It's a disgrace that Britain is not welcoming the Calais refugees

Actually, as France is a safe country 0% of them are technically refugees. Just face it, you're plucking numbers out of thin air. Just honestly tell me: what is so horrible about France that Britain mustn't do anything else but bend over backwards to take the refugees?

Asylum law doesnt work like that. The first safe country phrase comese merely from some admin rules that down work and were created by the EU. The law on asylum and refugees is giverned by the 51 Convention which does not have that limitation.

Not plucking numbers out of the air at all. Its based on the % of asylum claims to the UK which are successful and people who are accepted as refugees.

Here are the figures from the Home Office.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2015/asylum

Reply 61

CHARLIEBSS

2

Original post by KingBradly

Why do you favour Muslims over Tories, when Muslims are far, far, far more conservative and right-wing than they are, and even UKIP are.

allowing Muslims into British society deprives Is of people they could have recruited

Reply 62

inhuman

2

And I am sure if you were closer to the outside border you would not complain if the country further away refused to pitch in you'd be perfectly fine with that, too.

Reply 63

999tigger

19

Original post by JRKinder

No, any individual can seek asylum in the first safe country that they reach. They're in France; they're safe. Unless they go all the way around the Iberian peninsula, make their way up past Portugal and land in Cornwall, they're classed as migrants and not refugees.

Go and read the 1951 Convention on refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html

You dont know what you are talking about, thats simply not how it works.

Reply 64

sfairy27

11

Original post by CHARLIEBSS

we are letting a few hundred thousand racists in the North control us

Really? As a Northerner I take a little offence to that because everyone I know my age would have voted remain. Let's face it, pointing fingers at regions does nothing to solve this - our reps on Parliament should do more and stop fighting like toddlers over toys everytime a serious issue crops up to 'discuss'.

Reply 65

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by MrsSheldonCooper

Then they learn French. And believe it or not, the French aren't total bimbos. They're taught English at school.

Anyway if your heart bleeds for them, why don't you take a few into your own home?

Most highly educated Syrians actually speak French as it used to be a Syrian colony. But given that the vast majority of these people aren't even Syrian it's a moot point lol.

Reply 66

user 42005

18

Original post by sfairy27

That's to assume though that I'm referring to British life as idyllic and the perfect substitute for hardship and that's simply not true. My opinion is that world leaders need to do more - other than just bombing the sh*t out of every city they might seem a threat because, let's face it, that kills way more civilians than terrorists and overall leads to more crisis.

Ideally we'd take all of them, but I'm not exactly asking for that, just saying we should do more. Your original point is a good one but when you look at countries like Greece whose economy is still abysmal then you can kind of see why people might not want to stay there; it simply can't sustain so many people in need and they know that. Hence my need to push for countries like Britain to step to the plate and do a little more. Even our post-Brexit economy is better than many in mainland Europes and the education is renowned so for families it must seem ideal.

Have a fab day 😊

I can't speak for the Americans or Russians, but as of May (the last time I saw statistics) the RAF had killed several hundred militants via bombing and not a single civilian. There's a BBC article on this you can search for, if you're interested. Just out of interest, what's your solution? If we don't bomb them then ground forces will be impeded in making progress against them - most of the offensives to take cities and towns just wouldn't have been possible without air support. And last time we sent our ground forces in (Afghanistan) that wasn't popular with the public, nor effective at creating a long-term solution to the problem, so this isn't an option. The only way to defeat IS is to provide air support for allied groups on the ground, who live there and will be able to provide a permanent solution to this (well, until the next group of nut-cases come along). Failure to do this will simply perpetuate the problem: refugees will keep coming, women will continue to be oppressed, and more innocent people will die.

Your sentiment seems to be guided by ideology rather than pragmatism, which is what I'm trying to warn you against (although I appreciate you have a noble sentiment). The asylum process doesn't work by how 'good' or how much you 'like' your host country; if it's safe then by law that's where you must apply to. Any migrants not in Turkey (or Greece if you don't consider Turkey safe), Italy and in some incidents Spain are therefore migrants, not refugees, as they've already passed through the aforementioned countries. I agree that the EU should have created a coherent policy as Greece was in a shambles even before this problem started. I think allocated refugees between EU countries according to their ability to take them and population size is fairer on Greece, but this is for the governments and not refugees to decide. They can't just turn up at a random country and demand asylum if they've had that opportunity already, 5 safe countries ago. It doesn't matter that our education system, healthcare or anything else is alluring to them, obviously it is, but we can't give it to everyone and they have no right to demand that we put them before our own citizens. Another concern is the implications that the proportion of males coming into Europe will have for the future, but that's for another debate.

Reply 67

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by Josb

And they are raped by their fellow "refugees".

The authorities in France had to build the one solid building in the camp to house women and children because they kept on getting raped all the time,

Reply 68

inhuman

2

Original post by niteninja1

Many reasons why the must not be accepted including the children.

1) EU law states refugees must claim asylum in the first EU country they arrive in.

2) if we do it encourages others to make the same journey

3) the sex attacks at Cologne

I voted leave btw

Understatement of the century.

Reply 69

user 42005

18

Original post by 999tigger

Go and read the 1951 Convention on refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html

You dont know what you are talking about, thats simply not how it works.

Well we have a clash of EU regulation designed to deal with a specific situation, and a UN treaty from 1951. Fine then, it appears we are both right. But EU states have every right to adhere to the first country principle outlined in Article 26 of the APD. In fact, it even makes provision for the 1951 convention by stating a member-state must make a safety assessment of any given first country, and France/Greece/wherever certainly qualify as safe places.

Reply 70

Gwilym101

17

Original post by Iridocyclitis

They may not speak French but speak English and they may have family and friends in the UK who they are desperate to see.

If they have family in the UK then they can make an actual plea for asylum and immigration.

English is fairly well understood in France, and if they're so desperate for safety wouldn't they consider learning French?

Reply 71

999tigger

19

Original post by JRKinder

Well we have a clash of EU regulation designed to deal with a specific situation, and a UN treaty from 1951. Fine then, it appears we are both right. But EU states have every right to adhere to the first country principle outlined in Article 26 of the APD. In fact, it even makes provision for the 1951 convention by stating a member-state must make a safety assessment of any given first country, and France/Greece/wherever certainly qualify as safe places.

Not really becayse the Dublin rules dont work and are very rarely enforced. the primary duty when dealing with refugees is the 1951 convention. Dublin rules are just administrative.

You miss the point, which is an individual can decide where they wish to claim asylum. If the first safe country rule operated then nobody would get past Greece and Italy.

Reply 72

alevelstresss

2

Original post by AperfectBalance

So there is a lot of crime there? Caused by who? Oh yeah the refugees, there are bad conditions, caused by what? the refugees. they are given tons of help and aid and now they are so selfish that they cannot stay in France or any other country.

More crime is committed every single day by natives

its strange that you focus on refugees as the prime source of these threats

Reply 73

999tigger

19

Original post by Gwilym101

If they have family in the UK then they can make an actual plea for asylum and immigration.

English is fairly well understood in France, and if they're so desperate for safety wouldn't they consider learning French?

They have to be in the territory of that country to make an asylum claim. They dont need family to make a claim.

Reply 74

user 42005

18

Original post by 999tigger

Asylum law doesnt work like that. The first safe country phrase comese merely from some admin rules that down work and were created by the EU. The law on asylum and refugees is giverned by the 51 Convention which does not have that limitation.

Not plucking numbers out of the air at all. Its based on the % of asylum claims to the UK which are successful and people who are accepted as refugees.

Here are the figures from the Home Office.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2015/asylum

Read my other post for a response to the first paragraph.

And fair enough, but when making numerical claims always put a source. Note though that the 40% figure were from migrants already in Britain (and we are taking people from designated refugee camps), so may not be representative of 'continental' migrants. Notably, that article tends to identify them suspiciously as young and male: typical characteristics of an economic migrants. Whilst you could argue that they were the only ones strong enough to take the typical refugee journey, you would expect to see more families. In all honesty these findings make it quite hard to tell who is a genuine refugee and who isn't, it's very difficult to tell the true number.

Reply 75

AperfectBalance

21

Original post by alevelstresss

More crime is committed every single day by natives

its strange that you focus on refugees as the prime source of these threats

You were talking about crime in the refugee camps. So don't take what I said out of context

Reply 76

ThatOldGuy

19

Original post by Iridocyclitis

These people are desperate. They are forced to live in squalid conditions, with crime and other horrid things commonplace. There are children there.

They just want the chance to enter Britain to escape violence and warfare - and yes for a better life for themselves and their families.

Why are we being so intolerant and inhumane by not welcoming them to our country which has a proud tradition of homing refugees?

Can you clarify? Which is correct: Do they 'just' ant the chance to enter Britain to escape violence and warfare, or is there a problem with crime and violence in the camps?

The reason that I ask is that it can't be both. If there is a problem with crime and violence in the camps, which are filled with refugees, then it stands to reason that at least -some- of them do not 'just' want to escape violence and warfare. In fact, if there is a disproportionate amount of crime and violence, it would suggest that a disproportionate number are criminals or violent.

That's just mathematical sense.

If a disproportionate number are criminals or violent, why -would- you welcome them in?

So again, I ask you to clarify: Do "they" just want to escape violence and warfare or are they suffering from crime and violence?

Reply 77

MeYou2Night

2

I think everybody who supports the UK taking refugees, should be forced to take 2 into their own home. Lead by example right?

I wonder how long they'll support it then..? Not very long, I guarantee as they'll realise what a backwards culture they come from.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 78

string210

8

Original post by Iridocyclitis

These people are desperate. They are forced to live in squalid conditions, with crime and other horrid things commonplace. There are children there.

They just want the chance to enter Britain to escape violence and warfare - and yes for a better life for themselves and their families.

Why are we being so intolerant and inhumane by not welcoming them to our country which has a proud tradition of homing refugees?

Have u actually been to this place before u make sweeping accusations
I have actually been to calais, see thread:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4217598#primary_content

Any questions about it feel free to ask me!