Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    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.
    The fact stands that the EU has introduced regulations to deal with first country arrival, and any EU member can lawfully return a migrant to that country. It's a case of UN regulation vs EU regulation, and the latter is a far more significant political body.

    But they can't decide where they wish to claim asylum in the EU, they have to do it in the first state they arrive in. Whether or not they choose to actually register is entirely something else, but any other country that they move to has every right to send them back to the first country they arrived in if they refuse to register. The rules are struggling to operate due to the scale of the crisis, the fact that Germany invited a million of them in, and because places like Greece are hardly in a position to take in thousands more people and Germany are trying to avoid the EU collapsing so sending them back wouldn't help this (and they have no political will to do so). Whether the rules are enforced or not, they still exist so Britain's position that we will not except migrants from the EU is entirely lawful.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    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.
    I to a certain extent do actually agree with a few of your points. Thanks for actually putting forward and intelligent side by the way, I hate people having diverse opinion who don't then back it up with fact or any real thought. Bloody annoying.

    They're not exactly going to broadcast that they've killed civvys are they? It's bad for morale. I think it would be a little ignorant though to assume that bombs, which are pretty unspecific in general, won't have affected any civilians though. Does anything like this have a straightforward solution? I'm pretty sure that if I could give you a proper solution, being a 16 year old girl, then the world's brightest analysts would have already solved it and we wouldn't be in this mess. To lessen the strife in the world at the minute though I'd offer more aid to those people who need it, that's just the way that I'm wired. I don't think Cameron authorised to let enough in and I stand by that point of view.

    If we're talking militaristically, the armed forces don't have much of a choice realistically and I respect that. My dad's an ex-squaddie and I can definitely recognise that this is the most popular and realistic plan with the way that things currently are. However, I also think that we should take more people in for the damage that our (and a few of our allies')bombs have caused to people's homes and so forth. Of course it should be monitored and people should be checked extensively, but at the end of the day we should do our duty as people and offer a bit more aid.

    I reckon that the powers at be like the EU (which we're not going to be a part of soon enough because idiots) should have appointed massive stretches of checkpoints in various countries in preparation to what was bound to happen. Greece, Italy, Macedonia - wherever borders war torn areas should have had mass checkpoints placed previously which could have screened and allocated according to needs in a country (for work forces, like the UK needs more doctors/nurses/science teachers/maths teachers) and availability of resources for said people. Some countries need more young people to help with the aging population, it's a fact. It would be difficult, but it should have been put in place way before anyways because it's clear to see the instability in these areas and with instability comes people fleeing said instability.

    The main issue I have with all of this is that Europe (and America and Russia to be honest) pretty much ignored the issue until it properly affected them. Now there are millions displaced and, yes, as developed countries I believe we should take more in until things can be smoothed over. It would be stupid to not have concerns but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help out? It is perhaps even annoying to think that they bypassed safety but you have to think that people get these ideas into their heads and they hope and dream for better lives that might include family in the UK or might have involved the UK as a whole. Living in camps can't be nice and that's all they've experienced of the other countries leading all the way to Calais and even in Calais. It's to do with the human brain and thinking hopefully more than a targeted move I think, but then I can't exactly read all of their minds so there's also a solid possibility that I'm wrong.

    My point stands that we should still offer more help.

    (I think I just wrote the most I've written all summer, sorry 🤔)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    They just want the chance to enter Britain to escape violence and warfare
    They've already escaped violence and warfare long before reaching Calais.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    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.

    You fail to appreciate the difference between the convention and some EU admin rules, which are vert rarely applied these days becayse they dont work. As far as the individuals are concerned they cna claim where they want i.e the ones In Calaus can claim in the UK if they get there.

    As for your second point , where do you think they came from?

    Anyway wasyed enough time on this. Read the convention or not.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The Calais migrants are safe and they are relatively wealthy and also physically healthy to have made the long journey. The truly desperate are the ones still trapped in war torn countries. Britain is working with other nations to end the civil war in Syria and get people into safe camps, so I don't know what your issue is OP.

    Letting in some of the Calais migrants will just encourage more to come over which will make the crisis worse, with more people dying in the Med sea. This just gives more power to the people traffickers.

    And let's not forget the numerous homeless and hungry Brits that exist. Yet you want to bring in a bunch of economic migrants? Funny how some people love to get all self-righteous about issues in foreign nations and want to meddle, yet ignore the fact that Britain has its own problems, which really should be the top priority. The impoverished and downtrodden in Britain are the ones you are in best position to support, yet will continue to be forgotten. Why? Probably because it's easier to advocate about something trendy and pat yourself on the back, than get your hands dirty trying to fix problems like homelessness, poverty and crime in your county.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    The fact stands that the EU has introduced regulations to deal with first country arrival, and any EU member can lawfully return a migrant to that country. It's a case of UN regulation vs EU regulation, and the latter is a far more significant political body.
    The thats will be why countries dont apply the Dublin Rules, the EU Commission has more or less abandoned them and the UK doesnt send many asylum seekers back to countries like Greece or Italy, which are two of the main entry points into the EU.

    Thats a problem for countires, but not one for asylum seekers who continue to claim where they wish.

    4. There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country
    Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.

    There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.

    The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.

    The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
    https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

    Go and do some reading on the subject and youll see why it doesnt work and the EU have abandoned Dublin in favour of quotas the deal with Turkey.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    so ultimately your policy is "let everybody in"
    or it is "let every person who looks like a refugee in"
    do you not understand that that policy can't work?
    I mean, I'm not even talking about terrorism
    I'm talking about space, resources, congestion, cultural conflict, employment, housing, school places, etc
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    I am so happy we are NOT.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Refugees my arse, in my opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    - Family and friends in Britain.
    - Don't speak French but speak English.
    - Perhaps they have had a bad experience with the French authorities and feel scared. Also France is demonstrating a lot of right-wing policies at the moment and maybe they think they will have a more tolerant and multicultural future in Britain.
    Well I'm sure they might PREFER the UK over France (as evidenced by them living in pretty dire conditions in order to gain entry into the UK). But that's not really the same as accepting people into your country because they're fleeing a war zone. The points you listed are characteristics of migrants who are quite reasonably wanting to make as good a life for themselves as they can, but this is a separate issue entirely to that of asylum.

    All this said though there IS a point to be made about countries taking their "fair share" and cooperatively sharing the inevitable burden on infrastructure etc. that taking refugees will bring. The problem is that there was never a sensible policy in place for accepting refugees amongst the nations that could accept them. The policy essentially went along the lines of: open the border between Europe and North Africa.*
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    France is absolutely fine for them, no need to come here. As were the last 10 countries that they wondered through in search of benefits, oh erm I mean safety.

    Also, the conditions inside the camp are unlikely to be as bad as the media are making out (an aid worker made a thread on here a little while back, said they had running water in places and free food, plus tables and beds in places - I obviously can't confirm the legitimacy of this but the place has been there for a while now so it seems likely that they'll have upgraded their comfort levels beyond a tent).
    There are better countries in Europe that pay better welfare to their citizens than Britain. I highly doubt that they are coming here for benefits, they are coming here to work and start small businesses. I am sure if they wanted benefits they would have gone to Sweden, Norway and other soft touch Scandinavian countries where benefits are handed out like smarties. Think about it who in their right mind would come to England for benefits which is £73 a week and our government has made claiming benefits as hard as possible I doubt people would have an easy ride in this country.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jee1)
    There are better countries in Europe that pay better welfare to their citizens than Britain. I highly doubt that they are coming here for benefits, they are coming here to work and start small businesses. I am sure if they wanted benefits they would have gone to Sweden, Norway and other soft touch Scandinavian countries where benefits are handed out like smarties. Think about it who in their right mind would come to England for benefits which is £73 a week and our government has made claiming benefits as hard as possible I doubt people would have an easy ride in this country.
    Britain has a stronger economy than Scandinavia, which may allure them to Britain both for claiming benefits or starting a business or whatever. I was attempting to be a bit humorous in the first post, but my point not-withstanding, what's stopping them from doing that in France? Sure, they may prefer Britain, but we have no obligation to take them from a safe, prosperous European neighbour (other than maybe to help France, we have no obligation to the refugees themselves).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so ultimately your policy is "let everybody in"
    or it is "let every person who looks like a refugee in"
    do you not understand that that policy can't work?
    I mean, I'm not even talking about terrorism
    I'm talking about space, resources, congestion, cultural conflict, employment, housing, school places, etc
    Can you attack an argument without saying
    "So you mean *insert blatantly wrong, hyperbolic interpretation of your argument*?! Damn you are stupid"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    - Family and friends in Britain.
    - Don't speak French but speak English.
    - Perhaps they have had a bad experience with the French authorities and feel scared. Also France is demonstrating a lot of right-wing policies at the moment and maybe they think they will have a more tolerant and multicultural future in Britain.
    you keep saying "right wing" in a way which doesn't mean what it actually means...right wing means capitalist. you're saying that the french government is demonstrating a lot of "capitalist policies"...I don't think you meant that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Can you attack an argument without saying
    "So you mean *insert blatantly wrong, hyperbolic interpretation of your argument*?! Damn you are stupid"
    lol
    so what *was* their argument?
    "only let *these* refugees in"?
    why only *these* refugees? why not all of them? what is the moral difference?
    these "refugees" aren't even refugees - they're economic migrants. if they were refugees, they'd have stayed in greece, or whatever the first european country they entered was. if they come all the way to calais, they are not a refugee. they have a lot more in mind than simply alysum - mostly the $$$
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CHARLIEBSS)
    allowing Muslims into British society deprives Is of people they could have recruited
    You are aware that hundreds of Muslims in ISIS are British, right? Ever heard of Jihadi John?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No it isn't there's far too man foreigners in this country as it is without inviting more potential thieves, terrorists and rapists in. The UK seems to be the toilet of the world for foreigners to think they can come in and take take take- they "live" in France already don't they? Why don't they just settle there? No, because the judicial system is soft here, the welfare system is lucrative as is the housing system (although not towards British-born as it should be), the job market is good, the culture is great and the women are stunning. No chance should we let them in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    lol
    so what *was* their argument?
    "only let *these* refugees in"?
    why only *these* refugees? why not all of them? what is the moral difference?
    these "refugees" aren't even refugees - they're economic migrants. if they were refugees, they'd have stayed in greece, or whatever the first european country they entered was. if they come all the way to calais, they are not a refugee. they have a lot more in mind than simply alysum - mostly the $$$
    their argument is that we should be more welcoming to Calais refugees

    but you make it seem as if they are demanding open-door policy to all immigrants, because thats the only way you know how to argue.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CHARLIEBSS)
    I couldn't agree more than it is a disgrace. The problem with the country is we are letting a few hundred thousand racists in the North control us, like when they dragged us out of Europe. Britain has a long history of accepting people from war torn countries and the fact that we are turning are backs on these refugees will be judged very badly by future generations. Britain does not need less immigration, we need MORE immigration. Quite frankly people need to drop this fear of Muslims and unite around a fear of; this nasty, ideologically right wing government, the British right and UKIP voters (I know that's the same as the British right but they just make me so angry)
    Some parts of the North are just dump wasteland I would say fill the place up with immigrants such as the Polish and other Europeans to inject some culture into the place
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    their argument is that we should be more welcoming to Calais refugees

    but you make it seem as if they are demanding open-door policy to all immigrants, because thats the only way you know how to argue.
    I'll ask you again, then:
    what is the difference between the calais "refugees" any *any* other refugees in terms of policy?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If we let everybody in Calais into the UK, it sets a bad precedent. People will think that to get granted refuge in England, they must go to Calais. This would be hugely detrimental to the UK, France and many other countries as it would result in larger numbers heading through Europe to get to Calais.

    The journey from North Africa/Middle East to Calais is not a short or easy journey, and the journey is long enough to separate the able bodied from the less able. We would effectively be overlooking all those most in need of refuge because they haven't made it to Calais. Realistically we should be going to refugee camps and finding the people who are most in need to refuge and offering it to them.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 23, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.