Calais

[Hastings gull]

Surely whatever they are defined as the government would be better of dealing with them rather than hoping they go away?

Dealing with them? What does this vague description mean? Do you mean letting them in, but you don't want to say that?

 

[beorhthelm]

Those news reports do not tell you how many people do apply for asylum. They tell you that some people don't.

you arent paying attention. they arent claiming asylum at the port of entry (leaving aside the many opportunities to do so on their way across europe). they are trying to reach somewhere/someone to find employment/house/family or friends etc, to live here as economic migrants. the proof is in their actions, not statistics.

 

[BadFish]

Dealing with them? What does this vague description mean? Do you mean letting them in, but you don't want to say that?

As i have stated in many of my posts on this thread I mean processing them and then dealing with them according to their status.

 

[BadFish]

you arent paying attention. they arent claiming asylum at the port of entry (leaving aside the many opportunities to do so on their way across europe). they are trying to reach somewhere/someone to find employment/house/family or friends etc, to live here as economic migrants. the proof is in their actions, not statistics.

the proof may be in their actions but you don't know those actions are without research and statistics (otherwise all you have is unreliable anecdotal evidence and media fear mongering) as currently all they are doing is sitting waiting at Calais. Those who have already made the journey have either become statistics or nobody knows their actions.

So some people from Calais may end up illegally residing in the UK. Although research suggests that vastly greater numbers arrive by other means.

While those migrants in Calais hoping to travel to the UK are very visible - and therefore make for compelling news stories - research suggests that vastly greater numbers of irregular migrants in the UK arrived by air rather than in the back of a truck, and that most started out with legal status, but subsequently lost it (Düvell 2011).

 

[Hastings gull]

As i have stated in many of my posts on this thread I mean processing them and then dealing with them according to their status.

Yes, you have said that, agreed, so we treat them all as asylum seekers until "proven" otherwise. as if we ever could. And of course everyone will be totally honest, and if they are not an asylum seeker, they will say that they are economic migrants, ready to be sent back. Presumably you think that this is what will happen, if we process them. I think with your location, it inevitably colours your thinking and you cannot quite conceive of the scale of the problem affecting us. It is all very well quoting all sorts of conventions and studies, well studies, that coincide with your views, but for the folk here in the South East, rather more drastic action is needed, examples of which I gave in an earlier post.

 

[Hastings gull]

the proof may be in their actions but you don't know those actions are without research and statistics (otherwise all you have is unreliable anecdotal evidence and media fear mongering) as currently all they are doing is sitting waiting at Calais. Those who have already made the journey have either become statistics or nobody knows their actions.

So some people from Calais may end up illegally residing in the UK. Although research suggests that vastly greater numbers arrive by other means.

While those migrants in Calais hoping to travel to the UK are very visible - and therefore make for compelling news stories - research suggests that vastly greater numbers of irregular migrants in the UK arrived by air rather than in the back of a truck, and that most started out with legal status, but subsequently lost it (Düvell 2011).

To be quite frank, I lost belief in all of your "research" when you started on about the 9% and 15% benefits claim and were unable to offer any evidence of any sort other than to trot out, rather vaguely, that immigrants claim less. You are a mine of information on all sorts of conventions and research and when I asked you what percentage of Geelong residents were immigrants to establish whether you appreciate the true scale of the problem here, you were unable to give me anything other than a vague suggestion that it was about 1.5%.

 

[glasfryn]

meanwhile dave is in Indonesia promising help to defend their airports from ISIS ..........ffs
the words pissup and brewery come to mind

 

[The Fifth Column]

The French like to blame us for this situation however the migrants are already illegally in France so what are they doing to deport or repatriate them back to where they came from? It suits the French quite well to have 5000-6000 less claiming asylum there who are effectively in limbo waiting until they get here to claim asylum. France has no vested interest in allowing the migrants to remain in France and it brings them no benefit so they happily portray this as Britains problem and do stuff all about it themselves to serve their own agenda.

In May I travelled to Europe on a biking trip and visited France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Italy & Switzerland. I showed my passport just once on the way back into the UK and that was despite crossing multiple international borders several times. The fact is once the migrants hit land in Southern Europe they have a free unimpeded journey all the way to Calais. Britains problem? i don't think so.

 

[BadFish]

Yes, you have said that, agreed, so we treat them all as asylum seekers until "proven" otherwise. as if we ever could. And of course everyone will be totally honest, and if they are not an asylum seeker, they will say that they are economic migrants, ready to be sent back. Presumably you think that this is what will happen, if we process them.

I think the UK has a fairly robust and thorough process by which to ascertain the validity of asylum claims. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of it but I haven't read any criticism of it so willhold my judgement on that.

I think with your location, it inevitably colours your thinking and you cannot quite conceive of the scale of the problem affecting us. It is all very well quoting all sorts of conventions and studies, well studies, that coincide with your views, but for the folk here in the South East, rather more drastic action is needed, examples of which I gave in an earlier post.

I would disagree with you here I think it is you that doesn't understand the problem affecting us. You are choosing to see this issue from the bubble of South east england without taking into account the rest of the world. As i have said many times this isn't a UK problem this is a massive worldwide problem.

BTW,Those studies coincide with my views because my views are based on those studies. They are based on those studies because i believe them to be more reliable than the scattergun anecdotal evidence and right wing media propaganda they generally dismiss as nonsense.

 

[BadFish]

To be quite frank, I lost belief in all of your "research" when you started on about the 9% and 15% benefits claim and were unable to offer any evidence of any sort other than to trot out, rather vaguely, that immigrants claim less. You are a mine of information on all sorts of conventions and research and when I asked you what percentage of Geelong residents were immigrants to establish whether you appreciate the true scale of the problem here, you were unable to give me anything other than a vague suggestion that it was about 1.5%.

Its not my research, it's Oxford university's.

If you want to know how many Geelong residents are immigrants look it up, its really not that hard.

 

[Fef]

You keep using the phrase 'asylum seekers' - these people are not that. If they were then why don't they just apply for asylum in the first EU country they get to and then move to the UK perfectly legally ? No most these people are economic migrants who have no intention of seeking asylum in the UK, instead, if they get in, they will just vanish and become part of the black labour market. That same market that gets raided week after week by the authorities in restaurants across the land.

Isn't this what it's all about? Those who employ economic migrants are happy to employ somebody cheap; they appear to be willing to take the gamble of being fined £5,000 for doing so, and the EMs are happy to take the work - happy days in the black market! A number of companies of my acquaintance have been very sloppy in checking employee credentials.

If the government introduced more severe penalties - with better enforcement - against employers from employing EMs, and deporting the illegal workers thus discovered, this may well have the effect of reducing the numbers employed. The message would eventually get back to the source countries that the UK isn't such a good place to go to after all.

 

[Hastings gull]

Its not my research, it's Oxford universities.

If you want to know how many Geelong residents are immigrants look it up, its really not that hard.[/QUOTE]

Which made your vague response all the puzzling.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Its seems pretty clear that 95% of those trying to get over / under the channel are economic migrants. Most of them (99% are men) have left their families behind to earn money in the UK to send home. If they needed asylum their families would surely have left with them to escape the same threat and dangers the men would be fleeing?

If the authorities can accept this is the case, the first approach could be to round them all up and put them on flights back to their country of origin. I'm sure I am massively over-simplifying the situation, but sitting back and watching thousands of economic migrants cause absolute chaos on the basis that one or two of them might be asylum seekers (which if the were they could have claimed this at their first country of arrival e.g. Italy / Greece) seems to me to be an absolute sham.

If they can't be helped / picked up before they get to Calais then it really feels like the French authorities should be getting them off the streets and doing something other than allowing them to continue to attempt crossing the channel- its chaos, its dangerous for all those involved, and the fact that the whole world can see its uncontrolled is only going to encourage more people to turn up and try their luck.

The current system isn't working.

 

[BadFish]

Its not my research, it's Oxford universities.

If you want to know how many Geelong residents are immigrants look it up, its really not that hard.[/QUOTE]

Which made your vague response all the puzzling.

I don't remember the response so can't really comment (although I suspect it was not as outrageous as you suggest). I do remember a bit of confusion about percentages but no sufficient to warrant someone writing off all research by Oxford University as flawed. To be frank (my turn) I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here in an attempt to discredit accurate information that discredits your vague 'evidence'.

 

[BadFish]

Its seems pretty clear that 95% of those trying to get over / under the channel are economic migrants. Most of them (99% are men) have left their families behind to earn money in the UK to send home. If they needed asylum their families would surely have left with them to escape the same threat and dangers the men would be fleeing?

Where do you get these figures from?

 

[Hastings gull]

I think the UK has a fairly robust and thorough process by which to ascertain the validity of asylum claims. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of it but I haven't read any criticism of it so willhold my judgement on that.

I would disagree with you here I think it is you that doesn't understand the problem affecting us. You are choosing to see this issue from the bubble of South east england without taking into account the rest of the world. As i have said many times this isn't a UK problem this is a massive worldwide problem.

BTW,Those studies coincide with my views because my views are based on those studies. They are based on those studies because i believe them to be more reliable than the scattergun anecdotal evidence and right wing media propaganda they generally dismiss as nonsense.

Put another way, you don't have a clue. How on earth are you going to validate the claims of someone coming from Somalia? I think this also says something about your attempts to portray your self as a beacon of objectivity.

 

[Soulman]

I would disagree with you here I think it is you that doesn't understand the problem affecting us. You are choosing to see this issue from the bubble of South east england without taking into account the rest of the world. As i have said many times this isn't a UK problem this is a massive worldwide problem.

BTW,Those studies coincide with my views because my views are based on those studies. They are based on those studies because i believe them to be more reliable than the scattergun anecdotal evidence and right wing media propaganda they generally dismiss as nonsense.

Quote: "problem affecting us" and "bubble of south east England" and "right wing media propaganda"
Have thousands traveled through many many borders to get to Oz?, do you have thousands around 22 miles away trying any means possible to enter your country?.
The south east is fairly packed, just a part of England, where as you live in a country about 30 TIMES the size with about a QUARTER of the population, so is it "a a massive worldwide problem"..... or a problem that "affects" some worldwide.
I think you will find that 15000 miles from you it is not what you perceive as just ""right wing media propaganda", many are worried which is why there has been a fairly muted stance from the usually vocal liberals over here.
Yours sincerely
A member of the "bubble of south east England"

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Utterly lawless.

Seriously, time to send in the Paras to restore some order.

We should have let the Germans keep France

 

[Hastings gull]

I think the UK has a fairly robust and thorough process by which to ascertain the validity of asylum claims. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of it but I haven't read any criticism of it so willhold my judgement on that.



I would disagree with you here I think it is you that doesn't understand the problem affecting us. You are choosing to see this issue from the bubble of South east england without taking into account the rest of the world. As i have said many times this isn't a UK problem this is a massive worldwide problem.
BTW,Those studies coincide with my views because my views are based on those studies. They are based on those studies because i believe them to be more reliable than the scattergun anecdotal evidence and right wing media propaganda they generally dismiss as nonsense.

That, my friend, is an absurd statement. Of course I realise that it is a worldwide problem - how can one not see that? The difference between us is that the South East mirrors these problems on a scale that you do not see. The South East is hardly a bubble - what is going on here is exactly what is going on in many other countries.

 

[BadFish]

[/B]
Put another way, you don't have a clue. How on earth are you going to validate the claims of someone coming from Somalia? I think this also says something about your attempts to portray your self as a beacon of objectivity.

As I said i don't claim to know the ins and outs of it but the evidence suggests that there is a fairly robust process.

However using Pasta's data for last year

Uk 2014

total asylum decisions
12750
given refugee status
2645
given protection
85
humanitarian reasons
1285
rejected asylum
8735 68,5%

68.5 of claims were rejected which means that your suggestion that they can just lie and say they were genuine refugees and not economic migrants is nonsense.

And of course everyone will be totally honest, and if they are not an asylum seeker, they will say that they are economic migrants, ready to be sent back. Presumably you think that this is what will happen, if we process them.

So the fact that the rejection rate is so high leads me to assume that the way the UK government is far more stringent that you suggest. and that in fact they do have some way to make a decision about the claims of Asylum seekers (even from Somalia).

I am not a beacon of objectivity just someone who looks at the evidence and makes an assessment of it.