Footage of migrants jumping on lorries at Calais today - shouldn't we be helping?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

Ethiopia - 7.7k
Eritrea - 6.6k
Syria - 4.1k
Djibouti - 237 people

Those are foreign-born records in 2001. The vast majority of people come from these 4 countries. That is one huge family/friends list when 250k people are in Europe of which perhaps a quarter will be wanting to enter the UK.

I'm not sure flooding the UK Job market with yet more migrants is remotely good in social terms.

Opposite to French, which is taught in Syria and used to be their national language for 30 years?

What do you mean?

Exactly what I was talking about - soft.

I don't look down on them - unless you perceive not wanting thousands of them coming in as "looking down"

PRSOM

Reply 281

DELETED ACCOUNT

15

Original post by SotonianOne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

Ethiopia - 7.7k
Eritrea - 6.6k
Syria - 4.1k
Djibouti - 237 people

Those are foreign-born records in 2001. The vast majority of people come from these 4 countries. That is one huge family/friends list when 250k people are in Europe of which perhaps a quarter will be wanting to enter the UK.

You have used statistics from 14 years ago. Click your link again.

Anyway, your choice of countries is also quite illogical. Most refugees in the UK come from areas of Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh. Refer to the population sizes in the link you have provided (read the correct coloumn) of these respective nations.

I'm not sure flooding the UK Job market with yet more migrants is remotely good in social terms.

That doesn't deter EU migrants from migrating here. Strange how this rule has changed for asylum seekers.

Opposite to French, which is taught in Syria and used to be their national language for 30 years?

Opposite to the vast majority of countries where these migrants come from, where English is widely spoken, or is an official language. Syria is one of the more recent tragedies, where the UK took one of the least asylum seekers fleeing the Syrian war. It was in the news not long ago.

Exactly what I was talking about - soft.

True. Those fleeing from war torn nations would choose countries where their application is most likely to be approved, which is one of the reasons as to why they choose the UK. Your prime reason as to why was benefits, and I'm trying to challenge your view that is based on misled reasoning thus far.

I don't look down on them - unless you perceive not wanting thousands of them coming in as "looking down"

Good.

Reply 282

SotonianOne

3

Original post by frogs r everywhere

You have used statistics from 14 years ago. Click your link again.

There is no recent statistic.

Original post by frogs r everywhere

Anyway, your choice of countries is also quite illogical. Most refugees in the UK come from areas of Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh. Refer to the population sizes in the link you have provided (read the correct coloumn) of these respective nations.

That's not true at all, where did you even get that information from?

Almost all boat migrants are black - there are no black people in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

And if your post is true then you're doing a bad job at trying to convert me, because as there is no "war, persecution or oppression" in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh which means you're leading me to support an outright asylum ban, as it's clearly economical.

Original post by frogs r everywhere

That doesn't deter EU migrants from migrating here. Strange how this rule has changed for asylum seekers.

That's why we're having a referendum next year or the year after that. Do you want to make a non-EU migrant referendum as well?

Then again, I have less of a problem with EU migrants than non-EU migrants.

Original post by frogs r everywhere

Opposite to the vast majority of countries where these migrants come from, where English is widely spoken, or is an official language. Syria is one of the more recent tragedies, where the UK took one of the least asylum seekers fleeing the Syrian war. It was in the news not long ago.

Once again, your countries listed were not the countries that migrants were fleeing from.

Original post by frogs r everywhere

True. Those fleeing from war torn nations would choose countries where their application is most likely to be approved, which is one of the reasons as to why they choose the UK. Your prime reason as to why was benefits, and I'm trying to challenge your view that is based on misled reasoning thus far.

That was not my prime reason at all. Our prime reason is that we are seen as soft, which you failed to address.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 283

silverbolt

19

Original post by TomatoLounge

But these people come from desperate situations; fleeing war, poverty etc. Don't we have a moral obligation to help them?

and how many should the UK help? 100, 1000, 10000, you get where im going.

There is something like 40 MILLION refugees/runaways/displaced running from countires, should the UK just give them all a passport and a job, almost doubling the population?

the Tories are slashing services left right and centre, your own people are going hungry, being evicted, dying and you want to let in thousands upon thousands of asylum seekers and get the british taxpayer to house, clothe and feed them not to mention treat the myriad of diseases they probably have as well?

Original post by Bubzeh

It's appalling. Let them all in. Give them homes. It's not fair on them or their future families / babies.

Think before you speak.

Where? Where will you put an estimated 40 million people?. and thats just those who are currently fleeing. You give an open door policy and your going to get far more than that. Its all well and good being a bleeding heart hand wringing softie but the UK cannot look after that many people.

At that rate it would be cheaper and more cost effective to send in the army to clear out the governments, set up new ones and help build the African continents infastructure

Reply 284

DELETED ACCOUNT

15

Original post by SotonianOne

There is no recent statistic.

Very well.

That's not true at all, where did you even get that information from?

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html Data taken from the home office asylum.

Almost all boat migrants are black - there are no black people in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Not all asylum seekers are black? The method of travel once they arrive is irrelevant to your point.

And if your post is true then you're doing a bad job at trying to convert me, because as there is no "war, persecution or oppression" in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh which means you're leading me to support an outright asylum ban, as it's clearly economical.

Human right violations, unofficial persecutions based on sexuality/politics etc., the arrest of politically charged human right defenders. Application for asylums are done on a case by case basis. You may have some dishonest applications, which is why the Home Office needs to be more efficient and dealing with them, and methods have been put in place. However, the true genuine individuals seeking asylum here do share my sympathy.

That's why we're having a referendum next year or the year after that. Do you want to make a non-EU migrant referendum as well?

No, immigration needs to be controlled The UK job market is rather attractive which explains why people want to come here. I have not said that I supported uncontrolled migration, yet your notion of asylum seekers coming to take advantage of the welfare system, which is where this argument stemmed from, is just wrong.
And I quote

"Yes, (the reason as to why they choose the UK) is the accessibility to welfare and the extent of that welfare. All you need for 5k a year is to put your name down and sign a piece of paper in the UK."

That was not my prime reason at all. Our prime reason is that we are seen as soft, which you failed to address.

That wasn't it. I wasn't trying to address that we are seen as soft. Your original post is what spurred the debate. The reason you thought people come here is due to the accessibility of welfare.

Reply 285

napkinsquirrel

8

Original post by frogs r everywhere

The UK job market is rather attractive which explains why people want to come here. I have not said that I supported uncontrolled migration, yet your notion of asylum seekers coming to take advantage of the welfare system, which is where this argument stemmed from, is just wrong.

Yeah that attractive job market must also be the reason why we still have 7% unemployment rates. On what basis is the assumption that they come here for benefits not true? You haven't presented any evidence of migrants' reasons for migrating; was there a census gathering this information?

Reply 286

DELETED ACCOUNT

15

Original post by napkinsquirrel

Yeah that attractive job market must also be the reason why we still have 7% unemployment rates. On what basis is the assumption that they come here for benefits not true? You haven't presented any evidence of migrants' reasons for migrating; was there a census gathering this information?

The UK unemployment rate is 5.4% as of February 2015. It has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU. Its businesses are thriving, and more jobs are being created year on year. Compared to many of our European counterparts, the UK is relatively successful. This is what attracts people to come, EU or otherwise. There is no hard cold evidence for migrants wanting to come here. You can just speculate, use common sense and find reasoning to it. (or indeed interview them).

Asylum seekers coming here just to claim benefits is the most unlikely reason.

Reply 287

username1494226

19

No, we should be helping France in managing the issue. We shouldn't be handing them out everything when they walk into our country when we treat our own people like garbage. Keep them in a refugee camp for a while if you must, brush up their English language skills and try to integrate them if possible. We should only allow in the most desperate of people as a priority because a large number of people being allowed in is not practical like left wing nuts seem to think

Reply 288

napkinsquirrel

8

Original post by frogs r everywhere

The UK unemployment rate is 5.4% as of February 2015. It has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU. Its businesses are thriving, and more jobs are being created year on year. Compared to many of our European counterparts, the UK is relatively successful. This is what attracts people to come, EU or otherwise. There is no hard cold evidence for migrants wanting to come here. You can just speculate, use common sense and find reasoning to it. (or indeed interview them).

Asylum seekers coming here just to claim benefits is the most unlikely reason.

How much does that differ from before zero hours contracts were introduced and before people were legally obliged to stay in school until 18? How many years of unemployed people are now absorbed into the university system to do joke degrees for roles that they will never be employed in which is costing them £20000 in debt per year? It's easy to take that unemployment figure at face value but is anyone really better off because of the methods used to lower it?

Reply 289

DELETED ACCOUNT

15

Original post by napkinsquirrel

How much does that differ from before zero hours contracts were introduced and before people were legally obliged to stay in school until 18? How many years of unemployed people are now absorbed into the university system to do joke degrees for roles that they will never be employed in which is costing them £20000 in debt per year? It's easy to take that unemployment figure at face value but is anyone really better off because of the methods used to lower it?

We are moving off topic a little bit but hey ho.

If my point hold truth, which it does, the UK definitely has a reputation of having a successful labour market. This reputation attracts people to come here, including asylum seekers who desire to rebuild their lives after it unwillingly being destroyed.

Getting thousands of people into work is hardly a step backwards. Although I may not have voted the Tories, their "long term economic plan" is certainly not going the wrong direction. Now instead of focusing on rise in employment which has been met, a rise in wages, which the opposition loves to drill into Cameron's mind, is something to be worked on. Yet getting the unemployed into work, generating new jobs, closing down bogus colleges and increasing the number of apprentices is definitely an achievement.

Reply 290

04MR17

Volunteer Section Leader

22

Original post by billydisco

Erm, what makes the economy stronger?

Austerity at the minute.

Original post by billydisco

Why?

Funding.

Reply 291

Bubzeh

3

You're all being ridiculously harsh... Why can't the tax payer just give a little more each month and new homes / apartments can be built for these families in desperate need of some form of normality.

The country could plan to accommodate another 20-30 million people over the next 50 years without question.

Reply 292

napkinsquirrel

8

Original post by Bubzeh

You're all being ridiculously harsh... Why can't the tax payer just give a little more each month and new homes / apartments can be built for these families in desperate need of some form of normality.

The country could plan to accommodate another 20-30 million people over the next 50 years without question.

Kek

Maybe we should have government initiatives to house immigrants in the houses of liberals :biggrin:

Reply 293

username1866585

12

Original post by frogs r everywhere

Funny that, Adolf Hitler had a very similar attitude.

Did he? Good for him.

Reply 294

DELETED ACCOUNT

15

Original post by blah3210

Did he? Good for him.

The fact that he's now the most hated man in history is not so good.

Reply 295

username1866585

12

Original post by frogs r everywhere

The fact that he's now the most hated man in history is not so good.

I don't dispute that, but does it mean ALL of his ideas were bad? Of course not.

Reply 296

DELETED ACCOUNT

15

Original post by blah3210

I don't dispute that, but does it mean ALL of his ideas were bad? Of course not.

If he was still alive and killed your family relatives, you'd quickly change your tune.

Reply 297

username1866585

12

Original post by frogs r everywhere

If he was still alive and killed your family relatives, you'd quickly change your tune.

All I'm saying is, just because he was evil doesn't mean all of his ideas were ****.

Reply 298

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by Bubzeh

You're all being ridiculously harsh... Why can't other people just give a little more of their money (but not mine) each month and new homes / apartments can be built for these families in desperate want of some form of more money

The other people could spend to accommodate another 20-30 million vanity projects over the next 50 years without question.