Calais

[Creaky]

You asked for my solution, i gave my opinion on a possible solution, which was have processing areas in mid Europe, which would save the supposed asylum seekers trekking across many countries to get to Calais. Nothing to stop a proportion of these migrants being sent Eastwards towards the countries i mentioned, seeing as it is a "worldwide problem" and they are non EU migrants.

How would that work - once given right of residence in any country in the EU then they could travel to where they liked.

If the EU tried to send them to non-EU countries then this would only work if the other countries accepted them AND the aylum seekers were willing to go.

 

[carlzeiss]

Yes , just short term until a council flat can be found them . If you were to read the full article you will discover that they are having to share 2 to a room in a Hotel only rated at 3 stars .

 

[BadFish]

You asked for my solution, i gave my opinion on a possible solution, which was have processing areas in mid Europe, which would save the supposed asylum seekers trekking across many countries to get to Calais. Nothing to stop a proportion of these migrants being sent Eastwards towards the countries i mentioned, seeing as it is a "worldwide problem" and they are non EU migrants.

Yes I agree that was what we discussed. Why are we discussing it again?

 

[Soulman]

How would that work - once given right of residence in any country in the EU then they could travel to where they liked.

If the EU tried to send them to non-EU countries then this would only work if the other countries accepted them AND the aylum seekers were willing to go.

My point was that unlike the Eastern Europeans that can travel to EU countries, these migrants are from outside the EU, so why should only the EU countries have the problem. Surely the asylum seekers are escaping a country where they feel they are in danger, do they have the choice of where "asylum seekers were willing to go" then.
If i ever get evicted i'm plumping for Mayfair then.

 

[BadFish]

My point was that unlike the Eastern Europeans that can travel to EU countries, these migrants are from outside the EU, so why should only the EU countries have the problem. Surely the asylum seekers are escaping a country where they feel they are in danger, do they have the choice of where "asylum seekers were willing to go" then.
If i ever get evicted i'm plumping for Mayfair then.

No one is suggesting that only EU countries deal with the problem.

 

[Soulman]

No one is suggesting that only EU countries deal with the problem.

Great, a deal could be struck then. The Western EU countries have been taking the Eastern Europeans for years now, the countries East of the EU could take the non EU migrants....job done.

 

[Creaky]

My point was that unlike the Eastern Europeans that can travel to EU countries, these migrants are from outside the EU, so why should only the EU countries have the problem. Surely the asylum seekers are escaping a country where they feel they are in danger, do they have the choice of where "asylum seekers were willing to go" then.
If i ever get evicted i'm plumping for Mayfair then.

But if either the asylum seeker refused to be moved and/or the third country refused them entry then it would be illegal under international law for the move to take place.

I agree that it would be ideal if ALL countries agreed a strategy to deal with the problem but of course if such an agreement could be made there wouldn't be any refugees to deal with. It's not the refugees that are the problem, it is the areas which they are coming from.

 

[BadFish]

Great, a deal could be struck then. The Western EU countries have been taking the Eastern Europeans for years now, the countries East of the EU could take the non EU migrants....job done.

Well good luck with that one .

 

[BigGully]

Totally agree - as I posted earlier I don't know what the solution is - either in practical terms or humanitarian ones.

What I do believe though is that there is absolutely no point in demonising those who are trying to enter the EU or the UK. The individuals in Calais are not the real problem, they are simply a symptom of the problem.

Waffle,

No one is demonising them, I and others comment on their illegal actions whilst trying to illegally entering the UK whilst already in France.

There has always been a disparity in economys throughout the worlds nations, there has always been war torn and desperately poor nations with many humanity issues, why should only those that embark on illegal crossings enjoy the rewards and not those on the ground that havent tried to do so.

We should try to help, we do try to help, but by just passively allowing migration of 100000's of engineered displaced people isnt the answer.

 

[Soulman]

Well good luck with that one .

Thanks, it might need a bit of fine tuning but as this is a "worldwide problem" i am sure that non EU countries will be only too pleased to pitch in.

 

[Soulman]

Waffle,

No one is demonising them, I and others comment on their illegal actions whilst trying to illegally entering the UK whilst already in France.

There has always been a disparity in economys throughout the worlds nations, there has always been war torn and desperately poor nations with many humanity issues, why should only those that embark on illegal crossings enjoy the rewards and not those on the ground that havent tried to do so.

We should try to help, we do try to help, but by just passively allowing migration of 100000's of engineered displaced people isnt the answer.

Perhaps we should cut the foreign aid to these countries and channel it into whats happening the other side of the channel.

 

[Creaky]

Waffle,

No one is demonising them, I and others comment on their illegal actions whilst trying to illegally entering the UK whilst already in France.

There has always been a disparity in economys throughout the worlds nations, there has always been war torn and desperately poor nations with many humanity issues, why should only those that embark on illegal crossings enjoy the rewards and not those on the ground that havent tried to do so.

We should try to help, we do try to help, but by just passively allowing migration of 100000's of engineered displaced people isnt the answer.

Sorry but you only have to go through this thread to find examples of them being portrayed as 'wicked and threatening', (the definition of demonise).

The only real answer to the problem is to take steps that will stop people wanting to leave their birth places - that will never be achieved via punitive means, only by helping to make their homeland desirable places to live.

 

[BadFish]

Thanks, it might need a bit of fine tuning but as this is a "worldwide problem" i am sure that non EU countries will be only too pleased to pitch in.

What are you suggesting here? That it is not a world wide problem? Or that non EU countries don't take them?

Not a single European country made it onto UNHCR’s list of top-ten major refugee-hosting countries in 2014. Europe’s neighbor Turkey, population 74 million, has made space for almost 2 million Syrian refugees since 2011. The EU, with 507 million people, has accepted only a 536,450 refugees in that time, according to the European Commission.

http://qz.com/448228/data-show-how-manageable-europes-refugee-crisis-could-be/

Some interesting information here including some stuff about your EU idea. Disclaimer for Hasting Gull: Posting this article doesn't automatically mean I agree with everything in it!

 

[pastafarian]

I see the Tories are looking to look they are being tough on this problem and are now proposing failed Asylum seekers should no longer be able to claim benefits or housing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33754595
Ummm WTF were you politician idiots thinking in the first place by saying they could claim these benefits

Fracking idiots

 

[Hastings gull]

Sorry but you only have to go through this thread to find examples of them being portrayed as 'wicked and threatening', (the definition of demonise).

The only real answer to the problem is to take steps that will stop people wanting to leave their birth places - that will never be achieved via punitive means, only by helping to make their homeland desirable places to live.

Obviously this is the ultimate answer, and the Foreign Aid money could be diverted to the countries where it seems that their citizens want to leave. But in all honesty, do you really think that this will stem the flow? In Libya, they seem determined to kill each other and the problems in Sudan and Somalia are well documented, to name a few. Perish the thought that there might also be huge corruption with an influx of cash.
I posted early on, that the only solution, however drastic, seems to be that NATO navvies blockade the African coast, and stop them. All who do arrive in Italy etc are forcibly returned to the coast. There would be heart-rending scenes initially until it is fully understood in Africa that the tap has been turned off. It might also put the people smugglers under serious pressure. Strangely, but to my mind significantly, not one person in the UK answered this, and I was fully expecting all sorts of moral outrage. In fact the only respondent was, guess who, BF, who is fully supportive from his armchair thousands of miles away, that they are dispersed throughout Europe. I would imagine that at present politicians have been reluctant to openly countenance this, for fear of the BFs of this world expressing their moral disgust at others' refusal to help, but give it a few more years when we count the numbers in millions, and the prospect of civil unrest grows, would you then bet against it? It would be a huge undertaking, politically, ethically and financially, but what is the alternative, if, as seems quite likely, the populations of richer European countries do not welcome immigration on the scale we are seeing, and wish for it to cease.

 

[Hastings gull]

What are you suggesting here? That it is not a world wide problem? Or that non EU countries don't take them?



http://qz.com/448228/data-show-how-manageable-europes-refugee-crisis-could-be/

Some interesting information here including some stuff about your EU idea. [B]Disclaimer for Hasting Gull: Posting this article doesn't automatically mean I agree with everything in it!

[/B]

You are obviously being very clever this morning. But then it might be best to add this disclaimer, given the vague nature of that Huffington whatever you posted yesterday. You join a long line of those who post a link, clearly intended to evidence their point, only then to say "well, I don't believe all of it" once it is truly dissected.

 

[pastafarian]

Anyway I am happy to bow out of this discussion as i seem to be upsetting people with my crazy views from afar. I will leave you with these crazy views from UK (Which are obviously more credible even though they are remarkebly similar to mine. Why? because they are based on research rather than fear )

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-making-calais-migrant-crisis-more-difficult

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/31/calais-migrants-crisis-myths-facts_n_7910350.html

the guardian article is bollocks....why should i consider asylum seekers as "heroes"

and that huffpost article is simply one sided testicles

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I see the Tories are looking to look they are being tough on this problem and are now proposing failed Asylum seekers should no longer be able to claim benefits or housing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33754595
Ummm WTF were you politician idiots thinking in the first place by saying they could claim these benefits

Fracking idiots

Not bad is it £36.00 per week plus free accommodation, legal aid and translation services which isn't cheap to help fight cases against deportation.
We really are a bunch of idiots in this country.

 

[BadFish]

[/B]

You are obviously being very clever this morning. But then it might be best to add this disclaimer, given the vague nature of that Huffington whatever you posted yesterday. You join a long line of those who post a link, clearly intended to evidence their point, only then to say "well, I don't believe all of it" once it is truly dissected.

Those articles evidenced the point that my location matters little. I posted articles with a similar view point to mine written from in the UK. You will notice that if I am using articles or studies to evidence my point then I post the part that provides the evidence. Which I did in this case.

You are once again wilfully confused. Still at least you got the right poster this time

 

[Creaky]

Obviously this is the ultimate answer, and the Foreign Aid money could be diverted to the countries where it seems that their citizens want to leave. But in all honesty, do you really think that this will stem the flow? In Libya, they seem determined to kill each other and the problems in Sudan and Somalia are well documented, to name a few. Perish the thought that there might also be huge corruption with an influx of cash.
I posted early on, that the only solution, however drastic, seems to be that NATO navvies blockade the African coast, and stop them. All who do arrive in Italy etc are forcibly returned to the coast. There would be heart-rending scenes initially until it is fully understood in Africa that the tap has been turned off. It might also put the people smugglers under serious pressure. Strangely, but to my mind significantly, not one person in the UK answered this, and I was fully expecting all sorts of moral outrage. In fact the only respondent was, guess who, BF, who is fully supportive from his armchair thousands of miles away, that they are dispersed throughout Europe. I would imagine that at present politicians have been reluctant to openly countenance this, for fear of the BFs of this world expressing their moral disgust at others' refusal to help, but give it a few more years when we count the numbers in millions, and the prospect of civil unrest grows, would you then bet against it? It would be a huge undertaking, politically, ethically and financially, but what is the alternative, if, as seems quite likely, the populations of richer European countries do not welcome immigration on the scale we are seeing, and wish for it to cease.

Ignoring the legalities of such a move then blockading the North African Coast would stop the trans-Mediterranean route but that does nothing to reduce the number of refugees - and is in any case a tiny proportion of the total number.

Looking at Syria alone then according to the UN there are 9 million refugees! Many think the UK has it hard with the few thousand trying to enter here - Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have 3 million already in their territories, more than half of them currently under 18. Turkey on its own is hosting nearly 2 million. How do you blockade the entire Eastern Border of the EU if these decide to migrate?

Then of course there are the other major sources of refugees - Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea - a blockade would simply divert those migrating.