perhaps less clear. However, even if we adopted a completely isolationist stance tomorrow, the Middle East and pretty much the whole of Africa are more than capable of descending into bloody chaos under their own steam. Besides, China seems keen to become the new colonial power in Africa. Whatever we do the mass exodus from Africa will continue.

Much as I might like the idea of 'fortress Europe', that isn't going to happen in the near future. The Mediterranean border is pretty much porous, (HMS Bulwark was running a very successful one way ferry service earlier this year), and there isn't the political will anywhere in Europe to stop the flow.


We've now gone from the West stopping dabbling in the worlds affairs to the West having to change things in the rest of the world. You can't have one without the other. I have no problem in principle with what you're suggesting, but we could dismantle the NHS, remove all pensions and benefits, halve everyone's wages and we still wouldn't dent the poverty in the rest of the world, even if every country in the 'West' joined in.

There's no good way out of this.

P.S. Good point in your later post re: tides and shipping in the channel, hadn't considered that.

In reply to mypyrex:


Th UK accepted approximately 34k of refugees last year over the same period Germany accepted approximately 200K. That's 6 times as many people for a country with approximately 25% larger population and 15% per capita higher GDP. So a country 40% richer than the UK in quantitative terms is taking 6 times as many refugees.

To further push the analogy a large number of these migrants that specifically head for the UK would have come from countries that were originally part of the British Empire. Whose economies and political class and cultures are a result of British colonialism and the resource extraction you as a nation took out of these less well off countries. Those British resources and infrastructure, you go on about straining, which were built up over hundreds of years in part from monies taken out of your colonial territories.

A small percentage of the overall number of migrants coming into Europe head for the UK. In absolute terms it barely strains as you put it "resources and infrastructure" and the reality is that most of those who actually make it in will become part of the black economy working illegally and placing little or no strain on UK governmental resources.

So you can bleat on crap about bleeding heart liberals or you can be good nation state that accepts your fare share of the world's downtrodden (who are incidentally only looking for a better life). Which you probably should do anyway due to the fact you as a nation will go about how great you are and you're wonderful past. Well maybe you should prove it to the rest of the world, do your duty and take your fair share.

But then again being the little englander/dailymailer you are you'll do the same thing you always do and not even acknowledge any post that disagrees with your point in a coherent manner. Then go back to sniping at others representing the less well off or cheering on the small few that appear to agree with you.

In reply to Ridge:


I don't think it's all that unclear in north africa - it's all linked to the same geopolitical games. We agitated for the uprising against Assad in Syria, then supplied arms and expertise to keep the war going when it would have otherwise been quickly put down.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chem...


I wasn't suggesting we stop dabbling in world affairs, I was saying we need to stop gearing our foreign policy towards our benefit at all cost. This doesn't mean dismantling what we have, which I agree would be meaningless. It means steps like cancelling third world debt, no more wars for oil, re-negotiation/scrapping of trade agreements that are designed to keep us ahead of other regions, and the expansion of trade agreements that are designed to make things easy with our mates to include the rest of the world.

None of this would be easy of course, and we would suffer financially as a result, but unless we want to do it we can't wash our hands of the suffering in other regions of the world that are a direct result of our current policies.

In reply to Frank4short:

So in short:

German and Sweden take more. Good for them, however you're overlooking the tribal warfare going on in Malmo at present and the other vibrant cultural rapey stuff the Swedish govt and press keep pretending isn't happening. Germany has it's own issues. That's controllable as a one off influx, not as an ongoing migration year upon year. The Swedish and German approaches aren't necessarily something to aspire to.

Secondly the colonial guilt. That's starting to wear a bit thin, how long do we go on with it, hundred years, two hundred, three hundred? Who keeps count? That argument also runs counter to the other one where large scale immigration will enrich Europe. What you're saying is "This is going to be unpleasant, but you bastards deserve it". Fair point, maybe we do, but it's not consistent with the 'the camp at Calais is full of doctors, engineers and people with valuable skills desperate to contribute to the UK' argument that is also deployed.

The last one is a belter. They'll be working illegally so that's OK. I'm sure the Tories love the idea! Let me think, tens if not hundreds of thousands of undocumented individuals, working illegally, terrified and exploited. Sounds ideal. Not forgetting the huge pool of untreated TB, Hep C and that other three letter acronym than only racists mention. So they've fled somewhere where mass murder is the norm, crossed continents, (possibly chucking competing migrants overboard on route), have made it to the UK are living a life of squalor and criminality. After all that I'm sure fit young men of fighting age aren't going to get a little bit envious of all the wealth and privilege around them, are they? And I'm sure the odd obese PCSO is a terrifying deterrent when compared to the cops in sub sharan Africa. No, you're right, I can't see anything remotely bad happening a few years down the line.

Believe it or not I do sympathise with the individuals. They have had a desperately miserable life and in their shoes I'd probably be trying to get somewhere better. However I'm under no illusion that thousands of such individuals present significant and largely unsolvable social problems in the future. They've got this far on an incredible determination to look after number one at whatever cost, and they'll apply that mindset to any issue, regardless of the consequences to others. That doesn't mean they're evil or subhuman, just they've had to become like that to survive.

In reply to Ciro:


I agree, got to be worth a try.


Largely agreed, our current policies and, (despite my reply above), colonial history have sown the seeds of this crisis. However I don't subscribe to the idea we are responsible for all the worlds ills. A good few maybe, but these issues can arise without the help of the west.

In reply to Ridge:


Oh, absolutely... it's a complex situation and there are lots of local factors involved. I just think we have to accept responsibility for trying to keep the playing field tilted.

In reply to mypyrex:

Can't we sell tickets to American dentists to knock them off at $50k a pop?

In reply to Frank4short:





If that means proud to be English and to love all that is English then yes, I put my hand up.
The rampant left wing are quick to use such terms and I despise them all the more for resorting to such pathetic figures of speech. You bandy such expressions around with the same glee with which you refer to others as "toffs".

As for reading the Mail, I wouldn't even wipe my a**se with it. It's only one step out of the gutter than the Mirror - and the Guardian's not much better for left wing tittle tattle.

No doubt my response is not to you satisfaction but do not accuse me of not having done so.

In reply to mypyrex:

No idea where it'll end, but it won't end well for anyone.

Long term for the UK, all I can think of is to enact laws that make being an illegal immigrant in the UK is significantly less desirable than being one in all the countries they would normal pass through on route, and more so, to make sure this becomes common knowledge.

As for stopping the problem in the first place, Europe just has to harden it's approach a bit. When they find these boats, loaded with 100's of people. get them rescued then drop them back off on the coast of north Africa, doesn't matter if it's not the country of origin but a best guess will do. Given how horrific the trip is I think it'll put many off once they have experienced for real.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I always thought that the rules about seeking asylum were that you did so in the first "safe" country in which you landed. These people seem not to be doing so otherwise they would be applying in Italy, Greece or wherever.

In reply to FactorXXX:



The service tunnel

In reply to Frank4short:


That's misleading because Germany has ID cards and the Harz IV law which forces unemployed people to take any job available. It's much harder to live and work in Germany without ID than it is in Britain, Germany could easily have more officially accepted migrants but that doesn't mean it has more migrants.

The source countries of immigrants to Germany are also probably different, people from Turkey and Eastern Europe are more likely to speak German and have relations in Germany than people from Africa.

In reply to mypyrex:

Maybe if we looked at why they are leaving there home country in the first place, Lack of jobs money future. Yet some of these country`s are rich in natural resources. So why aren`t the country`s rich. hmm.

Maybe if we looked at the puppet regimes allowing the taking of the natural resources at barging prices by global cooperations paying no tax odd bribe country then requiring IMF world bank loans squandered on Presidential palaces fleets of limos etc.

So if we wiped off the debt to the banks made the cooperations pay tax then maybe maybe these country`s could actually thrive and take away the need for people to leave in such numbers.

In reply to dazmac:


All the systemic corruption that you allude to, and that has failed the people despite natural resources, all that corruption will magically stop if debts are cancelled?

The problem has never been money. It's another symptom of the corruption problem. Cancel the debt and its more limos at the top.

Now you could link debt relief to deep and permanent political reform. Might help...

In reply to dazmac:

Sure there is that but I'm fairly sure that somebody mentioned earlier in this thread that we send millions in aid to many nations but owing to rampant corruption in some of these nations it wouldn't be at all surprising if money ends up feathering the nests of the people who are supposed to be running these countries. As far as I can recall, there has been aid money sent to various countries in Africa for all of my life and yet it doesn't seem like much has changed. Surely in thirty something years with the billions sent over the years, not to mention what is raised by charity, things would be a little better? Apparently not. I know that such problems take more than a few decades to resolve, but you get the gist?

Some of the problem is down to internal conflict; there is still a fair bit of tribal conflict to destabilise things and then of course what has been seen in the past couple of years a small number of people with extreme views stirring things up in communities where different religions have just got on in years past. I suggested that those wealthier African nations should be pitching in but I can imagine getting them to co-operate is much like getting EU member nations to agree on anything and much like trying to get the Arab League to get involved in what is happening in the Middle East. Sadly to get that to happen it would probably mean a cultural change where corruption is unacceptable and that people are able to see that if they want a problem solved their way (let's face it, if the West got involved it will always be seen as a way of the West imposing their ways and values) then a lot of the effort will have to come from within and foreign aid as only the catalyst and enabler. Chances of that happening is anybody's guess but I can't help but feel that people are resigned to hopelessness.

In reply to wintertree:



^^ This

The question is how we get leaders like Mugabe to agree to something that will derail their gravy train and erode their power base? Also who replaces them? Regime change in the Middle East hasn't exactly gone swimmingly, and an 'African Spring' doesn't sound an attractive prospect. (It'll boost sales of machetes, car tyres and petrol though).

My total cynicism about humanity apart, Africa does need some sort of Marshall Plan. As well as the mineral wealth there's all the geothermal and solar power opportunities, and farming was doing well in Zimbabwe until the 'war veterans' got involved. There is such huge potential there. The question is who administrates it? The UN? The Chinese? Or the evil colonial West?

In reply to dazmac:



If they stop giving away natural resources at bargain prices to global corporations, we'll be in there with tanks and bombs faster than you can say "regime change".

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Not very, it seems. http://www.dagbladet.no/spesial/vatdraktmysteriet/eng/

In reply to Tom Last:

Very interesting article. Shame they thought it necessary to identify the decathlon employee who gave them information though.

In reply to mypyrex:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/calais-migrants-refugees_b_790...

In reply to mypyrex:

I always wondered what the French were doing about them getting into France in the 1st place? Do they just let them in hoping they'll get over here soon enough?

In reply to mypyrex:


Yes - short of sailing a boat through the Straits of Gibraltar, past Portugal and Spain and successfully crossing the notoriously stormy Bay of Biscay, Britain is not going to be the first "safe" country for anyone leaving the the Middle East or most of North Africa.

Stowing away on one doing such a trip would require sneaking on with food and water for at least several days.

In reply to mypyrex:

Suggested Solution:-

1) No one allowed to submit request for asylum without a valid passport from their country of origin.

2) Any illegal migrant found in the UK be immediately locked up until country of origin identified and then immediately returned to country of origin.

3) Any business owner found to be employing illegal immigrants be permanently banned from owning, running or being a director of any UK Company.

4) No benefits be paid to any migrants other than successful asylum seekers.

If we remove the impression that the UK is an easy touch then they wont be so eager to get here illegally.

In reply to mgco3:


Apparently, most illegal migrants are overstayers - people who came here legally and then didn't leave when their visa expired. However, I don't suppose headlines about deporting Australian bar workers are quite so attractive to the Tories.

In reply to mgco3:


How did we come to this
jk

In reply to mgco3:
Just a couple of points:

1) By definition successful asylum seekers are those who are demonstrably at risk of persecution, unfair imprisonment, torture and death at the hands of their own government. But they're politely supposed to ask those same governments for a passport before they can apply for asylum? There's a flaw here, surely.

2) No problem with point 2, assuming they're not applying for asylum and therefore here legally. Better get the police stopping every dark skinned person who is a wearing a tell-tale badge 'Illegal Immigrant' straight away.

3) The sanctions on business owners for employing illegal immigrants are already quite draconian (and pretty unfair on the honest small business owner just trying to make an honest buck, how much invesrtigation are they supposed to do before employing someone?) It's enforcing them that's the problem.

4) I'm not sure that migrants get any benefits as it is, IIRC asylum seekers get the princely sum of £36 per week... to cover everything. Not quite sure how people are supposed to exist on that, especially as they have to traipse to Croydon and so on to make their case. Perhaps we ought to advertised more widely how much we actually pay? That might make risking your life clinging on underneath an artic a bit less attractive.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work

It is quite simple for businesses to check whether someone has the legal right to work in the UK. The government even operate a helpline.

Your definition of "Honest buck" seems at odds with my definition of same. If a business can only make a profit (or honest buck) by exploitation of workers, legal or illegal, then by my definition that business owner is unfit to operate a business in the UK.

In reply to tony:

Overstaying is , as stated, illegal. Immediate removal to country of origin. As they will now have a criminal record in the UK this should be seen as a reason to disallow them from re-entering the UK. Any business employing them has a duty to ensure that they have a legal right to work in the UK. The business should be prosecuted too.

In reply to jkarran:

I believe we have to act according to the threat that illegal immigration poses.

The UK doesn't have unlimited resource as anyone out of work or having to endure long waiting times for NHS appointments etc.

Its a vicious circle that , if left unchecked, will lead to the collapse of services.

Lets not forget, these people at Calais who try to enter the country illegally are criminals. Just the same as someone who tries to enter your house and take your property.

How many people would say that burglary is OK because the burglar probably is in someway disadvantaged so we should not do anything to prevent them from burglary. Its the same thing.


If people have a valid reason for seeking asylum then they should do so in the nearest safe country to their country of origin not head for the UK through several safe countries.

In reply to mgco3:

Indeed, just like the Jews who tried to enter the UK before 1939.

In reply to mgco3:

Some of them are. Some of them are asylum seekers. The largest group comes from Syria, and are fleeing war and persecution. They're not remotely like someone who tried to break into your house.

In reply to mgco3:


Easy really, isn't it. Why do you think it's not happening the way you want it?

In reply to mypyrex:
I think the question that we as citiziens of the Global North should be asking is, "why are they leaving their homes, and do we have any responsibility for those reasons?"

In reply to mgco3:


Our slight physical isolation from the rest of the world isn't an excuse to withdraw from it and our responsibilities.

I hate where Britain's going and you epitomize it. Now if you'll forgive me I'm bowing out, I find talking with you profoundly depressing and I'd rather just walk away from this than get myself banned.
jk

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

>and do we have any responsibility for those reasons?"

In this context, who is "we"?

In reply to mypyrex:

I suppose anyone who uses resources that have been obtained in a destabilising and corrupt way; anyone whose duly elected representative government has participated, implicitly or explicitly, in destabilising large swathes of Africa or the Middle East, usually for reasons that weren't thought through, or were corrupt, or both; anyone whose standard of living is built on 500+ years of exploitation that we just happen to be the lucky inheritors of.

So that's just about all of us really.

In reply to mypyrex:

I think the question that we as citiziens of the Global North should be asking is, "why are they leaving their homes, and do we have any responsibility for those reasons?"


Is that easier?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward & Que Sera Sera:

So you seem to be saying that you and I and the rest of the UK population individually have responsibility for having created the circumstances that have resulted in the situation at Calais.

In reply to mypyrex:

Individually and as a group, yes.

In reply to mypyrex:

Not individually no, but collectively of course.

We have exploited their resources, destabilised their governments, impoverished them by selling arms, lent money inappropriately to corrupt elites and demanded repayment from the populace, turned blind eyes to abuse when it suited us, supported mediaeval regimes like the Taleban and Saudi when we thought it was in our interests to do so, provided aid often in a destructive, counter productive way, and refused to provide humanitarian assistance because it was difficult or electorally unpopular.

So collectively, yes.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


Right, ok.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


So, for the last sixty odd years, individually I could have done what?

In reply to mypyrex:

Been a Veggie
Not driven thousands of mile to walk/climb
Not taken flights
Just not have bought as much stuff

hows that for a starter for 10

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

Vote Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green... (we'll have to pass over one Mr T Blair.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I don't buy that at all. We (collectively) have done some (incredibly) stupid and damaging things but these countries still have a responsibility to organise themselves, and they haven't. Many other countries which have had as bad or worse thing done to them now have stable, effective government.

None of which is very relevant to those now lined up in Calais, nor does it suggest a solution to the problem.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Rob, come on you must know as many lefty climbers as me, and half the buggers have campers vans and fly all over the place, Labour or Tory, we as individuals are not prepared to make the sacrifices nesecarry so someone one in a Village 4K Miles away does not suffer the effects of Climate Change or Oil company naughtiness.

In reply to MG:

Do the young men and women washing up at Calais have a responsibility for the way their governments have operated - or ceased to operate - in Syria, Libya, Eritrea?

There are no quick fixes, but nor can we absolve ourselves of responsibility either. And they are human beings, and it is a humanitarian crisis.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


... which is why we need a responsible government to do what's right for the whole society, since left to personal choice in our individually competitive society it all goes pear-shaped. I'm not convinced any of the parties would actually introduce responsible policies, and I'm very sure I don't know enough about most of the issues to make good judgements myself, but I'm equally sure that some parties have much better ideas than others.

In reply to john arran:

John, you fly all over the world to mess about climbing up rocks, which is unnesecarry, and have or (had?) a place in Ariege which facilitated and possibly encouraged people to make totally discretionary trips, we have to accept responsiblity on a more individual basis, because until we do, governments in our demorcatic system will not be able to take the steps required.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

Chickens and eggs. What we have now is individual responsibility and its failing in many ways, largely because an individual who chooses a different approach is often immediately at a disadvantage. That's where regulation can help, such as by introducing duty on airline fuel. I know why individual governments are reluctant to act alone as it would be competitive suicide but there are other steps that could be taken on a national or local level, notably by incentivising public transport compared to car use.

Some of our guests come by train but most fly or drive simply because it's much cheaper to do so. You can't really expect a family to pay over £1000 for train tickets when they can fly much more quickly for a fraction of that.

In reply to john arran:

But how would you feel if by introducing duty on airline fuel your business suffered?

Al

In reply to john arran


The problem is that the greater costs are being paid by people in sub saharan africa and places like Syria, but this is very easy to ignore, but with what is happening at Calais these issues are being brought to us. So if the family suddenly finds they have some Somali refugees next door and they cannot get a place at the school they prefer, because of Syrian refugees, perhaps the may reflect it would have been better to have taken the train, or not gone in the first place.

In reply to Ciro:


There wouldn't need to be a drop in living standards. Just prevent the top 0.7 % (people of $1million net worth or more) from hording 41% of the worlds wealth. - https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=BCDB1364-A...

Many of these people have so much money that you could take away most of it and their living standards would not drop.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:



What is the link between flying and civil war in Syria??

In reply to dsh:

This is something which always puzzles me too. I know its not a simple case of giving away your loot as one would need to be careful that it reaches the right place. There is also an economic factor about flooding markets with a wodge of cash and the implications for inflation etc.

With this in mind, why would someone with 1billion be compromised by giving away £800m of it. Is there a point where interest alone will be self sustaining such that these super rich (assuming they dont want another large boat) could live comfortably from the investment proceeds and never have to lift another finger. Also, many billionaires are presumably able to create more wealth so they could build it back again if they needed to?

In reply to MG:

Western interference in the region due to the thirst for oil, which planes use. If there was no Oil the west would have as much interest as they have in the rest of Africa, which is not a lot, though this may rise if it is seen as a market or has production capabilities.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

>. If there was no Oil the west would have as much interest as they have in the rest of Africa, which is not a lot,

Err Syria is not in Africa, which is hardly a beacon of stability anyway.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

'Also, many billionaires are presumably able to create more wealth so they could build it back again if they needed to?' Interestingly someone did a study on this once - people who had become rich and then tried other businesses - and IIRC they were no more successful at their subsequent startups than other entrepreneurs who hadn't been as successful - i.e. they got lucky once! Lord Sugar - he of the Amstrad PC and f*ck all since - is one who springs to mind...

In reply to GridNorth:


Of course it could be hard but if it's the right thing to do then it should happen and everyone would need to adapt. Managing the change would be key. I suspect we'd then get more French and Spanish clients who may otherwise have flown somewhere else instead.

In reply to mypyrex:

So disappointed with my country right now.

In reply to john arran:



This is the kind of mindset that is required, that things can be done differently.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


Syria really doesn't have a lot of oil. In 2010, before it all kicked off, it only accounted for about 0.5 percent of the global production, so blaming it all on oil isn't really realistic.

By contrast, there are quite a few African countries which produce a good deal more oil than Syria.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The world has changed in 70 years. Unlike some peoples thinking.

In reply to tony:

If they are real asylum seekers then they should seek asylum in the first safe country they come through and not try and enter the country of their choice illegally . Emphasis on illegal!!!

If they are really the poor persecuted people fleeing frantically from death then they have passed through several safe havens in getting to Calais.

A man who is truly drowning will swim to the nearest boat not to the boat where he thinks the easiest life will be found!!

In reply to tony:


Im not, Im just saying that a lot of reasons that refugees are leaving their homelands is due in large part to actions in the global north. It is very complex and tied up with global flows of power, people and money, but one of the end results is the Calais situation.

In reply to tony:

Probably because the very companies who are the offenders are also patrons of the tory government!

Money talks!

In reply to mgco3:




lovely angry proliferation of exclamation marks there. Not sure why I'm bothering to respond to someone who is so full of righteous outrage.

When people are looking to find a better life for themselves and their families do you really think before going through the hardship of risky and long travelling "I'll just stop at the first place I reach"? No they're obviously going to look for the best life they can. I'd do the same and so would you.

Utterly stupid statement of yours there.

In reply to jkarran:

I have no thoughts of withdrawing from out "collective" responsibilities!

We have a responsibility to our own people too. If you are depressed by what you read here then I sincerely hope you never have to wait in line at some overstretched NHS department for lifesaving treatment or spend weeks and months looking for a job with a living wage to live because there are more people looking for work than jobs..

Then you may understand what depressed really feels like.

In reply to mgco3:

>


Why is a person from Syria different to a person from Norfolk? Are you prepared to accept a person from Syria to starving or being tortured but not from Norfolk?

In reply to Scarab9:

Make you mind up FFS. Are they asylum seekers with a genuine need for a safe haven or are they economic migrants "looking for a better life" (your own words).

I also disagree with you on what I would do. I would stay and fight in my own country like many of their own countrymen and women have chosen to do.

If we are making predictions as to what each other would do in specific circumstances then I am sure you views will change with age and maturity (once you have some).

In reply to mgco3:


They should do, but they don't. That doesn't stop them being genuine asylum seekers.

In reply to mgco3:


I'd be willing bet that you've just made that up and have absolutely no evidence to support that.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

I will throw the question back at you.

There are limited resources in the country. That is a fact. How many migrants would you let in 1, 1000, 1 million?

When do you stop the flow. When is enough finally enough?

In reply to mgco3:

Well Turkey has over a million refugees right now; we have 126000 and Turkey is lot poorer than us. Money isn't the issue here.

In reply to tony:

If they are truly asylum seekers then they have to right to apply for genuine asylum in the internationally recognised manner and not try and enter a country illegally.

From what I have seen and read the majority of the Calais squad are economic migrants.

In reply to mgco3:



Partly correct, there are limited resources in the world and it is our greedy overuse of resources that is causing many problems. We will look back on the last 20 or so years as halcyon days ,but our western lifestyle cannot continue, and the flow of migrants will only increase, those at Calais are only the vanguard.

In reply to tony:

Surely you are not naïve enough to believe otherwise?

Life lesson 1) Money Talks.

Life Lesson 2) The more money you have the more people listen.

In reply to MG:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Turkey

You are comparing chalk and cheese.

UK has built up a standard of health care and social welfare that other countries do not have.

That has been at a cost to the UK population . I would suggest that money and resource is the issue.

In reply to mgco3:


As I said, I'd be willing to bet you have absolutely no evidence to support your statement. Just making stuff and repeating it up doesn't make it true.

In reply to mgco3:


26% of NHS doctors are from overseas.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigr...

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

WTF? So you are advocating that we open the doors to all and sundry and just accept the fact that we will just have to accept the fact that some of us will die due to lack of healthcare or not be able to get a job with a living wage because economic migrants are willing to work for so little that it is driving wages down.

This is the very reason why the flow must stop now.

Australia has the right idea with the "Stop the boats policy" we need the same here.

In reply to tony:

Repeating your statement doesn't make it false either.

Prove me wrong and I will gladly retract my statement.

In reply to mgco3:




If the first boat that drowning man reaches is full, he will keep going to the next one! The first countries they come to cannot deal with them, they have too many people there already and more keep coming. We are one of the richer countries in Europe, we really should pull our weight and take our fair share of displaced people.

In reply to tony:

I don't dispute your figures.

How many of those doctors entered the country illegally?

I would hazard a guess at 0%.

How many illegals at Calais trying to get in are Doctors or potential doctors.

I would hazard a guess at 0%.

In reply to girlymonkey:

You need to make the clear distinction between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants.

If all of the "Displaced persons" trying to get here from Calais are genuine Asylum seekers why do none of them have documents to prove from which country they are escaping persecution?

In reply to mgco3:



Alternatively, you could just admit you're making up random nonsense and have no evidence to support what you said.

Go on, name one company which systematically uses overstayers and which gives financial support to the tories.

In reply to mgco3:

my understanding is that many people destroy their documents so that they cannot be sent back, it is safer for them to be illegal immigrants than it is for them to be in their country of origin. Yes, there will be economic migrants, but not many people would be that desperate for a better life to go through what most of these people have just for more money. The risks of their journeys are huge, and they know their chances of dying are reasonably high, but that risk is worth it for them because of the horrors in their home countries. Why can't we be a nation known for compassion, rather than for kicking those who are already down?
We are only entitled to our cushy life here because of an accident of birth. If I ever end up with a serious illness, I can pretty much guarantee that I will take more out of our economy than I will ever have paid into it. This is considered fine, because by pure luck I was born here. Why can't we extend a helping hand to those who by pure chance have been born elsewhere? None of us have built the fortune that we currently live with, although many of us contribute to it's upkeep. If there is money to give MPs pay rises, I'd say we can find some money to look after some really desperate people too

In reply to tony:



it is actually more. As there are a further 11% who are from the EEA http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp

In reply to mgco3:

So in your view the UK should withdraw from the UN convention on refugees (something it was instrumental in drafting) because it can not afford more than x refugees, despite much poorer countries accepting an order of magnitude more than us currently?

In reply to mgco3:


As I mentioned earlier I thought that was so.

I seriously question that they are ALL "poor" given that many of them interviewed by the media describe themselves as accountants, lawyers and other professionally qualified people. Then there is the small matter of how much they have paid third parties to get from their country of origin. The sums cited have been in the thousands of pounds bracket; hardly subsistence money.

In reply to mgco3:

>
Well they have to accept what we send their way such as Climate Change we benefit from and they do not, interference from IMF and the World Bank, and the repercussions from George and Tonys Gulf War, land grabs by multi nationals , just they are poor and have little power to resist, so have to suck it on up.
Quite frankly I would quite happily take a few asylum seekers who have had the gumption to get to Calais, and send you to Syria or Somalia for a few months to see how you like it.

In reply to mypyrex:

I laugh to myself when migrant says they are professions.what would you say if you were a migrant trying to get into a country. You would probably say the same thing!

In those country's where they are migrating from such professions would be wealthy and would no doubt have a slicker route into the EU . Most would probably migrate to the States.

Apparently it takes us 3 / 4months to process application from Calais. So if they bided their time they would probably get in anyway.

We have 5000 in Calais, what is it in Italy 5000 a week.we need to get a bit of perspective.

In reply to girlymonkey:


The United Nations says the majority of migrants are searching for "better economic and social opportunities":

http://www.unfpa.org/migration

In reply to mgco3:

'why do none of them have documents to prove from which country they are escaping persecution?'

Despite a high bar, I think this is one of the most imbecilic statements that I have EVER seen on UKC.

'Excuse me sir, will you sign this piece of paper that confirms you are trying to kill because of my religion/my ethnic origin/my belief in freedom of speech/my education.'

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

But you still haven't said whether you think we should have an open door policy - just that you'd be happy to take "a few".

In reply to mypyrex:

in case any of the 'shut the gates', 'bloody foreigners wanting a free ride', exclamation mark spewing folk above want to read something by an expert instead of what their choice of agenda led tabloid tells them (assuming they've read anything and aren't just spouting the same vitriol they've heard and repeated without confirmation all their lives)-

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-asked-an-expert-how-to-solve-the-migratio...

In reply to mypyrex:

I'm sure your smart enough to know your excellent NHS care is reliant on 1000s of immigrants prepared to clean shot up for not a lot of cash.

There are huge numbers of displaced people at the moment. Syria Iraq Libya etc etc. We can and should take more. We certainly have some historic responsibility!

Interestingly some models see us economically outperforming Germany in 10 to 20 years as they attract less immigrants who are necessary to offset an ageing population and low birth rate.

In reply to mypyrex:

I think that I am very lucky that I have never been in the same situation as those who are "illegally" in Calais. I hope I will be lucky enough never to be in the same situation as those who are "illegally" in Calais. I think I am lucky to have been born where and when I was - England 1970.

I really was not looking forward to my journey to France last week or my journey back in a few weeks due to the prospect of getting caught up in it all. We got over here okay (apart from a three hour delay due to protesting French farmers - nothing when put into the context of the plight of others), and courtesy of a very big fence, more CRS and some dogs, will probably get back okay, but the problem remains.

My bet is that it will go to Dunkerque next. The fences will prevent things, so the problem will move. Without the Daily Mail reading tourists being disadvantaged, nobody will give a shit.

In reply to mgco3:



Do you think healthcare professionals are somehow immune from persecution from Assad or IS?

In reply to alasdair19:


Why is this necessary? Why is it necessary to have a growing population? Why can't we deal with a population falling to a level where we do not need to pull net resources in from distant lands?

Given the growing (absolute) number of unemployed how is it ever justifiable to import more and more people to work? How is this a sustainable solution?

Increasing automation, increasing health, increasing productivity per unit of work done etc. We do not need growth at all costs, we could and should adapt to a stable or slowly falling population and set an example for the world. But no, growth growth growth... All of which requires - according to this thread - the savage exploitation of the resources and people of Africa, which is to blame for the inward migration crises in Europe (not corruption of the local governments, oh no), which helpfully fuels... Growth!

Inwards migration because we decide to help people in need - if that saves people from early death or torture, then good. The UK should take almost nobody for those reasons under EU immigration law as we have no land or proximal sea borders with troubled states. I would rather see the EU distribute inwards migration to escape war/death/famine/etc fairly amongst member states and not based on borders. With such a distribution, the UK would take more people in fair proportion, and there would then be no excuse not to put a stop to the nonsense at Calais, and to eliminate the black market business machine that must be profiting at the expense of these migrants.

Inwards migration to boost the economy - myopic short term thinking of morons that don't understand or care about the long term consequences.

In reply to The New NickB:

I don't but I suspect most would simply buy a plane ticket. I doubt many at Calais are professionals.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

To be honest I just don't know, all I do know is that it is very very complex and that these people are desperate and need help, and that to a large extent, we are responsible for their plight, and that it is going to get worse

In reply to mgco3:

From what you have seen? and read? The majority?

It can take months of investigation, to find even basic information about asylum seekers, yet you have seen and read about it, so you know for a fact? Or are you just a puppet manipulated by a highly effective media machine?
I'm not sure where the lazy journalism stops, and the racist bigotry begins?
Or are you really that naive?

We should only allow people with passports from their own country asylum?
I though i'd heard it all! Youve a super computer at your finger tips, and this is the best you can come up with?
Well thats really some deep thinking there!

Hahahahahaha!

Well I've found the last couple of weeks reporting of events in Calais, lazy, inaccurate, and riddled with racist, bigotry.
The prime minister of the country i live in has used vernacular similar to the Nazi party, and yet you mgco3 have made me laugh!! Not just a guffaw, but a full on tears to my eyes!
I cant help but keep dipping into this thread to see where you're up to!

Just brilliant!
I did wonder if you were trolling? But i dont care anymore!

In reply to MG:

The thing with money, influence, passports and the like. They can easily be taken away if you find yourself on the wrong side in a civil war.

Like you I don't know who exactly the migrants at Calais are, but I suspect many Syrian professionals cannot just buy an airline ticket

In reply to mgco3:



It's also been at a cost to other countries whose natural resources and manpower we've exploited, and who suffer the externalities of our economic success. If you think British wealth and living standards have been built purely from stiff upper lips and Anglo-Saxon elbow grease then I don't know what to say.

In reply to tony:

Rooney Anand, chief executive of the pub chain Greene King Pub retailer and brewer. Owns 1600 pubs.
Marstons’ chief executive, Ralph Findlay The UK's leading independent and pub retailing business.

Allegedly of course.( the employment of overstayers) the donations to the tory party is a matter of public record.

In reply to MG:

In none of my posts do I advocate stopping or preventing VALID Asylum seekers:-
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

What I am advocating is the prevention of the huge influx of economic migrants.

Please do not read your own interpretations into my posts

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

I agree we should be in Syria. Boots on the ground !

I would happily take REAL Asylum seekers (see definition in my other post) but not economic migrants..

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




I don't think in all the 12 years I've been on UKC I've read such a stream of imbecilic, right-wing drivel from one poster. At least the guy who went on about planning to do the Indian Face was completely harmless.

In reply to dsh:



They may have 41% of the worlds wealth, but they won't account for 41% of the arable land usage, water usage, etc...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You are living up to you reputation old fruit..

Most countries have some sort of identification documentation that can be , and in some cases have to be, used to identify themselves in the country of their origin.

It doesn't take much stretch of the imagination( sadly lacking in your case) to conclude that these are the very identification documents that would prove their country of origin.

As for the most imbecilic statement on UKC. Don't denigrate yourself mate, you still wear that crown and continue to cement your position with just about every post you submit.

In reply to The New NickB:

Anyone can be persecuted no matter what they do. If they are subject to persecution then they are likely to be eligible for Asylum. If they are just economic migrants then they are not.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between the two.

In reply to mgco3:


I have a pair of Boots DMS in the shed somewhere that you're welcome to borrow.

In reply to Ridge:


Great idea. In the spirit of his word he should be sent to Syria immediately.

In reply to Zoro:

Glad to amuse you. Shame you cant grasp the basic concepts of the problem but , never mind, as long as you are kept amused then you cant be causing damage elsewhere.

Investigations can be made easier if the potential asylum seekers have some sort of identification documentation that , in Syria for example, are in the form of the Syrian Civil Registry to all Syrians over the age of 14 who are allocated a unique identification number.

They don't have to produce a passport to prove their origin .

I would be interested how you come to the conclusion that the media reporting is "lazy, inaccurate, and riddled with racist, bigotry" . I assume that you have spent the last few months at Calais investigating this and reached this conclusion all by yourself.

More likely that you hold bleeding heart liberal views and even in the face of overwhelming facts you still ignore the obvious.

In reply to humptydumpty:

I made no statement as to how our standard of living evolved. What I did state that the likes of the NHS is overburdened already. Everything in the UK is directly, or indirectly financed by taxation of one sort or another.

Simple mathematics -

More people = greater unemployment (the number of jobs is not on the increase)
More of the jobs available are becoming low paid zero hour contracts. ( Now 700,000 zero hour contracts in the UK)
This leads, inevitably ,to less taxation being paid. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2795899/treasury-sees-25bil...

There is no bigotry, racial hatred or any other form of discrimination involved. Just simple mathematics.

In reply to mgco3:


What makes you think that? It certainly can't be anything I've written!

In reply to mgco3:



If you think depression depends on whether your current circumstances are good or bad, you have no idea what depressed really feels like.

In reply to Ridge:

I am sure that there would be no shortage of UK volunteers who would willing to go and fight ISIS in Syria , Libya or Somalia.

Unfortunately the young guys who are storming the tunnel in Calais don't seem to feel the same way. Most of them seem willing to fight with police, lorry drivers et al and gang together to "fight for a better life".

Its a shame they didn't seem to want to do that in their own country.

In reply to The New NickB:


Your line of argument that the NHS has foreign doctors.

Trawling up the old "the NHS relies on immigrants" argument.

In reply to Ciro:

I am presently on Chemo for re occurring cancer and have been given a life expectancy of less than a year.

Want to retract your "You have no idea what depressed really feels like" statement??

I think I am qualified to understand the meaning of "Depressed".

In reply to mgco3:


Sorry to hear that.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Oh dear Gordon at it again, you really could do with mixing with the lower orders a little more. Come with me to a couple of pubs in Accrington and meet some of your more typical Labour voters, their views would very much chime with mgco3, in fact I would guess he/she is in a majority.
The fears are real and rational and I agree with them, just that I feel we have a responsibility for what is happening and that we should do more, just slagging off mgco3 is intelectual high handedness, infact a trait I often notice in the left.
People just do not understand how globalised the world is now and the effects we have elsewhere.
To mgco3 if you want to learn a little something research the Mexican/US border and Maquiladoras and the tensions and history surrounding that region, would be a good use of a few hours.

In reply to wintertree:

There are long term consequences of not having this immigration has well, it all depends what people want but for my part I think that having a higher population density is not as bad as the demographic imbalances and economic struggle we would have without it.

That some don't agree is fine everybody has different aspirations but then they shouldn't expect to have their state pension and free health care when they are old.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I assume you don't actually mean this? I.e. that we cancel the pensions and health care of those who don't agree with an economic model built on perpetual growth? A little bit to "thought police" even for you?

I disagree with your sentiment even if it's toned down. You suggest that perpetual growth is the only way to guarantee free healthcare (at point of use) and pensions. Or we could restructure our whole economy so that is stable without perpetual growth.

How you might ask? Well the number of unemployed within our orders is large enough to supply our employment needs for decades instead of growth driven inwards migration. Training, education, help. Use the resources we already have. Inwards migration can then be reserved for those who need us (to live at all) not those we need (to live of rhe backs of cheap labour). There are other benefits - importing healthcare workers from Africa is hammering their healthcare in some places for example.

In reply to mgco3:


From further up:

In reply to Que Sera Sera:
I think mgco3's suggestion that asylum seekers should only attempt to become asylum seekers if they have documented permission from their own governments to do so, would raise eyebrows just about anywhere - in Dover, let alone Accrington.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That's true. However, there is a the constant blurring in this thread (and probably reality) between refugees and economic migrants. Deliberately destroying documents to increase the chances of being seen as a refugee when really just an economic migrant is clearly a tactic being used.

In reply to Scarab9:


Good article but it utterly fails to recognise that what he is describing is exactly why the media is creating panic and people are demanding we "shut the doors" etc.

Essentially parts of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia are desperately poor and/or failed States. Life is horrible for many inhabitants. These days those inhabitants can see the alternatives available in the rich world and, if they are young and energetic, can have a reasonable chance of moving to those rich places.

The supply of refugees, asylums seekers, economic migrants (who can tell??) is therefore pretty much inexhaustible. The main reason it has been limited so far is because
it is made hard to get into Europe and harder to get into the UK.

So there is an existential decision to be made. A) Do we accept that this is an era of global migration, that trying so stop it is as much use as King Canute trying to stop the waves, and that we should accept that Western Europe will become a much more crowded place populated by a huge variety of peoples and will have to deal with the complications (and benefits) implied by this?

Or B) do we say that the first role of the State is to protect it's existing populations and should strive to limit immigration to those that will benefit the existing population.

The perfect solution would be to try to improve the countries of origin to stop the "push" factors causing immigration, but history would suggest we are not much good at that.

My guess is that we do B and that the outcome will be A.

In reply to mgco3:



You seem to be confusing me with someone else, in fact you seem confused!

I've not mentioned the NHS.

In reply to wintertree:

No, I am simply saying that it is not possible to pay for these things if the ratio of those too old to work vs those of working age is too high. Or people need to pay for their own healthcare/pensions if they can, and just die of hunger or illness if they can't.



I have never said that perpetual population growth is the only way to guarantee this, we do not need perpetual population growth, however we do need to have a balanced age pyramid. And the only two way to do this at this point in time would be to either kick out older people out of the country or have sustained net immigration for at least another 30 years.


I am not sure where you got you numbers but last time I looked UK unemployment was already pretty much at the natural rate. Anyway this is irrelevant we do not necessarily need to increase the size of the workforce to increase GDP, you are just trying to make me say things I have never said.

To make it clear, NO we do not generally need perpetual population and workforce growth for the economy to work. Do we need it at this point in time because of the demographic imbalances we have: YES we do.

I am not suggestion that we should be keeping immigration to high levels in the UK ad aeternam (which probably wouldn't be happening anyway whether we want it or not).


Never mind that remittances have brought three times more wealth to poorer countries than all of the aid programmes of the world combined. The problem here is that you always look at one side of the coin.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Why do we need to have a balanced age pyramid? Does it take, on average, one young person to support and look after one old person? Or can we use technology and advances to reduce that number?

If you argue that sustained inwards migration is the only solution to the effects of the demographic shift, where does that leave the countries we are taking young people from, as those countries themselves undergo the demographic shift? Even more screwed - as they will have the same need for inwards migration from unshifted countries, but magnified by loosing more young people (those who have left to satisfy our needs), and it will go unsated due to the lack of countries with young people to spare.

The whole world has to make this shift. The UK was at the forefront of the industrial revolution, and benefited at the expense of other nations. Now we are near the forefront of the demographic shift - a revolution as important - and you want us to suck resources (people) from the world again?

Totally unsustainable thinking.


Oh, sorry, you're changing your mind? We don't need more people to be more productive? Make your mind up.


No, Rom, I am not looking at one side of the coin. I am well aware than many of the inwards migrating health care workers are sending our resources back abroad, whilst people continue to be underemployed and unemployed at home as a result of a failing education system. In my view this loss of resources further hammers attempts to reduce the under/un employment situation. I wasn't going to bring it up because that's a whole other story.

As it is, what use is that money to the family of a healthcare worker from XYZ state if that family can't spend that money on seeing healthcare workers because they've all been poached by the West because the represent a cheaper source of trained professionals than doing it ourselves?

In reply to wintertree:

Yes it takes a lot more than one person. Currently with 3.20 working adult per non working adult we don't even balance the books. Even with high immigration projection by 2030 that ratio will drop to around 2.80.

And yes indeed we can and do use technology to reduce that number, the problem is that the needs and complexity/cost of care increases as well. When we'll have invented robots who can do all our jobs and take care of the elderlies as well as humans then we'll be golden. Until that happens, immigration is a practical solution for the next 30 years or so.


For many of these poorer countries they have the reverse problem as us. They have many young people now and birthrates starting to fall, which will lead to a demographic imbalance later as we have here now. They are going through the same process as we did, only a generation later.


I am not changing my mind, you're making stuff up. Please quote me where I said that we necessarily need more people to be more productive. Stop lying please.



I am not sure what that changes, the fact is that if a country can't pay their health workers decently, or can't afford them at all, then they will emigrate somewhere else whether we want it or not. The only solution is for these countries to catch up economically so that they are able to retain their own talents. Again that's not going to happen overnight, in the meantime if some young people can seek opportunities worldwide and bring back some money home, it helps everybody.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Meanwhile, whilst we rob the developing world of its talented individuals to provide the young people you suggest we need, we have the worse youth unemployment in a generation, with 500,000 unemployed young people and a rate of unemployment of 14.8% of young people.

This suggest to me not that we need the young people, but that we find it cheaper or more convenient to import trained young people from abroad than to train ours.


Yes Rom, I said exactly this. I guess my point was to far thinking for you. In a generation's time, they will need a supply of inwards migrating young people to satisfy the problem you claim we need to solve with inwards migration. Only there will not be unshifted countries left, and they will be screwed. So I take it you suggest that the UK profits now from their hard working, trained (and cheap) young people, de-skills their countries now and leaves them to figure out an alternative way of dealing with the consequences of their shift, when they have no access to countries to poach their workers from (as they'll be the last to undergo the shift.) Or, here's an idea, the UK could figure out how to address this problem in a way that will work for the whole world - what does a society look like that can accommodate the changes of going through every stage of the shift? Big changes.


Please stop calling me a liar. It's not nice. I even quoted the relevant bits in my last reply. In the same message you are claiming we need more young people to look after old people and then that more people is not the only way to increase productivity. If pointing out a flat out contradiction makes me a liar...


This from someone who accuses me of looking at only one side of the coin. There is plenty of evidence that suggest the "brain drain" is a largely detrimental problem that hinders the economic catchup that you suggest is the saviour of these countries.

In reply to wintertree:

Robbign them ? There are huge restrictions conditions and caps for any non-EU wishing to settle in the UK. Ask anyone in this situation. In fact In many cases we actually spend quite a lot of money to send people that we trained away. We offer university education and even funded phds to people from all over the world and as soon as they have their degrees we force them to go back home.


I am sure we could train more of our own people to fill some skills gaps although it would still not be enough to solve the demographic imbalance situation. When you find a magic solution to do that overnight give me a shout, in the meantime before you find your magic solution using some immigration top fill the gaps seems sensible.


No you don't understand, it's exactly the opposite. With a lot of young people and falling birthrate they will be screwed as we are in generation time even more if they don't have emigration now.



Then don't lie. Please quote me where I said we need to increase population to increase productivity.


This is not a contraction. The fact that we don't need population increase to increase productivity doesn't change anything, even if we had productivity increases double what we ever had on average, that would still not be enough to compensate for the escalating cost of care and falling of dependency ratios by any stretch.


Again lying, never said that brain drain is the saviour of these countries. Of course it's bad for them to lose talented individuals, my point is that our (already super tough) immigration policy would not change this one bit, if they can't find opportunities in the UK they'll find somewhere else to go to.

In reply to humptydumpty:

The fact that I stated that the UK had to pay for the NHS isn't a statement of how our overall standard of living "evolved".

The NHS may be part of the UK "standard of living" but isn't the standard of living as a whole.

In reply to The New NickB:

My apologies. I try to reply to each poster who replies to me but in your case I appear to have been a victim of my own "finger trouble"

I believe it was user Tony who brought up the % of foreign doctors in the NHS.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/cameron-swarm-...

In reply to mgco3:


I understood differently when you wrote:

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well, as I have said before, twice, and as you have ignored before, twice, a real (not magic) solution is needed, otherwise what about the last countries to go through the demographic shift? Where do they get their inwards migration from? I would rather the UK took advantage of its present wealth to innovate towards a solution that will work for everyone, than to swell its unemployed ranks because we can take in foreign resources (people) more cheaply.


No, Rom, you see, I do understand. Because I can think more than one step ahead. The emigration now takes the people they most need in the future, and more importantly it takes the people who are (or were) most likely to drive the demographic shift in those countries.


If I can refrain from calling you a twit perhaps you can refrain from calling me a liar? It's really not very nice you know.




Unless I totally misunderstand what you are saying, you claim that we are not productive enough to support our future old people, and that the only ways to do this are by bringing young people in or kicking old people out. Obviously I ignored the "kicking old people out" line as it's a bit stupid.

Now Rom, you could have stopped your churlish game of calling me a liar several posts ago, and more clearly explained how I am wrong here in my understanding of what you said (although it seems very clear to me), but what ever keeps you happy, just come back and go Liar Liar some more.

In reply to mypyrex: If travelling from uk to france via coach, what chance of getting through without missing next connection,or is this just a bad idea.

In reply to mgco3:


You do realise that although people have a fundamental human right and legal right under UK law to apply for protection as refugees under the 1951 convention, the UK like most European countries have made it almost impossible to enter the country in legal manner in order to then make that claim? Do you think if people could just get on a flight in Damascus and fly and to Heathrow to claim refugee status they wouldn't? But they aren't allowed to even get on the plane.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Or people live in multi generational family homes, rather than granny selling her big 4 or 5 bed home for mega bucks to fund her care home, the is gone out of the family no first or second time buyer can hope of affording it, perhaps 3 generation live together? The parents in the middle help older and younger generations, granny does some baby sitting, the kids get to see their relatives everyday. Active old folk, generally live longer and healthier, than being consigned to die in a care home. There no negatives.

The UK is the odd one out in much of Europe as it has a property owning obsession and a desire to boot out the elderly relatives to a care home at huge expense.

In reply to blackcat:

I caught a bus from Victoria to Geneva via Paris two weeks ago, and although we had an interesting excursion through the lanes of Kent I didn't have any problems. I was also told that they do hold connections if you have ordered a through ticket, as I had, though fortunately didn't have to test that.

In reply to TobyA:


Well I think the key issue is that many of the people trying to get into the UK are economic migrants rather then asylum seekers. A refugee isn't looking for somewhere to go to, they're looking for somewhere to escape from. Once they start cherrypicking their destination they become a migrant, and are treated under a different set of criteria. Most of the folk in Calais know this which is why they destroy all ID before they hit the shores of Europe, it is much harder for authorities/border controls to make an assessment when a chap rocks up saying he is fleeing certain death from Somalia when he is actually from the relatively safe Djibouti nextdoor and is just looking for a better quality of life.

In reply to wintertree:

Everybody would agree with generalities like " I would rather the UK took advantage of its present wealth to innovate towards a solution that will work for everyone," when it become real fine we don't need anymore immigration. Before that wonderful day come in the interim relying on some immigration to fill the gaps is not the worst idea.


No I think you obviously haven't understood. It's exactly the opposite.


I know it's not nice, but why lie ?


And in all of this nowhere I said that the only way to raise productivity was by increasing population please quote me where I said that. And this doesn't logically imply it either, it's an obvious syllogism you just made up because you can't just admit you made a mistake and misrepresented what I said .

In reply to Cú Chullain:


That's simply untrue both factually and legally. We signed the 51 Geneva Convention and as a result we have a legal obligation to offer shelter to refugees, we don't and can't treat them differently because they got here and not somewhere else. And why on earth would any rational intelligent person fleeing from war or persecution, not prefer to seek protection in an advanced wealthy country with well established rule of law and human rights? The millions of refugees in Kenya and Pakistan aren't there because those Somalis and Afghans like Kenya or Pakistan, but simply because they don't have the resources to get somewhere where they could have a better life.

In reply to summo:

Well that is assuming 1) everybody has job is in the same place where granny lives 2) granny has a big ass 4 or 5 bed house, which is suspect of far from common.

Plus I think it's already partly case, many of the people I know in their thirties are still living with their parents because they can't afford otherwise.


I don't think that owning a property is a bad aspiration, if there is one good thing about capitalism is that owning a small amount of capital, such as a house, means you don't have to worry constantly about your basic survival.
As for booting the elderlies to a care home... it's often not really a choice, if you have a job to provide for yourself it's pretty much impossible to be able to care for someone else who require all day care. Personally I would love to not have to go to work and take care of my grandparents instead, but unfortunately I can't afford it.

In reply to TobyA:

If what you say is correct, there is something a bit odd about refugee law. It would mean refugees, uniquely, are able to decide which country they prefer to live in.

In reply to mypyrex:



I"ve just returned to France after a holiday in Ireland, traveled out with Brittany Ferries from Roscoff, back on Irish Ferries to Cherbourg. Controls at the French portrs were very light. I realise that the 'douane' know what they are looking for but security comes nowhere near that of Calais so it surprises me that asylum seekers don't try this route through to the UK. Calais must have some strange attraction as it is so near to the eldorado that they are looking for !

In reply to Cú Chullain:

This is a very good point.

Refugees surely would look to escape from their countries to the nearest safe haven which would grant them asylum. Does France, Portugal, Spain, Italy sign up to the same convention that we do? Considering that there are no watery borders to cross and in addition the aforementioned, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland and many more all should in theory be easier to get into than the UK.

This is what makes me suspicious. Why should these people whom risk their own mortality crossing the channel either above or below the waves see the UK as such an attractive proposition when the others are closer and less risk to life and limb.

This is the crux of the matter to me and makes me think that this is a migratory thing rather than a fleeing thing and as such our inflow should be controlled to let in people who will add value rather than consume unearned resources. We have sufficient low cost workers legitimately coming from eastern Europe but which are already straining our infrastructure but at least many (and many dont) contribute through doing the jobs the Brits dont want to do (I was careful not to say contribute through taxes as many will be below the threshold).

Ill give you a local example of what make the future look very bleak. I live in rural Notts, just outside of Newark. We dont have wilderness as many lucky people here enjoy on their doorsteps but we have lots of farmland which is criss-crossed with paths where we can take the dog. I appreciate that this is simply green industry but its the only green space that we have locally for locals to ride bikes, walk dogs and get away from concrete. I should add that the farmers have been sensitive to wildlife and left lots of wide margins which are home to some rare creatures including snakes which I have seen, lots of threatened nesting birds and ancient hedgerows and trees. Ive even seen barn owls hunting for water voles across the dykes.

Large chunks of this farmland has been part of a government compulsory purchase and earmarked as an area for growth and as such all local fields and the only country lane running through it will be covered in high density estate housing with small gardens and will result in the loss of the wildlife and the wildlife corridors, the hedgerows and ultimately the habitats for a whole range of species. Gone, forever. To see the plans is quite upsetting. It sounds like NIMBYism and perhaps there's truth in that but as I drive across the country for work, this scene is repeated across the land with countless identikit estates with developers making a killing and the farmers likewise.

Apologies for the length of this post but to bring this back to the original thread. My worry is not only for the cohesion of society, what these people will do when they arrive, what impact they will have on neighbourhoods but also the way that over time all immigrants will have a dangerous impact on the landscape as we cram more and more people into a dwindling amount of free space. OK, let in people whom can prove unequivocally that they are in danger but only after they have justified why the UK has to be the end resting place when France or Spain have far lower population densities.

We simply dont have the room.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I have not lied. I am sorry but you still choose to call me a liar instead of explaining how I am wrong. At the worst I have seriously misunderstood what you have said, or tried to say. I have, however, repeatedly tried to help you explain yourself more clearly but you'd rather fall back to calling me a liar.


Let's break it down.

Rom said: (nowhere I said that the only way to raise productivity was by increasing population please quote me where I said that)



You say that "we need" a balanced age pyramid. And why do we "need" a balanced age pyramid, Rom? Why is it "not possible" to pay pensions and healthcare without more young people Rom? What possible reason can there be for these two statements other than assuming that we can not raise productivity other than by balancing the age pyramid -i.e. by increasing population?

Okay, I admit, I did take it that you were saying the only way was to import more young people as I wrote of your other suggestion of throwing old people out as unworkable. Sorry, my bad, I shouldn't have just dismissed it and claimed your only suggestion was importing more young people.

Then you say:


So I agree with the side of your argument that says there are ways other than "more people" to increase productivity and I disagree with the side of your argument that says the only way to increase productivity is with "more people".

Right, I'm on standby to be called a liar again. You could try telling me my pants are on fire as well this time? Or, instead of calling me a liar you could tell me what reasons justify your statement that "we need to have a balanced age pyramid" that does not boil down to "we can not raise productivity other than by increasing the population by net importing young people".

So far I have backed away from the other major fault in your logic. You state that the demographic shift (to many old people) is not manageable and that the answer is to import more young people to balance the age pyramid. What are they going to do, Rom? They are going to get old. You have filled in the narrow bottom of the age pyramid, and it will rise up, and as those people integrate into our culture and undergo the shift themselves, there will be a glut of young people again. So we will import some more, ad infinitum - well until our temporary leading advantage over the places we take from is gone, and then we're screwed.

In reply to TobyA:


Refugees yes, economic migrants no, most of those in Calais are the latter. There seems to be a studious effort by some on this thread to conflate the two. We are also signatories of the Dublin Regulation , which states that asylum seekers have to remain in the first European country they enter. Last time I checked Italy, France, Spain, Greece and all the other major ports of entry for migrants are all bound by the Dublin Regulation, I am willing to guess that 99% of those in Calais entered Europe through one of those nations listed. Recent years though has seen these regulations utterly flouted by various governments whereby migrants are not fingerprinted upon entry but simply pointed in the direction of the UK as said Governments just want to move the problem off their patch.

I don't bregrudge an individual wanting to seek a better life for themselves elsewhere but europe can't on an ongoing basis absorb the current numbers of migrants attempting to arrive on the continent.

In reply to wintertree:




Because there is no way on earth the working age generation is going to increase it's productivity by the amount needed to cover the expenses.


I think you should be the one to justify in a logical argument why you assume that, because really there is no logical connection. It's a syllogism.


I wasn't referring to what was workable or not, I was referring to the physically possible options to balance the age pyramid. Indeed culling old people are sending them away would work, although of course if would be neither wise nor desirable. The other option left is to have some immigration, seems a better option.




There is no logical connection between the two, the fact that our productivity won't be good enough for us to cope with the dependency ratio does not imply that we can't raise productivity, and certainly doesn't imply that raising population increases productivity. It's really basic logic but anyway I think you're just pretending to not understand at this point.


Sorry but this is completely wrong, it's not because you are importing young people now that the age pyramid will necessarily be imbalanced in the future. It all depends on how many kids they have. If they make just enough to be slightly below or above replacement rate like we have now amongst native in the UK then the pyramid stays balanced. Of course we can't control what will happen with birthrates in the future, maybe they will fall dramatically and then we'll have another problem to deal with, but that is a problem we could face with or without immigration.

The reality is that even current levels of immigration are not enough to compensator the problem, it just mitigates it. So we'll have to find ways to deal with it, and personally I don't except to get any form of state meaningful pension when I'm old. Looking at the numbers, it just won't be possible.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Right, we're getting there Rom. Thank you for discussing and not just parroting "liar lair"



([1] - to exporting old people.)

Unless you can present me with a viable third alternative that does not involve increasing productivity or increasing population, I refuse to accept your accusations that I am drawing a syllogism from your comments. I'm drawing the bloody obvious conclusion that you have consistently dodged around.

Your argument appears to boil down to "we must cancel the demographic shift". How are you going cancel it for the whole world, Rom?

In reply to RomTheBear:
No but often for a little more money than the cost of a 2 bed house, you get disproportionately more for your money up the ladder, combining wealth of 2 properties, plus only 1 council tax, shared utilities.. .the maths often adds up.

That's not really the same thing, as they aren't doing it through choice ,they are chasing the UK dream of individual ownership.


Perhaps security is renting a well maintained house, at the right price, knowing that if anything break or roof blows off it's not your problem!?


It's not about sitting at home, for some elderly they just need some help with the heavy lifting like shopping, taking rubbish out, carry the hoover upstairs... it's doesn't have to mean doting on them 24/7.

Perhaps if you share all the household bills with an extra person, you could work 3 or 4 days a week and have the same disposable income?

In reply to Cú Chullain:


I don't think the French just point them, some places in the south of france give them a letter allowing them free train travel northwards.

Given the current situation, you can't blame Greece or some of the other nations, their economies are wrecked. The UK is the 6th richest nation in the world, it could do more directly in Africa to solve the problems at source, which seems to be something very few consider or dare speak of. But, that would of course require acknowledging that we are often linked to the problems in their homelands in the first place.

In reply to summo:

Taking into consideration the number of relationships( with children) that fail, such long-term projects would appear to be very risky ! The result could be three generations without a roof over their heads !

In reply to TobyA:


The world has moved on since 1951 when hopping on a BOAC flight from Islamabad was the sole province of the wealthy elite. The convention was a reaction to WWII and the global situation and access to travel now would have been unbelievable 64 years ago. Maybe a rational update is required?

Do you actually think allowing anyone in the world who arrives in Europe by fair means or foul should be automatically be able to claim refugee status? The system would collapse overnight, (it appears the Dublin Convention already has).

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


what if some of the factors that cause the failure are housing, childcare costs, care of relatives, generally financial, poor work / life balance.... you could be solving more problems than it creates?

In reply to summo:

It can be, if the market is heavily regulated. Having lived in France where this is the case, I really don't like it. Indeed once you signed your lease you are golden but as a result it's extremely difficult or impossible to get one in the first place, if you don't have a regular income, you have absolutely no chance whatsoever.

I much prefer the Uk system where you can move often and easily when you are starting your career, and after a while if you are lucky hopefully you can have a place of your own. The problem is that the latter is becoming impossible for most, and the former is getting more difficult as well, so the whole system is breaking down at the moment.

In reply to Ridge:


I do assuming by 'claim' you mean 'apply for'.

jk

In reply to wintertree:

Yet you have been unable to lay out in a logical argument why you draw this conclusion. Talk about dodging lol.

It's pretty simple really, we are not able to raise productivity enough to compensate for falling dependency ratios, because we can't realistically increase productivity of the workforce by a large enough amount, the only option left is to increase the size of the workforce. In no way you can conclude from that I mean that increasing population will increase productivity unless you are making a deliberate and really transparent syllogism.

In reply to RomTheBear:


or perhaps standards of living in the West have risen beyond a long term sustainable level.

If you increase the workforce now, what happens in 20,30, 40 years, do you have to increase it even more? Your solution is potentially exponential.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Well at least we've moved on from your calls of "liar, liar".

So you say all of these: 1) we need more productivity 2) we can't increase the productivity of the current workforce enough 3) the only option is to increase the size of the workforce by inwards migration.

Then you call me a liar for inferring from all this that increasing the population will increase productivity and continue to insist that this is syllogism. I am laughing out loud now. Perhaps you are thinking of productivity normalised per person, although that would be rather odd in the context of the entire discussions. That at least would allow me to square everything.

I notice now that you are talking about "size of the workforce" which is a bit sneaky as it admits the possibility of expanding the workforce with existing people, where as before you have been insisting that this expansion has to come from inwards migration.

Also, as for "only way" - another way would be to adjust our lifestyles to require less production and to live within our means instead of continuing an over consumption lifestyle at the expense of others.

In reply to wintertree:


I think if we don't move towards this progressively now, we will be forced towards it very rapidly and abruptly in a few decades time, it's going to hurt (some more than others).

In reply to wintertree:



Well it is, increasing the size of the workforce doesn't increase productivity. I think maybe you just don't know what productivity means (or more likely, pretending, because I don't think you are that ignorant).


Well sorry but I don't think there is any context where productivity can be confused with total production, and certainly not in this context.


Indeed we could expand the workforce with some of the existing unemployed people, there is not so much slack left in the labour market though, even if by magic we half youth unemployment that will add to the workforce only roughly what the current net migration bring over one year. So I am afraid, although it would be good to achieve such a feat, I don't think it would make a massive difference to the problem overall.


Would would disagree with such generalities. When you'll have managed to get rid of all the ills of the consumer society call me back.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't think we will have a choice. When the 2 or 3 billion people in Asia want to keep and use, or eat all the products or commodities that are currently under pinning our lifestyle, we'll suddenly find the modern trappings disappear from under us. Or when the average Brazilian can afford to eat more beef, it will be sold locally and never reach Europe etc.

In reply to summo:

I wouldn't be so pessimistic, I think in many ways the lack of resources will make investment in productivity and efficiency increase more attractive, but there will be strains and I don't think we can leave it entirely to the markets, there is no time left and we need to be more efficient at everything now, not when the markets dictate it will be profitable.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh, I hadn't realised that we were playing the Rom game where your calling me a liar repeatedly hinges on you picking and choosing your preferred and very specific meaning of a word (not the word I used, mind you), that doesn't match well with the wider points you have been making.

Let's step back to my original common. I said "We don't need more people to be more productive?". I did not use the word "productivity" because that is generally taken to be normalised per worker. How productive a nation is could be simplistically considered as the product (number of workers) * (per worker productivity.) It's a hell of a stretch me for me to clearly talk about how productive a nation is (in the context of supporting our retired people) and for you to twist that around to per worker productivity. Especially when we've been talking about how a nation can produce enough to support its retired people or not. I'd almost suspect you're in a desperate operation back-pedal.

Still, it's put on a nice long side show that detracts from all the flaws in your argument.

Edit: I did make the mistake of drifting towards your terminology in the interminable back and forth, but that's all part of being drawn in to the Rom game, I'm sure...

In reply to wintertree:


Yes you did use the word productivity, at 11.43 you said : "Then you call me a liar for inferring from all this that increasing the population will increase productivity and continue to insist that this is syllogism".

Now obviously you are back-pedalling and pretending you inferred something else which frankly was impossible given the context, we were clearly talking initially about productivity increase.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Right.

Having said that we do not produce enough as a nation to support our old people and that the only way to address this is to import more people, you then said:


To which I said - in the context of you saying that the nation will not be able to produce enough to support its old people:


Perhaps you should have replied - "I think that we need both to increase per-worker productivity and to import more workers to make the whole nation produce more" - instead of having a little "liar liar" wobbly.

In reply to wintertree:

Really ? Now you are blaming me for contradicting yourself. You never cease to amaze me lol. Dig further maybe you'll reach the bottom eventually.

In reply to wintertree and rom:

If you two are presently at work, then there's one very obvious way in which we could improve productivity. Desist from your squabbles and make the nation richer.

In reply to Wicamoi:


Works for me. You've given me a convenient way to note that Rom can smugly have their last word.

In reply to Wicamoi: hahahahaha!

In reply to thread:
I've not been following this thread closely (too depressing) so with apologies if it's been posted already, here's Frankie Boyle's take on it: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/cameron-swarm-...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Not pessimistic, realistic. There a few billion people around the world willing to work much harder to reach our standard of living, than we are willing to work to maintain it. Things will have to meet in the middle eventually.

There are people risking drowning in the Med or trying to jump on moving trains and trucks, with their kids, to get here. Most Brits can't even be ar4ed to run for a bus, or walk a mile to work.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


That is a legal distinction made at the moment when an asylum decision is made by the UK government. You can say it as much as you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Until they have made an asylum application which is accepted or rejected they are neither.

And the economy must be really shitty in Syria currently to produce those 4 million economic migrants.

And of course something like 99% of migrants arriving in the EU seeking protection, less poverty and often both, come via the land and sea routes in southern Europe. That is simply because we've made illegal for them to come here by any "regular" method.

In reply to Ridge:


That's exactly the right that everyone does have (to claim asylum). And because the entry routes have been shut down to other countries that is exactly why the Greek asylum system has collapsed. It is not collapsing, it has collapsed which is why the UK supreme court and similar bodies in places like Sweden, Holland and Germany have ruled that returning migrants to Greece under Dublin II is currently and illegal contravention of their fundamental human rights.

I have no idea what the long term solution is but we - the UK - expect and demand other countries follow international law, so I think we should also. I guess the country should withdraw from the 1951 Geneva convention if we really don't want to have to deal with refugees.

In reply to TobyA:





They are not 'neither' until an application is made, their motivation for leaving their homelands defines them as either economic migrant or refugee. The former seeking either employment, better opportunities and improved quality of life, the latter seeking safety from persecution, oppression or death. The problems start to arise when the former start masquerading as the latter in order to gain legal entry into a country, in this case the UK.


Well we are not really talking about Syrian refugees in Calais now are we, most people fleeing the carnage there have ended up in Lebanon, Jordon, Turley and Egypt. Roughly 150,000 Syrians have claimed asylum in the EU, the majority of applications were made to Germany and Sweden. Just over five thousand applied to the UK. The majority of those people at Calais are from Sub Saharan Africa, Eritrea and Nigeria, with the rest being Pakistani, Afghanistani and Albanians.


The EU have not made it illegal for economic migrants to come here, they have just made it very difficult to get a visa for those people who have very little to offer a potential host country and I can't see why that is a bad thing. What is a bad thing is economic migrants with zero documentation claiming asylum status which swamps the system and makes genuine refugees attempts at asylum all that more difficult. Unfortunately, the UK, with one of the strongest performing economies in Europe which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a soft touch for benefits and an easier place to find work in the black economy will always be a first choice destination for an economic migrant.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

There seems to be a perception problem her as well, in relative terms compared to the rest of Europe we are not really swamped.

It's only 3000 people in Calais (not even on our shores), a drop in the ocean compared to the total number coming to Europe every year. And the UK it's far from first choice destination, Germany, France, and Sweden are the primary choices for asylum by far. On top of that we accept very few applications in comparison. And the UK border being in Calais instead of our shore we don't have to deal much with it apart from sending a few millions to the French to help them with security/fencing.

So it seems to me we have it pretty good given the situation.

In reply to TobyA:

http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/france/asylum-procedure/proce...

If they are genuine asylum seekers then, the fact that they are already in France allows them to apply for asylum in France.

It is relatively easy to apply and, as long as they are genuine, they are unlikely to be returned to a country of danger.

People really need to get their head around the fact that these people are illegal economic migrants.

In reply to mgco3:


Of course they can, or indeed they can apply in any other country they have been to that is party to the Geneva convention. But some don't want to, they want to claim asylum in the UK - an application that they have a perfect right to make under UK law. All we have done is make it very difficult for people to come to the UK to exercise that right.


I think you need to "get your head around" how UK law actually works. We don't know that until the people make an application and the UK government rules on it.

"these people"... Ho hum.

In reply to TobyA:

I read recently (unfortunately I can't remember where it was) that France a) receives more asylum applications, and b) grants more people asylum, than does the UK. If I listened only to UK politicians and the popular press I'd almost certainly think the opposite.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


I never said that, I wrote specifically about migrants seeking protection: regardless of how valid either you or I believe that need for protection to be. With carrier sanctions it is basically impossible to enter the EU without visa in a 'normal' way, hence people end up paying two or three times the cost of an air fare to get on boat where they have a considerable risk of drowning.

In reply to john arran:

Yes, the reality of the situation 'elsewhere' does seem to pass the UK media by at time - like Södertälje in Sweden - pop. 64,000 Wikipedia informs me - that during the Iraq war accepted more Iraqi refugees than the UK and US combined.

In reply to john arran:


And yet the rate of acceptance into the UK is 3.5 times higher than France, so the UK is on a par with Germany in that respect.

If you were in Calais it might explain why you prefer to travel to Britain to claim asylum rather than France.

Although a report I read last week said that more people in Calais were trying to claim in France as they found that the increased security meant it was harder to get across the chunnel than previously, which is good.

Interestingly almost all of them had spent thousands of euros to get to Calais, so the option of First Class air travel had always been open to them.

I don't think the attitudes of the Calais migrants has much of interest to say about the UK or immigration policy, they are people with a particular mindset and that is just their thing. There was an ethiopian woman interviewed on the BBC last week, claiming to be a lawyer, saying that they had zero rights in France and they had to get to the UK to enable their ooman rights but she's just wrong and nothing she says should cause us a second thought.

In reply to winhill:

And how exactly are people from most mid East countries and most African countries meant to get on a plane, first class or not, without a visa? They are paying thousands to criminals for the same reason drug users do, they have no legal and safe way to get what they want. Nigerians with visas oddly enough come here on planes to Heathrow, not hanging on the bottom of trucks.

In reply to winhill:


Isn't there the small matter of visas though? And if you are fleeing a war torn or repressive country, chances are there isn't an administrative function that will issue passports to Joe public. Just a guess though.

In reply to TobyA:

You do wonder if countrys like Germany or Sweden ( which if I am correct have declining populations) are either being ( a) very open or ( b) using this as a means to offset declining population.

It is stunningly impressive how Germany is accommodating these refugees, each town etc is apparently being told by the Federal govt how many they are going to be allocated , how its going to be financed and accommodation provided.

Meanwhile here in the UK, local councils are crying out for more finance etc. God knows what the true picture is in Kent ( there have been some interesting stories about schools being oversubscribed etc etc).

In reply to neilh:
The countries you cite do it for humanitarian reasons, caring for fellow man, not as a means of population control. Where I live in Sweden there is relative baby boom and little can be attributed to asylum seekers, if any of it.
There are growing problems, not just financial, but integration, employment etc.. too many, too quickly, too the same places has allowed ghettos to be established which has hindered intergration, them learning the language etc..

In reply to ByEek:

Bigger problem is that even for those people who do have passports, there is no European country that will give them a visa. And without a visa you can't get on a plane. We have outsourced much of our border enforcement to airlines. Carrier sanctions mean they get fined huge amounts for bringing people with no visa or false documents to the EU, plus of course then having to pay to return them.

Some people do get in by regular methods if they have high quality false docs. They then tend to destroy the fake docs and hand themselves in to the police and ask for asylum. I met a number of Iraqis detained in Finland when I used to visit the prison for the Red Cross, who had arrived that way.

In reply to summo:

Population growth not control.

Do you think that Sweden will continue to be able to offer it for humanitarian reasons- a well recognised attribute - or do you think this will change?

In reply to TobyA:
Sweden issues tens of thousands of visas every year, plus those that find their own way here and the eu migrant workers... The UK complains about numbers which are pretty insignificant.
Norway and denmark take a fair few too, although their appetite is waning.
Wonder when the USA will take a proportional share.

In reply to neilh:
No forecast of a change although public will is decreasing as much because many countries who are attributed to causing the problems, like in libya... Aren't taking their share. Sweden is led, or not led now, by a minority coalition because of the swing to right wing hardline parties.

In reply to summo:
They are coming from Mexico!!

UK has historically been reasonably open. I knew a guy who was Ugandian Asian and had been thrown out of there when his family was deported in the 70's. He was forever grateful to the UK.

In reply to summo:


Don't the US have their own issues with Mexican Ex pats?

In reply to ByEek:


Yes, so perhaps they should keep their nose out of Africa, middle east, Asia... If they aren't prepared to deal with repercussions of their actions?

In reply to mypyrex:

It's fairly obvious from population density maps that one of the reasons German and France are able to take more refugees/migrants without horror stories of queues for doctors etc is that they have more space in the first place

http://i.imgur.com/4xeek.jpg

Look at all that lovely space in Spain, Ireland, Belarus, Turkey, Scotland etc

In reply to neilh:

I would agree, the lack of tolerance for war zones refugees could be a knock on effect of stretch caused eu jobseekers, the press does not always distinguish, just labelling them all as sponging immigrants.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

How does population density related to doctor's queues?

In reply to summo:

They take a large amount of migrants form every continent already. You only have to catch a cab over there to figure this out.

In reply to summo:


I hope you are being ironic! Since when did the US deal with the repercussions of its actions?

In reply to ByEek:
fairpoint.

I also like neil basing his immigration data on the nationalities of taxi drivers, a sound basis? I thought it would be style of takeaways or type of kebab on offer.?

In reply to summo:

LOL you did seem to be implying that the US only took in migrants from a few countrys. Its stunning how many they take in from everywhere.

In reply to mypyrex:
I don't have any answers, but some people on here might do well to read this.

https://www.facebook.com/jasmin.ohara/posts/10155886887785022

Quote - "These people are desperate. On the one hand we commemorate holocaust Memorial Day, yet on the other we turn away at people facing as extreme persecution as the Jews, right on our doorstep. "


Surely we need to be helping these people, somehow.

In reply to neilh:


or not so stunning;
"new individual applications in 2014, followed by Germany (173,100), and the USA (121,200) ."
http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

For a country that has a population 5 times that of Germany and has clearly caused more instability (in recent history ) the USA can hardly be considered to be doing it's fair share.

In reply to krikoman:

The news headlines from the usual rags back in 38 weren't that different from the current ones either http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yvfihqDQYI4/UlShXBacKJI/AAAAAAAAT88/vY3fTUL0KoI/s...

In reply to summo:

Thats application not acceptances.Also that is just refugees, never mind others which just go through.

There is already alot of migration for example in to the UK.Its one of the points that "feckless" Farage has made a great play off , saying we should be taking more people in from Syria etc.

In reply to krikoman:


They are in France, the French are not persecuting asylum seekers like the Nazis did the Jews.


There's a lot of people in the world who need help and some very tough choices to make. I think the response to this should be at an EU level, and focussed on the point of entry to the EU.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I think the gist of the quote is that we know what's going on, but are choosing to see the victims as THE problem rather than people who have a problem and need help. On top of that, what they are running away from is exactly the same problem of persecution.


I'm not disputing that, what I am saying is that on our doorstep, there are people which need our help. You seem to be suggesting we abrogate any reason for us to help them, because it's an EU problem. I would suggest this isn't a vary humanitarian point of view.

you are of course free to feel and do as you wish.

In reply to TobyA:

Thank you for correctly pointing out the legality of Asylum. You seem to have missed the very point that you have clearly made yourself.

The fact that they do not make a request for asylum in the first safe country they land in makes them , by law, illegal economic migrants.

and,

Ho hum ! Really !

You can take exception to a perfectly normal description of a group of people??

You must be a fully signed up member of the PC brigade. I must be careful not to indicate that the majority of them are of a "non white" origin in case it triggers your automated racist response or to point out that they are mostly males as your Sexist alarm may go off..

What is your solution then? Open the floodgates and let everyone walk in?

When do you suggest we shut the gates?

Do you have a sensible solution? I doubt it.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

The problem I have with statements like this, is that it is a politically correct way of saying it is the other lot's problem and they should sort it. If this is a European problem, then we are all in it together and we need to fulfil our own obligations by taking our fair share, which at present we don't do. Are we in Europe or not?

And if we declare ourselves out of Europe we can hardly cry wolf when the traffickers realise that all they have to do is start sailing to Gibraltar.

In reply to krikoman:


Quite the opposite, I'm saying we should provide humanitarian aid as part of an EU response, not based on who makes it Calais, which is part of France and help we can provide there is limited. I don't think an appropriate EU wide response is taking place, which is a real shame, as this is just the crisis the organisation should be good for.

In reply to ByEek:


We are in, that is the basis on which I wrote that post, so I am not suggesting we do not help. I think we should be doing more, as part of a coordinated EU effort.

In reply to ByEek:

>

although that's a long way from Libya/Syria and virtually surrounded by Spanish waters ?

In reply to mgco3:


Which law is that?

In reply to mypyrex:


The whole thing is just a distraction. So the ill informed have something to blame for things going wrong with the country other than the government.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153123270646939/

In reply to Mike Stretford:



and what do you do for the people in Calais, who need help now?

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:


It's not a distraction for the people stuck in "the Jungle" in Calais though is it.

In reply to krikoman:


What do you suggest?

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Well they seem to be short of food, shelter and shoes, so that's a start.

In reply to krikoman:


I believe French aid organisations are providing basics, or trying to, which is appropriate given French sovereignty. Problems of law and order will persist given the nature of the place, and will persist until it is dealt with at an EU level.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


This picture seems to paint things a little differently https://crowdfunding.justgiving.com/CalAid

You can choose to do something yourself now, or like I said you can always leave it for someone else to do, whether that's France, the EU or anybody else. Thankfully someone has decided that these are people which require our help and has actually done something more that wringing her hands and complaining how something should be done. I'm happy to support her efforts

In reply to krikoman:

Well said.

Excellent article in The Times, focussing on asylum seekers in Wigan. starts here:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4522336.ece

One of the biggest worries for me (as someone who works in this field), is that the people leaving areas like Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea are often the better educated, confident and more determined young men. Given that any long term solution will require internal political change, then many people who could be part of this change are leaving their respective countries.

In reply to mick taylor:


Indeed. I was confidently assured earlier on on this thread that it is not a problem for the donor countries and is indeed in their best interests as although the poster presented zero evidence to suport this. On the flip side there is a lot of peer reviewed literature on the damage done to healthcare by outwards migration of the motivated and trained, for example.

Edit: a simple problem to spot, a hard one to address. Not a new problem and one we survived when people migrated to the USA, but then our position was never so desperate as some nations now loosing people.

In reply to MG:



1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UK is a signatory to this.

Relevant section :- Country of first Asylum.

In reply to mgco3:



And I'm sure you know that it is considerably more complicated than that. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-a... For instance, currently most Syrians in the UK get refugee status despite all of them having come via a third country where many other Syrians are already receiving protection (Jordan, Turkey etc). As I understand it, removals are mainly under Dublin II and EU law or people being found to have no grounds to claim refugee status, not based on UK law incorporating the Convention's language country of first asylum.


Me thinks the lady doth protest too much, but at least that's different to the normal experience of being told that I'm a CIA or Mossad agent in Off Belay discussions!

(Where is Bruce BTW? Does anyone know if he's OK? Hopefully just enjoying the summer and avoiding the temptation to rant on UKC.)

In reply to mick taylor:


If it follows the pattern of Chinese immigrants to the US they will come here, get an education, stay to work and then a lot of them will see the huge potential to get rich from their new skills back home and build businesses with a presence in both countries. It could be that having their most ambitious people working in 'advanced' countries for a while and going back with skills and money is exactly what these countries need.

In reply to mgco3:

There is no such section (or article) I can see

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

In reply to mgco3:


even if these rules exist, claiming asylum in the first country etc.. it doesn't change anything.

If you've travelled over 2 continents, you aren't going to stop at Greece are you? Nor france etc.. you will stop at the nation where your second language in their first, the UK. Apart from the obvious dire state of the southern European economies, why would stop in country whose language you don't speak.

Perhaps centuries of the UK being near mono lingual expecting everyone around the world to learn English, so they can help them when they holiday and work overseas, is back firing now?