Calais

[BadFish]

The EU should come up with a plan where the country that process the claim gets to send the claimant to any country in the EU and that receiving country has to take them.

 

[Soulman]

Are there not a number of old Army and RAF Barracks unused that could be made secure and he immigrants taken there for holding while an application to stay is made. If refused put them on a plane back to their original homeland.

Personally i think this would be a dangerous ploy. Once this happened i think that Calais would attract many thousands knowing that the entry to England is made easier.
To travel for up to 18months across many borders means a determination to get here. How secure would they be, seems they can't be secure in Calais.
We seem to be sharing the cost over in Calais, i would imagine that would cease when they arrived here.

 

[Soulman]

The EU should come up with a plan where the country that process the claim gets to send the claimant to any country in the EU and that receiving country has to take them.

Well you would.

 

[BadFish]

Well you would.

The question is what is your solution to this problem?

 

[Soulman]

The question is what is your solution to this problem?

Make England less beneficial, a points system like your country. A process set up and funded by our illustrious EU long before many borders are crossed. If the rule of first country traveled to is the place for the Asylum country, then why is this not adhered to.
The burden does not have to be put on one country financially, a proper EU funded process system could be set up mid Europe.

 

[BadFish]

Make England less beneficial, a points system like your country. A process set up and funded by our illustrious EU long before many borders are crossed. If the rule of first country traveled to is the place for the Asylum country, then why is this not adhered to.
The burden does not have to be put on one country financially, a proper EU funded process system could be set up mid Europe.

We don't have a points system for refugees, I don't see how one is going to make any difference to the people in Calais. The first country thing was discussed earlier in this thread this suggests that the whole first country thing isn't that fair on countries on the edge of the EU so maybe that is why it is not adhered to.Especially given the current refugee crisis.

The Dublin Convention sets out criteria for allocating responsibility for processing asylum claims, principally allocating responsibility to the state responsible for the asylum seeker’s entry to the EU, albeit with some allowance for family unity.

However, it is almost impossible for many asylum seekers to reach Europe legally and most can only do so without prior authorisation. This means that most asylum seekers arriving in the EU will do so by land or sea, meaning the system potentially overburdens the member states at the EU’s periphery.

The Dublin System means, in essence, that the UK’s geographical situation – buffered from the rest of the world by continental Europe and the Atlantic Ocean - would lead to it only receiving asylum seekers who managed to enter the UK by plane or after a sea journey.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...ns-and-context

Are you suggesting that the financial burden is put on the UK alone? Although I do agree with your idea that the EU should work out a way to spread the load more evenly..... although i would suggest this would be better on a global scale rather than just the EU.

According to this the UK is toughening up on its reputation as a soft touch

The concept of a 'soft touch' is subjective: the treatment of asylum seekers in some other EU countries, such as Greece and Bulgaria, is viewed as harsh, and has drawn censure from international organisations such as the European Court of Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The UK has made significant efforts not to be seen as a 'soft touch' for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work or claim most benefits in the UK. Those in need of financial support are provided with about £5 per day and, if they are provided with accommodation, they are not able to choose where they are placed to live.

These policies have been deliberately introduced to discourage asylum claims by economic migrants, and are intended to make life uncomfortable for asylum seekers in the UK. Many other countries in the EU have a considerably less restrictive set of policies for asylum seekers. Those in Sweden, Germany and Italy, for example, are allowed to work if they fulfill certain criteria.

 

[blue'n'white]

Yet we come 6th in the number of migrants we allow in, in Europe. Sweden & Germany take in many more than us.

Sweden and Germany are much bigger countries than the UK and can, therefore, take many more

 

[Soulman]

Are you suggesting that the financial burden is put on the UK alone? Although I do agree with your idea that the EU should work out a way to spread the load more evenly..... although i would suggest this would be better on a global scale rather than just the EU.

According to this the UK is toughening up on its reputation as a soft touch

"Toughening up"
Well according to this from just over 4 months ago.
"Ms Bouchart said: “The main problem is the migrants that arrive in Calais don’t want to ask for asylum (in France).

"They want to travel on to England. They want to go to England as they can expect better conditions on arrival there than anywhere else in Europe or even internationally.

“There are no ID cards. They can easily find work outside the formal economy that is not really controlled.

“They can get social welfare support that doesn’t exist in other countries.

“It’s migrants themselves who arrive in England and who pass on the message that there is plenty more space for migrants to come.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/433823/Soft-touch-benefits-ruined-Calais-mayor

 

[Bry Nylon]

The EU should come up with a plan where the country that process the claim gets to send the claimant to any country in the EU and that receiving country has to take them.

These people didn't originate in the EU, so how about a UN plan to send them anywhere in the world and the receiving country has to take them. Like Australia. Loads of space, tiny population. Sorted.

 

[Soulman]

These people didn't originate in the EU, so how about a UN plan to send them anywhere in the world and the receiving country has to take them. Like Australia. Loads of space, tiny population. Sorted.

"These people didn't originate in the EU"
Actually a good point, overlooked by some who seem to lump it in as an EU problem.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Badfish, why did YOU emigrate to Australia?

 

[Soulman]

A good idea from Nigel.

 

[Soulman]

Badfish, why did YOU emigrate to Australia?

I would assume it was for a better future, fair play. To then comment, and assume what is best on a situation 15000 miles away from him, and 22 miles away from us, i presume.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

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%.

Geelong has a lot of immigrants.

1.5% is way too low. 21% of the Geelong population wasn't born in Australia.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Looks like Eurostar on the move again.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I would assume it was for a better future, fair play. To then comment, and assume what is best on a situation 15000 miles away from him, and 22 miles away from us, i presume.

Don't get me wrong, I am mid process in trying to emigrate to Oz. Have family there and the standard of living/way of life is so much more akin to what I want. But the reality is that I want to leave because, in my view, somewhere else is better. Should I then pronounce the majority left back in the home country to be wrong for trying to protect their traditional way of life? I think not.

 

[Soulman]

Don't get me wrong, I am mid process in trying to emigrate to Oz. Have family there and the standard of living/way of life is so much more akin to what I want. But the reality is that I want to leave because, in my view, somewhere else is better. Should I then pronounce the majority left back in the home country to be wrong for trying to protect their traditional way of life? I think not.

Should I then pronounce the majority left back in the home country to be wrong for trying to protect their traditional way of life? I think not.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Good luck with the process, i expect it will be more stringent than over here with less benefits.

 

[RexCathedra]

Make England less beneficial....

How 'less beneficial' does it have to be before it's on net a better idea to just stay in Syria, or Eritrea, or wherever?

 

[Soulman]

How 'less beneficial' does it have to be before it's on net a better idea to just stay in Syria, or Eritrea, or wherever?

Probably less beneficial so they don't have to spend up to 18 months and across many borders to reach a safe haven.

 

[carlzeiss]

How 'less beneficial' does it have to be before it's on net a better idea to just stay in Syria, or Eritrea, or wherever?

None of the migrants arriving in the UK have come from Syria or Eritrea