The Student Room Group

Syrian asylum seekers occupy a footbridge in Calais saying take us to the UK.

Syrian asylum seekers occupy a roof and footbridge in Calais demanding 'Take us to the UK'

French riot police have arrived at a Calais port terminal to try to move dozens of Syrian refugees who have been blockading a walkway to the port building for three days, demanding access to British officials in order to seek asylum in the UK.
The approximately 60 Syrians include seven minors and a few women one pregnant with the rest being men, at least 20 of whom are on hunger strike.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/french-police-syrian-refugees-calais-asylum-uk
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I like how they seem to think France gets to decide who enters the UK.
Reply 2
Arnt they ment to go to the next safe country? I'm counting ALOT before they even got to france.

Seems all the immigrants want to come to UK.
Sorry we are full.
Reply 4
I should imagine they would want to come to the UK because they have family here and because of our English language.
Reply 5
If they're trying to pick and choose which country they stay in, then they aren't asylum seekers. I highly doubt France is the first safe country they've been to since leaving Syria either.

They don't have the right to claim asylum here. They can **** off.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Razzamoly
If they're trying to pick and choose which country they stay in, then they aren't asylum seekers. I highly doubt France is the first safe country they've been to since leaving Syria either.

They don't have the right to claim asylum here. They can **** off.

I've never seen such little empathy in my life. So a group of people who have had to deal with living in a warzone for the past few years finally escape and want to go to the nearest country that will offer both job opportunities and a relatively low level of discrimination, and you want them to '**** off'?
Reply 7
Original post by neunundneunzig
I've never seen such little empathy in my life. So a group of people who have had to deal with living in a warzone for the past few years finally escape and want to go to the nearest country that will offer both job opportunities and a relatively low level of discrimination, and you want them to '**** off'?


This isn't the nearest safe country, therefore they shouldn't be granted asylum.

I get that they'll have been through a lot in Syria. I would want out too. However, Syria is a very far away place and there are loads of countries between here and Syria that they could have sought asylum in. In fact, you're supposed to seek it in the nearest safe country.

I'm not okay with the fact they haven't stopped in the first safe place and are now trying to morally blackmail the French authorities into letting them cross the channel. Hardly desperate. They aren't seeking asylum anymore.
(edited 10 years ago)
*Wants assylum*

*Goes to most densely populated country, England, in Europe*

Yeah that'll work, go to the most full place you can think of.
I hope they don't get in.
Reply 10
I think every rich country should take a certain amount of the refugees that have been taken in by poor surounding counties to relieve there burdon of them.
Original post by neunundneunzig
I've never seen such little empathy in my life. So a group of people who have had to deal with living in a warzone for the past few years finally escape and want to go to the nearest country that will offer both job opportunities and a relatively low level of discrimination, and you want them to '**** off'?


I empathise. Not as much as if they were my own family - that's a very human failing, and I'll admit to it - but I know there's no moral reason why I have more right to live here than they do. (I'm not the person you quoted). However, we simply cannot let every person who wants asylum into the UK. It's a small island, far more densely populated than the many European countries they have travelled through, and with a welfare budget the size of education and defence combined. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_budget_estimate_vs_actual

Call it selfish if you will, but generosity and security cannot always coexist. We cannot support everyone, and our borders are already open to many asylum seekers.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Razzamoly
This isn't the nearest safe country, therefore they shouldn't be granted asylum.

I get that they'll have been through a lot in Syria. I would want out too. However, Syria is a very far away place and there are loads of countries between here and Syria that they could have sought asylum in. In fact, you're supposed to seek it in the nearest safe country.

I'm not okay with the fact they haven't stopped in the first safe place and are now trying to morally blackmail the French authorities into letting them cross the channel. Hardly desperate. They aren't seeking asylum anymore.

What do you consider to be a 'safe' country? One where unemployment is so high that they'll have to search bins for food? One where fascism is so rampant that they and their children will be beaten up in the street?

The life of an immigrant is bad enough when you're not coming from a wartorn country with no money.
Original post by neunundneunzig
What do you consider to be a 'safe' country? One where unemployment is so high that they'll have to search bins for food? One where fascism is so rampant that they and their children will be beaten up in the street?

The life of an immigrant is bad enough when you're not coming from a wartorn country with no money.


http://news.sky.com/story/1150179/syrian-migrants-end-calais-port-stand-off

Apparently one of the people spent £8700 trying to get here. With that kind of money, he could have bought a passport, visa and plane ticket to enter Britain legally. I don't call that "no money".

Also, the whole point of a "safe" country is one where they won't be in any danger. France isn't war torn. Everything you've said there is irrelevant.

They have been offered asylum in France. France is a safe country. End of. They can't cherry pick a country.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Razzamoly
http://news.sky.com/story/1150179/syrian-migrants-end-calais-port-stand-off

Apparently one of the people spent £8700 trying to get here. With that kind of money, he could have bought a passport, visa and plane ticket to enter Britain legally. I don't call that "no money".

Also, the whole point of a "safe" country is one where they won't be in any danger. France isn't war torn. Everything you've said there is irrelevant.

They have been offered asylum in France. France is a safe country. End of. They can't cherry pick a country.


I agree.
Original post by neunundneunzig
What do you consider to be a 'safe' country? One where unemployment is so high that they'll have to search bins for food? One where fascism is so rampant that they and their children will be beaten up in the street?

The life of an immigrant is bad enough when you're not coming from a wartorn country with no money.


You should pay all their costs then. Come on if you feel so strongly about it why don't you volunteer to pay all their expenses?
Original post by Razzamoly
http://news.sky.com/story/1150179/syrian-migrants-end-calais-port-stand-off

Apparently one of the people spent £8700 trying to get here. With that kind of money, he could have bought a passport, visa and plane ticket to enter Britain legally. I don't call that "no money".

Also, the whole point of a "safe" country is one where they won't be in any danger. France isn't war torn. Everything you've said there is irrelevant.

They have been offered asylum in France. France is a safe country. End of. They can't cherry pick a country.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be an asylum seeker?

Original post by Rational Thinker
You should pay all their costs then. Come on if you feel so strongly about it why don't you volunteer to pay all their expenses?

Because I obviously have the money (and influence) to be able to allow 60 Syrians into the UK? Perhaps the British government could shave a bit off the massive military expenditure and build some new homes for both immigrants (seeing as we'll be getting plenty from the economically wrecked continent) and native Britons?
Reply 17
Original post by Snagprophet
*Wants assylum*

*Goes to most densely populated country, England, in Europe*

Yeah that'll work, go to the most full place you can think of.


:fyi: Monaco has a greater population density than England or the UK.


A country being densely populated should not be and is not the red line for asylum, so the argument you present is dumb anyway. The larger and far more relevant point is the "first safe country" aspect that others have mentioned.
Original post by neunundneunzig
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be an asylum seeker?


Because I obviously have the money (and influence) to be able to allow 60 Syrians into the UK? Perhaps the British government could shave a bit off the massive military expenditure and build some new homes for both immigrants (seeing as we'll be getting plenty from the economically wrecked continent) and native Britons?


I fail to see why we should burdened with the Syrian refugees at all. France has offered them asylum. They should go to France. To use a cliche beggars cannot be choosers.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 19
Original post by Rational Thinker
I fail to see why we should burdened with the Syrian refugees at all. France has offered them assylum. They should go to France. To use a cliche beggars cannot be choosers.

Exactly. They shouldn't even be in france anyway, as france is not the nearest safe country to syria. I can't believe that they are actually asking to be in the UK. They should be grateful that france has offered them asylum. If they don't like it then simply go back to syria.

Quick Reply

Latest