Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel
Discussion
Lord Marylebone said:
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.I revise it to 'New Zealand' or 'China'.
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.
So, essentially, the use of English is unlikely to be their primary reason for coming here.
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.
3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.
WTF makes them think that? :?3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.
Look at it this way, if I were in genuine fear of death or serious persecution in the UK and I knew that France would offer me safe haven and allow me to lodge an asylum claim then could I still be morally considered to have a legitimate asylum claim if I passed though France, jumped a ship to New York and then hid in the back of numerous trucks in order that I could arrive in Arizona (I like the weather there) to make my claim there because they spoke English there and I don't speak French?
The answer is, of course, no - regardless of whether it's technically legal under international law. At the point I left France I'd be travelling to AZ for social reasons, not because I was fleeing something.
The answer is, of course, no - regardless of whether it's technically legal under international law. At the point I left France I'd be travelling to AZ for social reasons, not because I was fleeing something.
AJL308 said:
Look at it this way, if I were in genuine fear of death or serious persecution in the UK and I knew that France would offer me safe haven and allow me to lodge an asylum claim then could I still be morally considered to have a legitimate asylum claim if I passed though France, jumped a ship to New York and then hid in the back of numerous trucks in order that I could arrive in Arizona (I like the weather there) to make my claim there because they spoke English there and I don't speak French?
The answer is, of course, no - regardless of whether it's technically legal under international law. At the point I left France I'd be travelling to AZ for social reasons, not because I was fleeing something.
The answer is that it depends. Yes it would be technically legal under international law to do so but there is no denying that anyone in that position would ultimately want to be somewhere where they could communicate and work etc. How long is just “safety” sufficient in life. Yes you could learn French and try and integrate when you’re there but I would wager that the majority of people would want to be somewhere they “fit in”.The answer is, of course, no - regardless of whether it's technically legal under international law. At the point I left France I'd be travelling to AZ for social reasons, not because I was fleeing something.
Now that doesn’t mean that it’s right and it doesn’t mean that’s why people always come here because plenty turn up without being able to speak any English.
The problem is that all of the solutions to the problem are too difficult and expensive to implement without any guarantee of success
craigjm said:
The answer is that it depends. Yes it would be technically legal under international law to do so but there is no denying that anyone in that position would ultimately want to be somewhere where they could communicate and work etc. How long is just “safety” sufficient in life. Yes you could learn French and try and integrate when you’re there but I would wager that the majority of people would want to be somewhere they “fit in”.
Now that doesn’t mean that it’s right and it doesn’t mean that’s why people always come here because plenty turn up without being able to speak any English.
The problem is that all of the solutions to the problem are too difficult and expensive to implement without any guarantee of success
I lived in France for a year, before I went there I could speak half a dozen words of French.Now that doesn’t mean that it’s right and it doesn’t mean that’s why people always come here because plenty turn up without being able to speak any English.
The problem is that all of the solutions to the problem are too difficult and expensive to implement without any guarantee of success
Within 4 months I could speak the language well enough for everyday life and I'm no linguist, so the premise that the language (English) is the main driver for wanting to come to the UK is quite frankly, b
ks. There is no barrier to anyone learning a foreign language, be it French, German or any other.
Legacywr 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.
3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.
WTF makes them think that? :?3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.
We are one of the most tolerant nations on Earth, despite what frothing newspapers might tell you.
Tom Logan said:
craigjm said:
The answer is that it depends. Yes it would be technically legal under international law to do so but there is no denying that anyone in that position would ultimately want to be somewhere where they could communicate and work etc. How long is just “safety” sufficient in life. Yes you could learn French and try and integrate when you’re there but I would wager that the majority of people would want to be somewhere they “fit in”.
Now that doesn’t mean that it’s right and it doesn’t mean that’s why people always come here because plenty turn up without being able to speak any English.
The problem is that all of the solutions to the problem are too difficult and expensive to implement without any guarantee of success
I lived in France for a year, before I went there I could speak half a dozen words of French.Now that doesn’t mean that it’s right and it doesn’t mean that’s why people always come here because plenty turn up without being able to speak any English.
The problem is that all of the solutions to the problem are too difficult and expensive to implement without any guarantee of success
Within 4 months I could speak the language well enough for everyday life and I'm no linguist, so the premise that the language (English) is the main driver for wanting to come to the UK is quite frankly, b
ks. There is no barrier to anyone learning a foreign language, be it French, German or any other.
Apropos of which, just helped a van driver out who was trying to find his way around our works to make a collection. Clearly not been in UK long, I'm guessing from some bit of eastern EU, as speaking more Borat's than The Queen's English, but getting along fine and clearly doing a decent day's work for his employer and earning a crust from it.
Legacywr 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.
3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.
WTF makes them think that? :?3) They believe the UK to be safer, more democratic and more tolerant than France, Italy, Germany etc.
Biggy Stardust said:
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?
Just listening to the news and hearing about the 4 dead from the same iranian/Kurdish family including 9 & 6 year old children. It's saddening and I'm not left-leaning.
I'm wondering when the French people as a whole will have had enough of the deaths of children and actually make their govt act against it rather than be complicit.
I'm wondering when the French people as a whole will have had enough of the deaths of children and actually make their govt act against it rather than be complicit.
markcoznottz said:
He needs to provide a citation for that or stfu. That’s something that’s rolled out all the time re economic migrants / refugees. Ie that we bombed thier country. Did we bomb Albania, Iran, Eritrea, Sudan,Mali, ? Thankfully, the screaming lefts indignation is now being repelled by hard facts.
The only thing I can find are these charts and they are a handful of years out of date, but they show that the vast majority of asylum seekers who end up in Europe come from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc.But yes, others do come from countries where there has been more 'regular' hardships rather than war.
Lord Marylebone said:
markcoznottz said:
He needs to provide a citation for that or stfu. That’s something that’s rolled out all the time re economic migrants / refugees. Ie that we bombed thier country. Did we bomb Albania, Iran, Eritrea, Sudan,Mali, ? Thankfully, the screaming lefts indignation is now being repelled by hard facts.
The only thing I can find are these charts and they are a handful of years out of date, but they show that the vast majority of asylum seekers who end up in Europe come from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc.But yes, others do come from countries where there has been more 'regular' hardships rather than war.
markcoznottz said:
Are they asylum seekers or economic migrants? The United Nations said last week that 70% of those who traveled from Libya to Greece would not qualify for asylum under their definition.
I have no idea. I was just trying to assist in answering the question of which countries they are coming from.Just reading an article about the family who died yesterday, and I do wonder what some people think the French can actually do about it?
You simply cannot patrol hundreds of miles of coastline and expect vessels not to set sail, especially when there are many legal and legitimate boats using the same ports and routes.
news said:
Meanwhile, Alp Mehmet, from Migration Watch, blamed French officials for not preventing the 'totally avoidable' tragedy.
He told Talk Radio: 'Why didn't they stop them from sailing in the first place? We are talking about a lot of people in a big boat, someone should have noticed.'
The tragedy will intensify the pressure on the Government to broker a deal with the French to finally stop the crossings.
What is Alp expecting? A French police officer in every port and at every beach to stop them? There are a few hundred miles of coastline littered with ports, harbors and beaches which can be used to load people onto boats. The smugglers are being paid thousands per trip and so there is a huge incentive for them to carry on and find a way to set sail. If he really thought it was simple to "stop them sailing" I'm sure the French would already have done so. He told Talk Radio: 'Why didn't they stop them from sailing in the first place? We are talking about a lot of people in a big boat, someone should have noticed.'
The tragedy will intensify the pressure on the Government to broker a deal with the French to finally stop the crossings.
You simply cannot patrol hundreds of miles of coastline and expect vessels not to set sail, especially when there are many legal and legitimate boats using the same ports and routes.
Mrr T said:
Alucidnation said:
Well, considering English is supposed to be one of the most complicated languages to learn, they will pick up French etc quite easily.
I think most suggest English is one of the easiest languages to learn. https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/learning-en...
Lord Marylebone said:
..... the reasons for wanting to come to the UK than the asylum seekers who were interviewed and gave their reasons.
Bizarre, but there you go.
You think whatever makes you happy. (or angry. I'm convinced some of you just want to be angry)
And you expect them to tell the truth after they've destroyed their passports!Bizarre, but there you go.
You think whatever makes you happy. (or angry. I'm convinced some of you just want to be angry)
When ever I've seen the dingies on the news, they're mostly full of young men
Porsche guy said:
Lord Marylebone said:
..... the reasons for wanting to come to the UK than the asylum seekers who were interviewed and gave their reasons.
Bizarre, but there you go.
You think whatever makes you happy. (or angry. I'm convinced some of you just want to be angry)
And you expect them to tell the truth after they've destroyed their passports!Bizarre, but there you go.
You think whatever makes you happy. (or angry. I'm convinced some of you just want to be angry)
When ever I've seen the dingies on the news, they're mostly full of young men
My post was stating the reasons they give for wanting to reach the UK, when interviewed by various news teams and charities while still in France.
Why are you talking about destroying passports or being 'young men'?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff