Calais

[Westward]

We start by taking the position that those claiming refugee status have to demonstrate they're telling the truth rather than the onus being on us to spend months checking up, often finding out that it's all made up, then more months and huge expense trying to send them back.

It's quite obvious that some countries are more appealing than others. I don' t know what makes France a relatively unappealing place to migrate to but perhaps we could copy them. Many migrants seem to have a shortlist of preferred destinations which never seem to include France, Spain, Italy etc. The attractions of Britain, Scandinavia, Germany or The Netherlands seem comparatively overwhelming and I have to assume it's the handouts and free health care rather than anything else.

[old man]

3 hours ago, walshie said:

Fair enough to the small minority who are actually genuine refugees, but until they are granted asylum, they are asylum seekers. Don't asylum rules require to claim it in the first safe country you enter after leaving your own?

I didn't think it catered for travelling the whole width of Europe in order to claim asylum in a country with cushier benefits. 

And therein lies the problem, there is obviously no great desire anywhere in Europe to get them registered, why is that I wonder? Maybe it's just their indecent haste to get rid of them cheaply on to our fragile border where they know it's problem solved?

It would be easy to think this normal politics for them in only abiding by the bits of the rules they want to, whereas they know of old we will suck it up and then ask for more, don't/won't we?  

 

And as the final blow, they use the EU regulations against us if we try to restrict anything to make our position better? Again we bow down?

Edited February 3, 2018 by old man

[Gordon R]

For those who suggest we let them come - would you ever draw a line and say enough is enough. If 20 million wanted to come, would you welcome them?

If you would, I would respectfully suggest we could not afford them and you are out of touch with reality.

If you would not accept 20 or 30 million, just where would you draw the line? If you would draw a line, how would you implement this without resorting to methods which you have cast doubt upon?

Is there one single person who thinks the country can accommodate an extra 20, 30, 40 million? Please don't wriggle out of the point by saying 20 million is unrealistic. That would just be silly and dodging the question.

 

[countryman]

11 hours ago, Gordon R said:

For those who suggest we let them come - would you ever draw a line and say enough is enough. If 20 million wanted to come, would you welcome them?

If you would, I would respectfully suggest we could not afford them and you are out of touch with reality.

If you would not accept 20 or 30 million, just where would you draw the line? If you would draw a line, how would you implement this without resorting to methods which you have cast doubt upon?

Is there one single person who thinks the country can accommodate an extra 20, 30, 40 million? Please don't wriggle out of the point by saying 20 million is unrealistic. That would just be silly and dodging the question.

 

The real truth is that the majority of us do not want any more over here, NHS, schools, homes are all ready at breaking point. The minority's who are all for open door policy's are very good at being loud and making us look like bad people, meanwhile we go out to work and pay our taxes for all of them.

[old'un]

48 minutes ago, countryman said:

The real truth is that the majority of us do not want any more over here, NHS, schools, homes are all ready at breaking point. The minority's who are all for open door policy's are very good at being loud and making us look like bad people, meanwhile we go out to work and pay our taxes for all of them.

Once we leave the EU we should have an Australian type of immigration policy….http://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/refu

And protect the jobs and people already here by removing any loop holes…https://www.bobinoz.com/blog/21541/australian-government-abolishes-457-visas/

[12gauge82]

12 hours ago, Gordon R said:

For those who suggest we let them come - would you ever draw a line and say enough is enough. If 20 million wanted to come, would you welcome them?

If you would, I would respectfully suggest we could not afford them and you are out of touch with reality.

If you would not accept 20 or 30 million, just where would you draw the line? If you would draw a line, how would you implement this without resorting to methods which you have cast doubt upon?

Is there one single person who thinks the country can accommodate an extra 20, 30, 40 million? Please don't wriggle out of the point by saying 20 million is unrealistic. That would just be silly and dodging the question.

 

It's a good point Gordon, as unpleasant as it is, sometimes the truth is harsh, we can't sort other countries problems out and continuing to take more in over here will only encourage more to come and confound the problem further, not to mention cause the extreme right in this country to grow by forcing an already stretched population and over crowded country to take more people against it's People's democratic will.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

Once we leave the EU we should have an Australian type of immigration policy….http://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/refu

 

 

 

And protect the jobs and people already here by removing any loop holes…https://www.bobinoz.com/blog/21541/australian-government-abolishes-457-visas/

Why wait till we leave the EU? We could have put this in place years ago (EU migrants accepted) yet we were unable to make it work. Highest levels of immigration are from outside the EU where we have control.

Again we don't have the political will to sort it. A points system won't work, when we have unskilled vacancies that we cannot fill, farm workers are a classic, care workers are another. 

[old man]

Sadly, it seems the Australian way is beyond the intellect of our politicos and their unseen ministerial manipulators.

It requires a sensible measured approach to be able to control the influx before the system is bankrupt at every level except theirs. 

Don't see the politicos queing for anything  do we, all aspects of their lives covered from transport to health.

It really is beyond my comprehension, the way that our politicians yardstick seems to be that they only think they are being effective when acting to the detriment of the electorate? Quite reptilian?

[Vince Green]

18 hours ago, Westward said:

We start by taking the position that those claiming refugee status have to demonstrate they're telling the truth rather than the onus being on us to spend months checking up, often finding out that it's all made up, then more months and huge expense trying to send them back.

It's quite obvious that some countries are more appealing than others. I don' t know what makes France a relatively unappealing place to migrate to but perhaps we could copy them. Many migrants seem to have a shortlist of preferred destinations which never seem to include France, Spain, Italy etc. The attractions of Britain, Scandinavia, Germany or The Netherlands seem comparatively overwhelming and I have to assume it's the handouts and free health care rather than anything else.

I can tell you why France is unappealing to migrants. The French don't give them any benefits or healthcare because under French law they are genuinely not entitled to any. Its not that they treat them any differently, in France you have to pay in before you can get anything out.

Most other countries in Europe are the same so Britain becomes the magnet.

[old'un]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

Why wait till we leave the EU? We could have put this in place years ago (EU migrants accepted) yet we were unable to make it work. Highest levels of immigration are from outside the EU where we have control.

Again we don't have the political will to sort it. A points system won't work, when we have unskilled vacancies that we cannot fill, farm workers are a classic, care workers are another. 

So how do countries that have stricter immigration laws than us manage?

[oowee]

22 minutes ago, old'un said:

So how do countries that have stricter immigration laws than us manage?

No idea. It's always amazed me that we have jobs that no one wants to do. 

Maybe the issue is not immigration at all but the generosity of the state? No doubt a Tory govt will sort it  oops we have one already. 

I come back to the original point these things are in the too hard category. We can do the populist stuff tackling the symptoms but we are unable to deal with the cause because the majority won't take the medicine. 

 

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

So how do countries that have stricter immigration laws than us manage?

We have a massive pool of unskilled workers in the UK, we don't need to import workers from abroad. Its simply that we pay our unskilled people not to work and they don't have to.

The State is as much to blame as the people, its easier to 'car park' people on benefits and just forget about them. Civil Servants like a quiet life as much as anybody else.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Vince Green

[oowee]

23 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

We have a massive pool of unskilled workers in the UK, we don't need to import workers from abroad. Its simply that we pay our unskilled people not to work and they don't have to.

The State is as much to blame as the people, its easier to 'car park' people on benefits and just forget about them. Civil Servants like a quiet life as much as anybody else.

 

I am with your sentiment but civil servants will do what they are told. There is no one to tell them because there is no policy in place that would get the popular vote. 

[motty]

6 hours ago, oowee said:

Why wait till we leave the EU? We could have put this in place years ago (EU migrants accepted) yet we were unable to make it work. Highest levels of immigration are from outside the EU where we have control.

Again we don't have the political will to sort it. A points system won't work, when we have unskilled vacancies that we cannot fill, farm workers are a classic, care workers are another. 

Unskilled vacancies we can't fill? I don't believe that for a second! Our lazy ******** should be forced to do these jobs, or face losing their free money!

[Vince Green]

5 minutes ago, motty said:

Unskilled vacancies we can't fill? I don't believe that for a second! Our lazy ******** should be forced to do these jobs, or face losing their free money!

Just stop the free money, they will find jobs quick enough when they have no other choice

[old'un]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Just stop the free money, they will find jobs quick enough when they have no other choice

 

Yep, nice idea Vince……but at the head of the protest march and waving their banner will be, Corbyn, Abbot and McDonnell calling for the government to stop hurting these unfortunate people with more Tory cuts.

[ditchman]

when "we" the skool went on a trip to Calais (way back).............we all came back loaded up with "flick knives"..........

 

ahhh those were the days...

[silver pigeon69]

1 minute ago, ditchman said:

when "we" the skool went on a trip to Calais (way back).............we all came back loaded up with "flick knives"..........

 

ahhh those were the days...

and the "loud" bangers you could buy!

[39TDS]

12 minutes ago, ditchman said:

when "we" the skool went on a trip to Calais (way back).............we all came back loaded up with "flick knives"..........

 

ahhh those were the days...

Still got mine

Edited February 4, 2018 by 39TDS

[das]

On 03/02/2018 at 13:43, Rewulf said:

Oh my, where to start !

First off, what on earth has this nations own criminal element got to do with illegal migrants/ refugees shooting and fighting each other in France ?
Surely its the fault of the French for not controlling and containing them ?
But no ! Its our fault for having a generous benefits system, and being too 'nice'

Violent criminals, yes thats right, they are ,they are being violent, and are illegally in France, do you want them to come here and do it too ?
But its ok theyve had a tough time, lets nurture them and they will turn into model citizens ??
Been tried, doesnt work, best youll get is a ghetto, paid for by the taxpayer and civil unrest, look at the no go zones in Belgium, Sweden and France.

Where did Britain first come into this ?
Leftys scratch their heads and wonder where all this far right fascist business came from ?

What will the French do ?
Cop some more money off us, and keep ignoring the criminals in their country, whilst hoping they move along and get to their ultimate destination, the UK.
Same as they have been doing for the last 30 odd years.
You say what would happen if they moved the checkpoint to Dover ?
Have a think about it, how do they get there ? Will the French just wave them through ?
Probably, they dont do much different now .

Very well said and explained.

[das]

On 03/02/2018 at 17:55, walshie said:

Fair enough to the small minority who are actually genuine refugees, but until they are granted asylum, they are asylum seekers. Don't asylum rules require to claim it in the first safe country you enter after leaving your own?

I didn't think it catered for travelling the whole width of Europe in order to claim asylum in a country with cushier benefits. 

I think this failure that some **** dreamt up is called the Dublin Regulation as you describe above. It never really worked as it was ignored, just needs re enforcing
but probably not by the French.

[Vince Green]

All this stuff is fragmented because we look at the problem at a National level and not at a Global level. The world population is expected to increase by 83 million this year. Most of that growth will take place in parts of the world that are totally unable to house them, feed them or support them.

For the brightest and the most ambitious the desire to move towards what ever sort of promised land they envisage Europe, USA or Australia to be is compelling. Lets be honest, if it was you or me we would go for it in an instant. And it is easier now than it has ever been.

The trouble is, next year there will be another 83 million, and the year after that another 83 million. Its not that we can't sustain it, they (the third world) can't sustain it but it is going to shift more and more to becoming our problem because of mobility.

Some very tough, incredibly tough, decisions are going to have to be made and frankly its worse than anything since the final solution which is why no politician will raise the subject. That doesn't mean they are not all aware of it.

Keep your attention on the Global picture because that is where all this stuff is rolling out

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Vince Green

[hambone]

4 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

All this stuff is fragmented because we look at the problem at a National level and not at a Global level. The world population is expected to increase by 83 million this year. Most of that growth will take place in parts of the world that are totally unable to house them, feed them or support them.

For the brightest and the most ambitious the desire to move towards what ever sort of promised land they envisage Europe, USA or Australia to be is compelling. Lets be honest, if it was you or me we would go for it in an instant. And it is easier now than it has ever been.

The trouble is, next year there will be another 83 million, and the year after that another 83 million. Its not that we can't sustain it, they (the third world) can't sustain it but it is going to shift more and more to becoming our problem because of mobility.

Some very tough, incredibly tough, decisions are going to have to be made and frankly its worse than anything since the final solution which is why no politician will raise the subject. That doesn't mean they are not all aware of it.

 

Are you hinting at letting nature take care of numbers? While I donated to live aid at the time I thought to myself that the more saved now is ultimately going to lead to more death later. It's a ****ty world we live in and it's going to get ****tier. Look at the water shortage in Cape Town for example. 

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

 

For the brightest and the most ambitious the desire to move towards what ever sort of promised land they envisage Europe, USA or Australia to be is compelling. Lets be honest, if it was you or me we would go for it in an instant. And it is easier now than it has ever been

I think I live in a nice country, at the moment. 

In 10, 20 years time, I'm not so sure. 

I'd love to go and live in Canada or Oz, but you know what? 

I can't, because unless I've got a skill they want, or a tonne of money, they wouldn't want me, not at my age anyway. 

They have laws and quotas that prevent the unskilled and unproductive from settling there. 

And strangely enough, they don't seem to have the issue of illegal immigrants and 'refugees' that we have, and if they find an illegal, they deport them quick time. 

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

While I donated to live aid at the time

Can anyone remember just what percentage of the funds raised actually reached the people who it was meant to help? I recollect it was a minute fraction.