Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel

[Biggy Stardust]

Mrr T said:

Why are you sure his post was very clear. Depending where they came from but quite possible the UK was directly or indirectly responsible for their plight.

Gecko was pretty accurate so my post would seem to be clear.

I'll bite- how might we be responsible?

[poo at Paul's]

The very sad thing about this is the kids, who are too young to have any say in what was going on, and rely on their parents to look after them. I share no sympathy for the parents at all, in fact i have pure contempt that they would subject their children to something so stupid and reckless, when there are clear alternatives available.
Whatever their reasons for wanting to illegally travel to the UK, the truth is that once they were in France, or really anywhere in mainland Europe, they would have been offered a life far improved on their one they had in the place they came from.
But because they see UK as easier, better, more lucrative, (even if it isn't) they want to make that final reckless journey.
Next time, leave your kids in France, they will be very well looked after, as you would have been if you had claimed asylum there. But your stupidity, dishonesty, greed and negligence killed your children, no one else.

[Porsche guy]

poo at Paul's said:

The very sad thing about this is the kids, who are too young to have any say in what was going on, and rely on their parents to look after them. I share no sympathy for the parents at all, in fact i have pure contempt that they would subject their children to something so stupid and reckless, when there are clear alternatives available.
Whatever their reasons for wanting to illegally travel to the UK, the truth is that once they were in France, or really anywhere in mainland Europe, they would have been offered a life far improved on their one they had in the place they came from.
But because they see UK as easier, better, more lucrative, (even if it isn't) they want to make that final reckless journey.
Next time, leave your kids in France, they will be very well looked after, as you would have been if you had claimed asylum there. But your stupidity, dishonesty, greed and negligence killed your children, no one else.

As above, the free healthcare/housing/food/etc when they've paid nothing into the system is a massive draw for economic migrants!

[AJL308]

International law really needs to change so that the definition of "refugee" makes specific provision that one seeks asylum in the first safe country he arrives in. That, of course, doesn't mean that Countries should not come to individual agreements as to how to then distribute refugees among them or to arrange financial settlements to negate the burden on the receiving states.

If you are fleeing some sthole because you fear persecution then fair enough. However you have ceased to be in danger of persecution when you start crossing Europe to get to the UK. How can you claim to not want to be in danger of death when you place yourself in totally avoidable danger of death to get here from France? As soon as you are in a safe place if you then choose to go somewhere else before claiming asylum then you are an economic migrant, not a refugee.

[over_the_hill]

The discussion that they have passed through several safe countries has already been done.

As we know, crossing the Channel in a small boat is a risky venture at the best of times. Heading into winter with rougher seas and cold water
if you end up in the drink is almost suicidal. So getting as far as Calais why do they decide to carry on.

They have either been sold so much bullst about the streets here being paved with gold that they believe it and think it's worth the risk ?
I wonder how many are disappointed when they get here and discover reality.

They have no appreciation of the risk. In ignorance if someone showed you a map saying you only need to cross the little bit of sea between
Calais and Dover would it seem fairly simple ? You can even see the other side on a clear day.

[Digga]

over_the_hill said:

They have either been sold so much bullst about the streets here being paved with gold that they believe it and think it's worth the risk ?
I wonder how many are disappointed when they get here and discover reality.

They have no appreciation of the risk. In ignorance if someone showed you a map saying you only need to cross the little bit of sea between
Calais and Dover would it seem fairly simple ? You can even see the other side on a clear day.

Both things I have often wondered.

[Alucidnation]

Did i read that the UK will conducting a full investigation into the incident?

If so..

A) why should we, and inevitably pay for it,

and

B) they fell off an overcrowded boat.. what exactly is there to investgate?

Edited by Alucidnation on Wednesday 28th October 11:56

[andymc]

where are the traffickers in all this? remove them and you take away the problem?

[anonymous-user]

over_the_hill said:

The discussion that they have passed through several safe countries has already been done.

As we know, crossing the Channel in a small boat is a risky venture at the best of times. Heading into winter with rougher seas and cold water
if you end up in the drink is almost suicidal. So getting as far as Calais why do they decide to carry on.

They have either been sold so much bullst about the streets here being paved with gold that they believe it and think it's worth the risk ?
I wonder how many are disappointed when they get here and discover reality.

They have no appreciation of the risk. In ignorance if someone showed you a map saying you only need to cross the little bit of sea between
Calais and Dover would it seem fairly simple ? You can even see the other side on a clear day.

The discussion on why they travel here after passing through numerous countries has indeed been done to death, yet many people still don't seem to get it, or trot out the old lines about the UK being 'too soft' or 'paved with gold', when it has been shown time and time again that these are not the reasons why migrants try to reach the UK.

The main reasons they come to the UK are:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

2) They often have family members or relatives here already.

3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.

They generally know very little, if anything, about the benefits systems in the UK or EU countries, and this rarely factors into their thinking. It is mostly about finding work and therefore speaking English is the important factor.

Our benefits system offers far less to Asylum seekers or refugees than numerous EU countries.

[AJL308]

over_the_hill said:

The discussion that they have passed through several safe countries has already been done.

As we know, crossing the Channel in a small boat is a risky venture at the best of times. Heading into winter with rougher seas and cold water
if you end up in the drink is almost suicidal. So getting as far as Calais why do they decide to carry on.

They have either been sold so much bullst about the streets here being paved with gold that they believe it and think it's worth the risk ?
I wonder how many are disappointed when they get here and discover reality.

They have no appreciation of the risk. In ignorance if someone showed you a map saying you only need to cross the little bit of sea between
Calais and Dover would it seem fairly simple ? You can even see the other side on a clear day.

All of which supports the entirely reasonable suggestion that someone who attempts such things is not a true refugee at the point at which they try to do them. Yes, they may be legally classed as such because a seventy year old UN treaty says they are but the realistic, sensible and moral reality in 2020 is that they are not. They are simply availing themselves of a legal advantage which is arguably outdated and irrelevant in today's world.

Legally, they have a right to claim asylum here. Logically and morally if they are not actually facing danger of death or persecution when they departed their last port of call then they do not.

[Gecko1978]

Lord Marylebone said:

over_the_hill said:

The discussion that they have passed through several safe countries has already been done.

As we know, crossing the Channel in a small boat is a risky venture at the best of times. Heading into winter with rougher seas and cold water
if you end up in the drink is almost suicidal. So getting as far as Calais why do they decide to carry on.

They have either been sold so much bullst about the streets here being paved with gold that they believe it and think it's worth the risk ?
I wonder how many are disappointed when they get here and discover reality.

They have no appreciation of the risk. In ignorance if someone showed you a map saying you only need to cross the little bit of sea between
Calais and Dover would it seem fairly simple ? You can even see the other side on a clear day.

The discussion on why they travel here after passing through numerous countries has indeed been done to death, yet many people still don't seem to get it, or trot out the old lines about the UK being 'too soft' or 'paved with gold', when it has been shown time and time again that these are not the reasons why migrants try to reach the UK.

The main reasons they come to the UK are:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

2) They often have family members or relatives here already.

3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.

They generally know very little, if anything, about the benefits systems in the UK or EU countries, and this rarely factors into their thinking. It is mostly about finding work and therefore speaking English is the important factor.

Our benefits system offers far less to Asylum seekers or refugees than numerous EU countries.

I suspect you are right about the why donit would seem part of the solution is education. Basically if you come to the UK you can't work, we don't want you, we will never stop trying to find you an deport you. You are not welcome if you come here illegally.

If people knew that, they would still come but pwrhapa less so.

[Mrr T]

Biggy Stardust said:

I'll bite- how might we be responsible?

Directly for anyone from Libya , Afghanistan, and Iraq, indirectly any one who enters the EU from a boat from Libya. You may remember we decided to go and play,,the result is a lot of refugees.

I wonder if there is a German PH where posters suggest the solution to their refugee problem is to take all the refugees who fit the above and load them on buses and drop them at Calais with some high quality ribs.

[AJL308]

Lord Marylebone said:

The discussion on why they travel here after passing through numerous countries has indeed been done to death, yet many people still don't seem to get it, or trot out the old lines about the UK being 'too soft' or 'paved with gold', when it has been shown time and time again that these are not the reasons why migrants try to reach the UK.

The main reasons they come to the UK are:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

2) They often have family members or relatives here already.

3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.

They generally know very little, if anything, about the benefits systems in the UK or EU countries, and this rarely factors into their thinking. It is mostly about finding work and therefore speaking English is the important factor.

Our benefits system offers far less to Asylum seekers or refugees than numerous EU countries.

All of Western Europe speaks English as a second language. A fact they will have discovered when they arrived in France, Germany and numerous others. Try going to Sweden, for instance, everyone speaks English to some degree or other and usually to a very high standard.

Why would they think that the UK is safer, more tolerant and suchlike than Germany? Did they miss the fact that the Germans ignored EU law a few years back and allowed in a million or more "refugees" with virtually no checks? That's pretty "tolerant" if you ask me.

Even if your statements were 100% correct that doesn't change the fact that in virtually any European country they have ceased to be in danger. If my life were truly under threat then why TF would I continue to run rather than avail myself of immediate protection? Being alive is more important than the language my saviours spoke with!

[768]

Lord Marylebone said:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

Speaking English is probably more likely to get you a job in Malaysia than NZ. English is pretty widely spoken, even half of France speak it admittedly while pretending otherwise.

[anonymous-user]

768 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

Speaking English is probably more likely to get you a job in Malaysia than NZ. English is pretty widely spoken, even half of France speak it admittedly while pretending otherwise.

Ok, bad example.

I revise it to 'New Zealand' or 'China'.

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

The discussion on why they travel here after passing through numerous countries has indeed been done to death, yet many people still don't seem to get it, or trot out the old lines about the UK being 'too soft' or 'paved with gold', when it has been shown time and time again that these are not the reasons why migrants try to reach the UK.

The main reasons they come to the UK are:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

2) They often have family members or relatives here already.

3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.

They generally know very little, if anything, about the benefits systems in the UK or EU countries, and this rarely factors into their thinking. It is mostly about finding work and therefore speaking English is the important factor.

Our benefits system offers far less to Asylum seekers or refugees than numerous EU countries.

All of Western Europe speaks English as a second language. A fact they will have discovered when they arrived in France, Germany and numerous others. Try going to Sweden, for instance, everyone speaks English to some degree or other and usually to a very high standard.

Why would they think that the UK is safer, more tolerant and suchlike than Germany? Did they miss the fact that the Germans ignored EU law a few years back and allowed in a million or more "refugees" with virtually no checks? That's pretty "tolerant" if you ask me.

Even if your statements were 100% correct that doesn't change the fact that in virtually any European country they have ceased to be in danger. If my life were truly under threat then why TF would I continue to run rather than avail myself of immediate protection? Being alive is more important than the language my saviours spoke with!

You are right that most of the EU speak English as a second language, but ideally you need to speak the first language of a country to be successful at getting a job.

As a visitor to a country and speaking English, it will be fine to get you served in a bar or check into a hotel, but it won't be much use to you if all your work colleagues speak French or German all day. They will be expecting you to speak their language.

The UK is known around the world as being tolerant and democratic, so that one kind of speaks for itself. Also, the things migrants experience in France/Italy are often not positive, which simply reinforces their decision to try to get to the UK.

If you want to verify what I have said just google "Why do asylum seekers and refugees try to come to the UK" and you will find loads of articles and reports detailing why, and rarely will they mention benefits or money as being the reason.

[AJL308]

Lord Marylebone said:

AJL308 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

The discussion on why they travel here after passing through numerous countries has indeed been done to death, yet many people still don't seem to get it, or trot out the old lines about the UK being 'too soft' or 'paved with gold', when it has been shown time and time again that these are not the reasons why migrants try to reach the UK.

The main reasons they come to the UK are:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

2) They often have family members or relatives here already.

3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.

They generally know very little, if anything, about the benefits systems in the UK or EU countries, and this rarely factors into their thinking. It is mostly about finding work and therefore speaking English is the important factor.

Our benefits system offers far less to Asylum seekers or refugees than numerous EU countries.

All of Western Europe speaks English as a second language. A fact they will have discovered when they arrived in France, Germany and numerous others. Try going to Sweden, for instance, everyone speaks English to some degree or other and usually to a very high standard.

Why would they think that the UK is safer, more tolerant and suchlike than Germany? Did they miss the fact that the Germans ignored EU law a few years back and allowed in a million or more "refugees" with virtually no checks? That's pretty "tolerant" if you ask me.

Even if your statements were 100% correct that doesn't change the fact that in virtually any European country they have ceased to be in danger. If my life were truly under threat then why TF would I continue to run rather than avail myself of immediate protection? Being alive is more important than the language my saviours spoke with!

You are right that most of the EU speak English as a second language, but ideally you need to speak the first language of a country to be successful at getting a job.

As a visitor to a country and speaking English, it will be fine to get you served in a bar or check into a hotel, but it won't be much use to you if all your work colleagues speak French or German all day. They will be expecting you to speak their language.

The UK is known around the world as being tolerant and democratic, so that one kind of speaks for itself. Also, the things migrants experience in France/Italy are often not positive, which simply reinforces their decision to try to get to the UK.

If you want to verify what I have said just google "Why do asylum seekers and refugees try to come to the UK" and you will find loads of articles and reports detailing why, and rarely will they mention benefits or money as being the reason.

None of which changes the fact that rationally and morally you are not a refugee when you depart France for the UK. You might be entitled to be treated like one under some old convention or other but you ceased to be in danger once you left your home country, or at least at the point at which you entered the EU. That being the case, then you are simply someone who is travelling to another country for economic or social reasons and there are rules about who can enter this country intended to control that type of immigration and by which method they may enter. EU citizens do not even have total freedom to do that nor did they when we were still a member. Why should someone from outside of the EU be accorded more freedoms than an EU citizen?

The Convention on refugees is derived from the common decency to want to protect the lives and security of those who are in danger of death or serious persecution in their state of origin. It's purpose is to make sure that people so in danger can flee to safety as quickly as possible. I cannot accept that it was ever intended to include a right to go "country shopping" for the best place in the world to claim asylum. It's simply wrong to do so. And, language preferences aside, neither do I accept that it is a rational course of action to float across the Channel on an overcrowded boat once you are safe from persecution just because it's marginally easier to talk to people here. You are not fleeing persecution at that point, you are coming here for social or economic reasons.

Edited by AJL308 on Wednesday 28th October 12:58

[Digga]

Lord Marylebone said:

768 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

Speaking English is probably more likely to get you a job in Malaysia than NZ. English is pretty widely spoken, even half of France speak it admittedly while pretending otherwise.

Ok, bad example.

I revise it to 'New Zealand' or 'China'.

Plenty of jobs for English speakers in China too. Another poor example.

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

None of which changes the fact that rationally and morally you are not a refugee when you depart France for the UK. You might be entitled to be treated like one under some old convention or other but you ceased to be in danger once you left your home country, or at least at the point at which you entered the EU. That being the case, then you are simply someone who is travelling to another country for economic or social reasons and there are rules about who can enter this country intended to control that type of immigration and by which method they may enter. EU citizens do not even have total freedom to do that nor did they when we were still a member. Why should someone from outside of the EU be accorded more freedoms than an EU citizen?

The Convention on refugees is derived from the common decency to want to protect the lives and security of those who are in danger of death or serious persecution in their state of origin. It's purpose is to make sure that people so in danger can flee to safety as quickly as possible. I cannot accept that it was ever intended to include a right to go "country shopping" for the best place in the world to claim asylum. It's simply wrong to do so. And, language preferences aside, neither do I accept that it is a rational course of action to float across the Channel on an overcrowded boat once you are safe from persecution just because it's marginally easier to talk to people here. You are not fleeing persecution at that point, you are coming here for social or economic reasons.

I'm not sure why you are telling me all this. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs etc.

I was merely giving some answers about why they choose to come to the UK instead of stay in France.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Lord Marylebone said:

768 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

1) The single biggest reason is they speak English, and therefore this automatically means they stand a massively better chance of having a job and some sort of life here due to the language. The same as if you fled your country, only spoke English, and had the choice of either New Zealand or Malaysia. You would clearly choose New Zealand as the language would make out possible to get a job and function in society.

Speaking English is probably more likely to get you a job in Malaysia than NZ. English is pretty widely spoken, even half of France speak it admittedly while pretending otherwise.

Ok, bad example.

I revise it to 'New Zealand' or 'China'.

Plenty of jobs for English speakers in China too. Another poor example.

Right, lets end this by saying many asylum seekers and refugees have stated that they cannot find employment in Italy/France/Germany etc because they don't speak Italian/French/German, and language is a requirement of finding employment in those countries, and they feel finding work will be easier in the UK as they speak English.

That's the reason they give, so there's no point in us debating it. Their logic may be right or it may be wrong, but thats what they say.