Calais

[wellquickwoody]

Very well established that a far lower percentage of immigrants claim benefits, than British nationals.

But they will take jobs at well below the minimum wage, thereby increasing unemployment amongst the indigenous population. Much of what they earn will be sent back to their country of origin thereby weakening our own economy further.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I say it because that is exactly what they are, until they are processed you have not idea if they are genuine refugees or economic migrants.

Letting your humanity cover the facts again. If they were genuine asylum seekers they would apply in the first safe country they arrive in, not travel across half a dozen more to camp in a sxxthole in northern France.

 

[Spicy]

My theory is that French immigration officials need to go to the area where the migrants live, called "the jungle" locally, and ask them "do you want to claim asylum in France". The answer is probably going to be "no" so I reckon the migrants, as illegals on French soil, can legitimately be returned to where they have came from (North Africa). Building more fences is not a solution and many are determined to get here irrespective of more troops, police, dogs, fences, but sending them back would be a start in getting the message "don't come to Europe" across.

 

[BadFish]

Letting your humanity cover the facts again. If they were genuine asylum seekers they would apply in the first safe country they arrive in, not travel across half a dozen more to camp in a sxxthole in northern France.

The fact that they haven't yet claimed asylum doesn't stop them from being asylum seekers. They have just chosen to try and claim asylum in a certain place. Doesn't change the definition.

The point is you don't know what they are until they get there. So you have to process them and find out. Those that seek asylum are asylum seeker (bogus or not) those that try and disappear into the black market are illegal immigrants.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

All this messing around. Why is it so difficult to clear Calais, send them back to the last country they where in before they go to the EU.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Letting your humanity cover the facts again. If they were genuine asylum seekers they would apply in the first safe country they arrive in, not travel across half a dozen more to camp in a sxxthole in northern France.

That's right they would. They only want the UK because their friends are here, because they know they will get help, and we are probably more Islamic friendly than a lot of other countries in the EU.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The fact that they haven't yet claimed asylum doesn't stop them from being asylum seekers. They have just chosen to try and claim asylum in a certain place. Doesn't change the definition.

The point is you don't know what they are until they get there. So you have to process them and find out. Those that seek asylum are asylum seeker (bogus or not) those that try and disappear into the black market are illegal immigrants.

I think you need to stop being so naive - a very small percentage that get to the UK actually claim asylum. Therefore a vast majority are actually illegal immigrants who have no intention to reporting to the authorities to be processed.

 

[BadFish]

I think you need to stop being so naive - a very small percentage that get to the UK actually claim asylum. Therefore a vast majority are actually illegal immigrants who have no intention to reporting to the authorities to be processed.

I'll stop being naive when I see some evidence of this. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that this is the case.

 

[Hastings gull]

My theory is that French immigration officials need to go to the area where the migrants live, called "the jungle" locally, and ask them "do you want to claim asylum in France". The answer is probably going to be "no" so I reckon the migrants, as illegals on French soil, can legitimately be returned to where they have came from (North Africa). Building more fences is not a solution and many are determined to get here irrespective of more troops, police, dogs, fences, but sending them back would be a start in getting the message "don't come to Europe" across.

We in Europe have some hard thinking and decisions to make. At present we have the worst of all worlds - intense disruption, risking public disquiet, as we take them all, albeit on a drip-feed basis every night, but we are told that all is being done to stem the tide, when clearly nightly news pictures show how ineffective the "measures" are. There is mounting evidence that the French are clearly ushering them through, as are the Italians, who are desperate to unburden themselves from the problem. Several European governments, fearful for social cohesion, are understandably dragging their feet at the thought of thousands of immigrants used to a totally different way of life. it is a total mess, and we constantly read that "something needs to be done".
The time must surely come, and very soon, when we say either yes or no, and actually mean it! If we put this off, we are only postponing the inevitable, because,say, 5 years on, the numbers will have further increased. I think it is fair to say that the majority opinion throughout Europe, and certainly here in the UK,will be that immigration in such vast numbers is not welcome. So what should be done? I suspect that we will have to take those already in Europe -sending them all home, when they rip up their passports, is not going to be practical. We would then have to send a very clear message to Africa that the tap has been turned off, and it would be up to NATO navies to blockade the coast of Libya. All migrants attempting to leave would be returned, and those found in Italy, similarly so, forcibly if need be. Yes, there would be heart-rending scenes, doubtless exploited by the media, and it all seems very heartless, but the word would eventually get through that trying to get to Europe is not going to pay off, and it might also cut the business of the people smugglers. Obviously, the solution is also to create conditions in their own countries whereby thousands don't feel the need to escape, but realistically is this ever going to happen? If you feel that this course of action is morally wrong, then fine, but what better solution is there?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'll stop being naive when I see some evidence of this. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that this is the case.

There is news report after news report about immigrants being found under lorries, in lorries - even in a horsebox at Hickstead. Why did these people not hand themselves in at Dover and claim asylum ?

Besides, it's rather rich of someone living in Oz suggesting that all these people are asylum seekers given the Australian method of dealing with people trying to get into your country.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'll stop being naive when I see some evidence of this. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that this is the case.

I doubt very much that you will stop being naïve. How can you in your situation possibly see evidence? My evidence is that my family members in the Old Bill are fed up with rounding them up, only for them to be bailed and then disappear. If they were genuine asylum seekers, able to point quite clearly at the persecution they were suffering, then they wouldn't need to disappear and would relish the chance to air a grievance at some awful regime.

 

[BadFish]

There is news report after news report about immigrants being found under lorries, in lorries - even in a horsebox at Hickstead. Why did these people not hand themselves in at Dover and claim asylum ?

Besides, it's rather rich of someone living in Oz suggesting that all these people are asylum seekers given the Australian method of dealing with people trying to get into your country.

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

Your second paragraph is bonkers by the way. It makes no sense at all.

 

[BadFish]

I doubt very much that you will stop being naïve. How can you in your situation possibly see evidence? My evidence is that my family members in the Old Bill are fed up with rounding them up, only for them to be bailed and then disappear. If they were genuine asylum seekers, able to point quite clearly at the persecution they were suffering, then they wouldn't need to disappear and would relish the chance to air a grievance at some awful regime.

There is plenty of evidence about that deals with this kind of stuff. More compelling that the anecdotal stuff being presented here.

 

[supaseagull]

Much of what they earn will be sent back to their country of origin thereby weakening our own economy further.

That's a completely made up myth by the far right.

 

[BadFish]

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

 

[Creaky]

All this messing around. Why is it so difficult to clear Calais, send them back to the last country they where in before they go to the EU.

Why should, (or more importantly would), countries like Libya accept them back?

 

[wellquickwoody]

That's a completely made up myth by the far right.

Course it is, you carry on in your ignorance.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

When I see people clambering over fences, climbing under lorries and being disruptive my sympathy for these people goes straight out of the window as it does with a lot of other people. The EU and the UK cannot keep doing this. It only points to a situation one day where we face over population, but nobody with the power to do something about it, gives a s*(t about it. It's not only that, but I also personally worry about the cultural and religious implications from letting so many people in could bring in the future. I don't want some of the things going on in these other countries becoming even more of a problem on our own shores.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Your second paragraph is bonkers by the way. It makes no sense at all.

Errr .... Australia imprisons asylum seekers. They even pay other countries to imprison them.

 

[BadFish]

Errr .... Australia imprisons asylum seekers. They even pay other countries to imprison them.

Which makes my contributions to this thread 'rich' because......?