I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
The RAF is now presumably back in Brize Norton, having shown up for I think the first time I've seen them out there today. There have been other planes and drones on other occasions. Publicity stunt.
Something I don't understand, and which nobody seems to be bothered to explain, is why so many refugees want to come to the UK. It used to be a good country, but has become a horrible place.
I can sort of see it may be too far beyond the assumptions of a typical Daily Mail reader to think other than that this dreary little country is so fantastic that every foreigner both wants to be English and is prepared to come all the way across the world to get here. But why prefer to risk crossing the channel to get here when you could claim asylum in France, or Germany or Denmark or virtually anywhere else that would be a better bet and a nicer place to live.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world. Any increase should be controlled and regulated. Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
Something I don't understand, and which nobody seems to be bothered to explain, is why so many refugees want to come to the UK. It used to be a good country, but has become a horrible place.
I can sort of see it may be too far beyond the assumptions of a typical Daily Mail reader to think other than that this dreary little country is so fantastic that every foreigner both wants to be English and is prepared to come all the way across the world to get here. But why prefer to risk crossing the channel to get here when you could claim asylum in France, or Germany or Denmark or virtually anywhere else that would be a better bet and a nicer place to live.
Yes, I've wondered quite what the attraction is, but I suppose that for some at least it may be that they already have family/compatriots here, and are hopeful of joining (or re-joining) that community.
I agree that England, certainly, has become (or is rapidly becoming) a shitty place...
Perhaps they read the UK tabloids claiming that we're far too generous.
But I think the main thing is the vernacular in most of the country being the world's second language. If I were forced to flee, assuming Wales isn't by then an independent safe place, I'd be thinking where English is commonly spoken or, at a push, French. If I passed through somewhere speaking Hungarian on the way I'd be hoping to push on to somewhere more linguistically compatible.
Something I don't understand, and which nobody seems to be bothered to explain, is why so many refugees want to come to the UK. It used to be a good country, but has become a horrible place.
I can sort of see it may be too far beyond the assumptions of a typical Daily Mail reader to think other than that this dreary little country is so fantastic that every foreigner both wants to be English and is prepared to come all the way across the world to get here. But why prefer to risk crossing the channel to get here when you could claim asylum in France, or Germany or Denmark or virtually anywhere else that would be a better bet and a nicer place to live.
Given the state of this country - where a deeply racist Home Secretary would deport her own parents, where the government has an explicit policy of creating a "hostile environment" for migrants, where dealing with refugees is given to private business to make money meaning you could get a half decent flat and then get forced out to live in a cheap hotel for no good reason - it does rather illustrate how bad things are in the countries they're fleeing.
The thought of someone intelligent actually believing that what they read in the Daily Wail or the Daily Distress is true, is frightening...
Interesting point about the language - I'm constantly amazed at how many Horrid Foreign People Not Like Us actually speak better English than a good number of TrueBlue Natives...
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world.
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world.
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world.
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
Ah, so you did. The UN. There seemed to be a contradiction between saying the UN can say how many refugees the UK should take and saying immigration to this country should be controlled given the number of refugees is presumably a percentage of the whole rather than a fixed number.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world.
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
Ah, so you did. The UN. There seemed to be a contradiction between saying the UN can say how many refugees the UK should take and saying immigration to this country should be controlled given the number of refugees is presumably a percentage of the whole rather than a fixed number.
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
Also we have a bizarre policy of not allowing those seeking asylum from working, instead the government (national and local) pays to provide them with barely adequate housing and food. Letting them work would reduce the costs to the nation of providing a place of safety, and provide them with the dignity of providing for themselves and their families. And, in some cases these are qualified people (doctors, nurses etc), even though they might need some assessment to confirm those qualifications before they can work in those fields.
Whatever you think about the refugee question, this one makes no sense at all. If people are going to be in the country (whether it's for a couple of years while the situation in their homeland stabilizes, or they're here for the long term), it makes no sense at all to prevent them from working. I can only assume that this is intended as some sort of blunt tool to deter economic migrants - if you know that what you can expect when you seek refuge is a camp and a bowl of rice, then people who are poor-but-safe in their homes aren't going to bother.
I think there may be a couple of other arguments there. One is a 'good' argument and the other is a 'bad' argument, though both are flawed.
The 'good' argument is it could stop the refugees being exploited, though there's plenty of evidence that many refugees are exploited and some end up as effectively slave labour. The 'bad' argument is it appeases those who fear migrants taking 'their' jobs.
That said, giving refugees a sense of worth by employing them in at least some capacity beats both arguments.
Point of order - refugees are allowed to work. The people who can't work are asylum seekers, i.e., those whose application for refugee status is still being processed.
In principle, this doesn't seem too absurd to me. The absurd part is the length of time it takes (or can take) to process asylum claims, which is why people end up jobless and in limbo for months.
Also we have a bizarre policy of not allowing those seeking asylum from working, instead the government (national and local) pays to provide them with barely adequate housing and food. Letting them work would reduce the costs to the nation of providing a place of safety, and provide them with the dignity of providing for themselves and their families. And, in some cases these are qualified people (doctors, nurses etc), even though they might need some assessment to confirm those qualifications before they can work in those fields.
Whatever you think about the refugee question, this one makes no sense at all. If people are going to be in the country (whether it's for a couple of years while the situation in their homeland stabilizes, or they're here for the long term), it makes no sense at all to prevent them from working. I can only assume that this is intended as some sort of blunt tool to deter economic migrants - if you know that what you can expect when you seek refuge is a camp and a bowl of rice, then people who are poor-but-safe in their homes aren't going to bother.
I think there may be a couple of other arguments there. One is a 'good' argument and the other is a 'bad' argument, though both are flawed.
The 'good' argument is it could stop the refugees being exploited, though there's plenty of evidence that many refugees are exploited and some end up as effectively slave labour. The 'bad' argument is it appeases those who fear migrants taking 'their' jobs.
That said, giving refugees a sense of worth by employing them in at least some capacity beats both arguments.
Point of order - refugees are allowed to work. The people who can't work are asylum seekers, i.e., those whose application for refugee status is still being processed.
In principle, this doesn't seem too absurd to me. The absurd part is the length of time it takes (or can take) to process asylum claims, which is why people end up jobless and in limbo for months.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world. Any increase should be controlled and regulated. Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
The UNHCR programme could provide us with hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers whose case can be proved. Finding such people is not an issue.
Grammatically, 'we' is a group of people of which 'I/me' is one. To use it, a person needs to have the actual or implicit authority of the others in that group to speak for them. It's clear from the rest of the thread that 'shipmates' collectively don't share your view. Nor are they of one mind with each other. Even if they were, they don't have either the power or capacity to control immigration.
To summarise, it isn't obvious here for whom you're speaking. Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world.
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
An MP for Dover and junior minister was on the radio this morning being interviewed about returning immigrants to France. She was reluctant to accept that this could be done unilaterally. Asked how without French agreement this could be achieved she took refuge in talking about 'doing whatever it takes'. She was not pressedto explain, but I for one was left withthe uneasy feeling that this might include threatening to machine-gun the dinghies. The Royal Navy does not threaten what it is not prepared to carry out.
It would also make economic sense to give asylum seekers and refugees a ferry ticket to then be processed here. It would save on border and coastguard arrangements and ensure people who shouldn’t be here didn’t slip through.
I used to teach asylum seekers, they were keen to learn and very motivated to gain good employment. The children learned English at an amazing speed and then passed their classmates in tests of every subject (including English!).
I turned her off. I knew what she thinks, or at least what she says she thinks*. I rather had grown up with the impression that the RN thought carefully about the balance between orders, law of the sea, and what is the right thing to do.
I found it rather odd that until the jury came down against her husband, she was prepared to trek down the street holding his hand.
I turned her off. I knew what she thinks, or at least what she says she thinks*. I rather had grown up with the impression that the RN thought carefully about the balance between orders, law of the sea, and what is the right thing to do.
I found it rather odd that until the jury came down against her husband, she was prepared to trek down the street holding his hand.
I think you're probably right about the Navy. It's the idiot *politicians* I don't trust...
It would also make economic sense to give asylum seekers and refugees a ferry ticket to then be processed here. It would save on border and coastguard arrangements and ensure people who shouldn’t be here didn’t slip through.
I used to teach asylum seekers, they were keen to learn and very motivated to gain good employment. The children learned English at an amazing speed and then passed their classmates in tests of every subject (including English!).
It's actually a desperately simple problem to solve. All that is needed is a UK border post in Calais. (The French would have no problem with this). People wishing to claim Asylum in the UK would present to this post, ran by the UK Home Office. They would then be transported to the UK (By the tunnel probably) to await the processing of their application.
It would also make economic sense to give asylum seekers and refugees a ferry ticket to then be processed here. It would save on border and coastguard arrangements and ensure people who shouldn’t be here didn’t slip through.
I used to teach asylum seekers, they were keen to learn and very motivated to gain good employment. The children learned English at an amazing speed and then passed their classmates in tests of every subject (including English!).
It's actually a desperately simple problem to solve. All that is needed is a UK border post in Calais. (The French would have no problem with this). People wishing to claim Asylum in the UK would present to this post, ran by the UK Home Office. They would then be transported to the UK (By the tunnel probably) to await the processing of their application.
AFZ
Hardly the deterrent this vile government seems to be dreaming of.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
In theory, yes, but this presupposes that the first safe country next to a warzone has sufficient resources to a.) process a zillion asylum applications, b.) maintain those asylum seekers until their applications have been successfully assessed, c.) continue to maintain them until such time as the UN has decided how to redistribute them.
In the UK, the target for assessing asylum applications is six months and this is missed in around half of cases. How long do you think it would take in (say) Lebanon? Although of course the Lebanese could cut the time by simply rubber-stamping all asylum applications, secure in the knowledge that the UN will take them off their hands for redistribution in Europe - would that be a better way of keeping out bogus claimants?
Bottom line is: asylum is messy and not easily reducible to rigid rules, however defensible those rules may be in principle.
It would also make economic sense to give asylum seekers and refugees a ferry ticket to then be processed here. It would save on border and coastguard arrangements and ensure people who shouldn’t be here didn’t slip through.
I used to teach asylum seekers, they were keen to learn and very motivated to gain good employment. The children learned English at an amazing speed and then passed their classmates in tests of every subject (including English!).
It's actually a desperately simple problem to solve. All that is needed is a UK border post in Calais. (The French would have no problem with this). People wishing to claim Asylum in the UK would present to this post, ran by the UK Home Office. They would then be transported to the UK (By the tunnel probably) to await the processing of their application.
AFZ
Hardly the deterrent this vile government seems to be dreaming of.
No indeed. They are pinning their hopes on Gunboats, I guess, as per 19thC colonial *diplomacy*...
Still, drowning a few dozen Horrid Brown Foreign Women And Children would guarantee them a few votes in the next Election. The hate-filled xenophobes are always with us...
It would also make economic sense to give asylum seekers and refugees a ferry ticket to then be processed here. It would save on border and coastguard arrangements and ensure people who shouldn’t be here didn’t slip through.
I used to teach asylum seekers, they were keen to learn and very motivated to gain good employment. The children learned English at an amazing speed and then passed their classmates in tests of every subject (including English!).
It's actually a desperately simple problem to solve. All that is needed is a UK border post in Calais. (The French would have no problem with this). People wishing to claim Asylum in the UK would present to this post, ran by the UK Home Office. They would then be transported to the UK (By the tunnel probably) to await the processing of their application.
AFZ
Hardly the deterrent this vile government seems to be dreaming of.
No indeed. They are pinning their hopes on Gunboats, I guess, as per 19thC colonial *diplomacy*...
Still, drowning a few dozen Horrid Brown Foreign Women And Children would guarantee them a few votes in the next Election. The hate-filled xenophobes are always with us...
What a clear insight all this gives us into the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire and, with it, Western Civilisation. The Empire was overwhelmed by by population movements which it was powerless to control, given the resources it had available. Those movements, too, were ultimately driven by climate change - the incipient dessication of Central Asia. Those who will not learn from history are comdemned to relive it.
I see that Sky and BBC are chasing migrants in boats and waving at them. Are they content to follow Farage's agenda? Oh, that's a yes. Distraction from covid.
Also we have a bizarre policy of not allowing those seeking asylum from working, instead the government (national and local) pays to provide them with barely adequate housing and food. Letting them work would reduce the costs to the nation of providing a place of safety, and provide them with the dignity of providing for themselves and their families. And, in some cases these are qualified people (doctors, nurses etc), even though they might need some assessment to confirm those qualifications before they can work in those fields.
Whatever you think about the refugee question, this one makes no sense at all. If people are going to be in the country (whether it's for a couple of years while the situation in their homeland stabilizes, or they're here for the long term), it makes no sense at all to prevent them from working. I can only assume that this is intended as some sort of blunt tool to deter economic migrants - if you know that what you can expect when you seek refuge is a camp and a bowl of rice, then people who are poor-but-safe in their homes aren't going to bother.
I think there may be a couple of other arguments there. One is a 'good' argument and the other is a 'bad' argument, though both are flawed.
The 'good' argument is it could stop the refugees being exploited, though there's plenty of evidence that many refugees are exploited and some end up as effectively slave labour. The 'bad' argument is it appeases those who fear migrants taking 'their' jobs.
That said, giving refugees a sense of worth by employing them in at least some capacity beats both arguments.
Point of order - refugees are allowed to work. The people who can't work are asylum seekers, i.e., those whose application for refugee status is still being processed.
In principle, this doesn't seem too absurd to me. The absurd part is the length of time it takes (or can take) to process asylum claims, which is why people end up jobless and in limbo for months.
Thank you. I had conflated refugees and asylum seekers into one group.
One is reminded of the massacre of the Cathars at Beziers in 1209, when the Pope's general, Arnaud Amalric, is reputed to have said 'Kill them all [i.e. Catholics and Cathars alike] - God will know his own.'
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
The idea that the UK is 'overcrowded' is a myth.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
It takes far more than most countries in the world.
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
Grammatically, 'we' is a group of people of which 'I/me' is one. To use it, a person needs to have the actual or implicit authority of the others in that group to speak for them. It's clear from the rest of the thread that 'shipmates' collectively don't share your view. Nor are they of one mind with each other. Even if they were, they don't have either the power or capacity to control immigration.
To summarise, it isn't obvious here for whom you're speaking. Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
What is this thing called 'United Kingdom', of which you speak?
There's not much evidence of the existence of such an animal (politically speaking) at present...at least as far as boats in the Channel are concerned.
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
The idea that the UK is 'overcrowded' is a myth.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
Did you learn economics in North Korea?
(Explaining the joke: economic self-sufficiency, in the sense of not needing to import anything, is generally less desirable than leveraging comparative advantage through trade, unless you subscribe to Juche as attempted (and utterly failed) in North Korea.)
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
The idea that the UK is 'overcrowded' is a myth.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
Nor could Iceland and it only has a population a ninth that of Wales.
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
The idea that the UK is 'overcrowded' is a myth.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
I think we could manage without starters. I've never been that keen on prawn cocktail, anyway.
Grammatically, 'we' is a group of people of which 'I/me' is one. To use it, a person needs to have the actual or implicit authority of the others in that group to speak for them. It's clear from the rest of the thread that 'shipmates' collectively don't share your view. Nor are they of one mind with each other. Even if they were, they don't have either the power or capacity to control immigration.
To summarise, it isn't obvious here for whom you're speaking. Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
In this context, 'We' means the United Kingdom.
@Telford what then is your basis for your claim to be entitled to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom?
It's clear that several of your shipmates that have posted on this thread are both UK residents and don't agree with you.
By answering as you have, it seems to me that you've answered my question about your 'we',
Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
Telford, I think you mean we cannot survive without importing food. That is why Brexit is such a stupid step to have taken. But that is a side issue on this thread. Though it underlies everything else, and makes the situation worse.
A book I read recently * argues that 'Borders are the single biggest cause of discrimination in all of world history' and according to Harvard economist Lant Pritchett: 'opening borders to labor would boost (global) wealth.. by 65 trillion dollars'.
'Billions of people are forced to sell their labor at a fraction of the price that they would get for it in the Land of Plenty'.
And apparantly before the 1st World War passports were hardly used or needed round the world.
Comments
I do support it because I believe that everfy safe country should take it's share.
Excellent. The UK currently takes less than 'its share'.
Something I don't understand, and which nobody seems to be bothered to explain, is why so many refugees want to come to the UK. It used to be a good country, but has become a horrible place.
I can sort of see it may be too far beyond the assumptions of a typical Daily Mail reader to think other than that this dreary little country is so fantastic that every foreigner both wants to be English and is prepared to come all the way across the world to get here. But why prefer to risk crossing the channel to get here when you could claim asylum in France, or Germany or Denmark or virtually anywhere else that would be a better bet and a nicer place to live.
It takes far more than most countries in the world. Any increase should be controlled and regulated. Anyone seeking asylum shoud have their case proved before entry from a safe country.
By whom?
I have already said.
Yes, I've wondered quite what the attraction is, but I suppose that for some at least it may be that they already have family/compatriots here, and are hopeful of joining (or re-joining) that community.
I agree that England, certainly, has become (or is rapidly becoming) a shitty place...
But I think the main thing is the vernacular in most of the country being the world's second language. If I were forced to flee, assuming Wales isn't by then an independent safe place, I'd be thinking where English is commonly spoken or, at a push, French. If I passed through somewhere speaking Hungarian on the way I'd be hoping to push on to somewhere more linguistically compatible.
Interesting point about the language - I'm constantly amazed at how many Horrid Foreign People Not Like Us actually speak better English than a good number of TrueBlue Natives...
The countries that take the most refugees are those that are right next to war zones. The measures that groups like MigrationWatch quote when they claim that the UK is taking a larger proportion of refugees are those that flatter the UK. and are not necessarily reflective of how many refugees the UK actually takes.
As has already been pointed out, refugees are under no obligation to claim in the first country they enter. Furthermore, in practice this is an easy way of the UK dodging its responsibilities, as it doesn't have a land border.
Once they refuse to claim asylum they become economic migrants
Ah, so you did. The UN. There seemed to be a contradiction between saying the UN can say how many refugees the UK should take and saying immigration to this country should be controlled given the number of refugees is presumably a percentage of the whole rather than a fixed number.
Never the less this is a small country size wise and we do need to control immigration.
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
The idea that the UK is 'overcrowded' is a myth.
Point of order - refugees are allowed to work. The people who can't work are asylum seekers, i.e., those whose application for refugee status is still being processed.
In principle, this doesn't seem too absurd to me. The absurd part is the length of time it takes (or can take) to process asylum claims, which is why people end up jobless and in limbo for months.
Months? If they're lucky.
The UNHCR programme could provide us with hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers whose case can be proved. Finding such people is not an issue.
Grammatically, 'we' is a group of people of which 'I/me' is one. To use it, a person needs to have the actual or implicit authority of the others in that group to speak for them. It's clear from the rest of the thread that 'shipmates' collectively don't share your view. Nor are they of one mind with each other. Even if they were, they don't have either the power or capacity to control immigration.
To summarise, it isn't obvious here for whom you're speaking. Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
Under both International and UK Law they are allowed to transit through other countries in order to get to the UK and claim asylum.
What a brouhaha that would cause! Why, Farage might be quite overcome with rage and hate, and have to be carried off to a secure facility...
I used to teach asylum seekers, they were keen to learn and very motivated to gain good employment. The children learned English at an amazing speed and then passed their classmates in tests of every subject (including English!).
I found it rather odd that until the jury came down against her husband, she was prepared to trek down the street holding his hand.
By the looks of things, they are currently ferrying the press pack around the channel.
I think you're probably right about the Navy. It's the idiot *politicians* I don't trust...
It's actually a desperately simple problem to solve. All that is needed is a UK border post in Calais. (The French would have no problem with this). People wishing to claim Asylum in the UK would present to this post, ran by the UK Home Office. They would then be transported to the UK (By the tunnel probably) to await the processing of their application.
AFZ
Hardly the deterrent this vile government seems to be dreaming of.
In theory, yes, but this presupposes that the first safe country next to a warzone has sufficient resources to a.) process a zillion asylum applications, b.) maintain those asylum seekers until their applications have been successfully assessed, c.) continue to maintain them until such time as the UN has decided how to redistribute them.
In the UK, the target for assessing asylum applications is six months and this is missed in around half of cases. How long do you think it would take in (say) Lebanon? Although of course the Lebanese could cut the time by simply rubber-stamping all asylum applications, secure in the knowledge that the UN will take them off their hands for redistribution in Europe - would that be a better way of keeping out bogus claimants?
Bottom line is: asylum is messy and not easily reducible to rigid rules, however defensible those rules may be in principle.
No indeed. They are pinning their hopes on Gunboats, I guess, as per 19thC colonial *diplomacy*...
Still, drowning a few dozen Horrid Brown Foreign Women And Children would guarantee them a few votes in the next Election. The hate-filled xenophobes are always with us...
There had been a decrease in concern about immigration, which it appears the press are stoking up again - Sky News were out on the channel this morning, but they were merely going where the BBC had already gone yesterday, there followed vox pops where journalists tried to encourage people to say that the Navy should be involved.
It all feels calculated to deliberately de-humanise these people.
They could then be instantly arrested by the French, as illegal immigrants, and incarcerated in a camp somewhere deep within the Republic...
Thank you. I had conflated refugees and asylum seekers into one group.
One is reminded of the massacre of the Cathars at Beziers in 1209, when the Pope's general, Arnaud Amalric, is reputed to have said 'Kill them all [i.e. Catholics and Cathars alike] - God will know his own.'
Nigel Farage is living in the wrong century...
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
Is it any wonder that their applications fail so often.
In this context, 'We' means the United Kingdom.
There's not much evidence of the existence of such an animal (politically speaking) at present...at least as far as boats in the Channel are concerned.
Did you learn economics in North Korea?
(Explaining the joke: economic self-sufficiency, in the sense of not needing to import anything, is generally less desirable than leveraging comparative advantage through trade, unless you subscribe to Juche as attempted (and utterly failed) in North Korea.)
Nor could Iceland and it only has a population a ninth that of Wales.
I think we could manage without starters. I've never been that keen on prawn cocktail, anyway.
It's clear that several of your shipmates that have posted on this thread are both UK residents and don't agree with you.
By answering as you have, it seems to me that you've answered my question about your 'we', with a 'yes'.
'Billions of people are forced to sell their labor at a fraction of the price that they would get for it in the Land of Plenty'.
And apparantly before the 1st World War passports were hardly used or needed round the world.
Interesting?
* Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman