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

Scroll to see replies

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?

Because when you ask us to take these lovely refugees, what your really asking is for us to take people who are not white, mostly Muslim, mostly don't have a penny to their name (that's assuming they are not criminals) and are not especially educated or skilled.

In short, it's not in our self interest to take them.

..

You want the Syrian people safe.. call for it's annexation by western forces.

Reply 161

BaconandSauce

Original post by Plagioclase

No they're not migrants, they're refugees. I don't understand why you've suddenly invented your own definition of what refugees are. Throughout history refugees have fled their own countries and settled in others.

A better definition (not from wiki)

http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

'
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.'

Nope if they are from a country where 'conditions are poor' and they want a better life they are economic migrants not refugees

and throughout history they have gone home once the conflict has been resolved

But if you want to know what the law says

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal document in defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of governments. According to Article 1 of that Convention, a refugee is someone who has fled his or her country “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

This ties in with the principle of refoulement (details when you can't send them back which then allows for when you CAN send them back and once they fail to match the given criteria (their countries are safe) then return is the norm.

Reply 162

Trapz99

They have no reason to come here though. They can claim a legal right to live in France and France is a safe place. They don't have to live in these conditions- they choose to.

Reply 163

Trapz99

Original post by Iridocyclitis

They are in France and they can claim the right to live there. France is already a safe place so there is no need for them to come here.

Reply 164

JamesN88

Original post by Trapz99

They have no reason to come here though. They can claim a legal right to live in France and France is a safe place. They don't have to live in these conditions- they choose to.

Your last sentence may sound harsh but it's also true. France is a developed safe country and so are the adjacent countries they've passed through to get to France, all of which they could have claimed asylum in and been accommodated properly by.

Reply 165

Reue

Original post by Plagioclase

From Wikipedia:

Can't see anything in that definition that says a refugee by definition must return back to their country eventually. The conflict in Syria is not going to be solved in the near future, the country is in absolute ruins and by the time it's in a state where people could reasonable expect to go back, they will have set up new livelihoods and would have every right to stay.

most of these illegal migrants in Calais are not from Syria

Reply 166

Joep95

Original post by 999tigger

Doesnt mean they have to claim asylum there, though.

When they are in France what conflict are they trying to escape into England to avoid?

Reply 167

Joep95

Original post by Plagioclase

Pretty depressing how many people's views condense down to "let someone else deal with it". I can't for the life of me understand how you can feel morally justified in telling other countries they should be caring for refugees whilst refusing to do it yourself.

Can I go get refugee status in America even though I am currently in a safe country and not currently fleeing any war or natural disaster? If the answer is no then apply this consistently as it is similar to the people in Calais.

If we are going to help anyone it should be the people who are actually in trouble in the country's where the conflict is going on not the people who had the money to escape.

Reply 168

alevelstresss

Original post by joecphillips

we and other countries are already giving a vast amount of aid to these people

Reply 169

BinaryJava

Don't worry guys we will just build a few more houses and make a few new jobs to cater for them, whilst also keeping the birth rates high. Also we should just ignore cultural integration and let them make their own splinter groups because that always works out great.

Reply 170

Joep95

Original post by alevelstresss

we and other countries are already giving a vast amount of aid to these people

I know but surely if we want to help people be safe from wars we should be helping these people who are stuck there escape rather than helping the people who have escaped and are safe.

Reply 171

999tigger

Original post by joecphillips

When they are in France what conflict are they trying to escape into England to avoid?

Get your point, but theres nothing under the rules that prevents them from bringing their asylum claim in whichever country they please. They simply have to show they are fleeing persecution in their home country and are in fear or at risk if they return. By being a signatory to the convention the UK agrees to hear their claim if its made to them on UK territory.

There are some rules which have been discussed ad nauseum, but they arent really applied any more and have been more or less abandoned. They are administrative rules between countries that most of them didnt adhere to anyway and at no time did they bind individuals.

Reply 172

Betelgeuse-

Original post by Gwilym101

What's wrong with France? You know the G8 country that they are currently in?

If it were Syrian refugees I could understand, there are millions of them, every country needs to pitch in but this is a few thousand that are already in a decent country.

No free house, free moneys, free car, free schools, free dentisry, free healthcare

They are just humans wanting a better life, vote for me and i will import every human on the planet to England because they want these things

England paved with gold

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 173

Betelgeuse-

Original post by sfairy27

We need to look at refugees as people and not just statistics. I know it's hard to think about it this way but these refugees do have feelings and I'm 99% sure they'd rather be at home and it be peaceful than have to trek halfway across the world just to be treated like a problem that won't go away.

It's easy to distance yourself from what's happening and I'm aware that that is exactly what people are doing at this moment in time and people will continue to do this as far into the future as I can see. At the end of the day though, until world leaders can get their heads out of their arses and propose real change for war struck areas we need to do more to help in my personal opinion.

It's not just an issue for mainland Europe; this is international and the last time I checked we were in fact, as Brits, part of the world.

(You don't have to like my opinion, I just feel very strongly about this and I hope everyone has a great day 😊)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Its easy to distance yourself from the problem that giving these people houses and healthcare means less houses and healthcare for people already here

Its easy to distance yourself from our 1.7 TRILLION £'s of debt when you will be dead in 60 years

Reply 174

alevelstresss

Original post by Betelgeuse-

housing less than 20,000 refugees has a minimal impact on this

blame the conservative government who are actively trying to damage this country

Reply 175

Betelgeuse-

Original post by alevelstresss

housing less than 20,000 refugees has a minimal impact on this

blame the conservative government who are actively trying to damage this country

Everything has minimal impact until we add it up . furthermore, take 20,000 you will be demanding 50,000 - Take 50,000 you will demand 150,000

Its better people get accustomed to the reality that we are very very fortunate in this country and we cannot give billions of other humans the standard of living we are lucky to have. Its not because we are mean or because we like to beat little brown boys with sticks.. its because its costly and we cannot save or support every human less fortunate than us

Im not a supporter of any politcal party but blaming the coservative government is beyond ridiculous

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 176

Betelgeuse-

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.

They are very grateful for the help given to them. I saw them Burn tonnes of clothes a charity provided them for warmth, so great was this effect, they are were energised greatly by the warmth and all had the strength to run around shouting vigorously about it!

Reply 177

Observatory

Original post by alevelstresss

housing less than 20,000 refugees has a minimal impact on this

blame the conservative government who are actively trying to damage this country

It concedes the principle. The difference between 0 and 1 is decisive. The difference between 10,000 and 1,000,000 is smaller than the difference between 0 and 1.

Reply 178

alevelstresss

Original post by Observatory

It concedes the principle. The difference between 0 and 1 is decisive. The difference between 10,000 and 1,000,000 is smaller than the difference between 0 and 1.