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

Scroll to see replies

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

France is offering them security. Why don't they want to live in France?

Reply 21

Rational Thinker

Original post by Nitrogen

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.

I completely agree.

Reply 22

Rat_Bag

I think there needs to be some sharing of the "burden" (in the medium and long term it's not, at least economically) of receiving, processing and settling asylum seekers within the EU. The first safe countries they may arrive at are likely to have been on the periphery (Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Malta), which, given our common European citizenship, we should help spread out so that one, or a small number of countries are not burdened with the receiving and processing costs (since come settlement, which on granting asylum in any EU country, they can settle anywhere, the country they settle in will receive the economic benefits). This of course needs to be done in a fair, grown up and transparent way, so probably won't happen.

Of course many have come through Turkey en route to entering the EU, and there isn't actually a reason for them not being settled in Turkey (Turkey has the resources), and it does help if regional countries hold a high degree of responsibility of managing refugee fallout, since it encourages a culture of individual countries actively working towards regional stability with their neighbours. If refugee problems just get ditched externally, then there is little incentive for regional leadership in solving problems and maintaining long term regional stability. Of course it's not as simple as that, since some countries have the burden of huge refugee problems through no fault of their own, and primarily as a result of external forces; think Jordan (Israel/Palestine fallout, Iraq fallout, now Syria fallout) or Iran (Afghanistan again and again).

I would also like to see some of the far wealthier countries in the Persian Gulf accepting some of their Arab brothers and sisters too. But that might involve polluting their citizenship pool with all these impure Arabs, and we can't have that.

Reply 23

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by Diane118

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

Britain already pays it's fat share to the EU so really us taking in asylum seekers and refugees isn't going to fly on the duty-of-european-brotherhood bent. International custom allows them to seek shelter in the first safe country they come across. Anything else is economic migration. Best of luck to them though.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 24

Arbolus

Original post by neunundneunzig

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

If they're that desperate then they'll accept whatever they're offered.

Reply 25

Hopple

The only countries we really should be obligated to provide asylum to refugees from are Ireland and the North of France, barring some crazy allegiances in a European war. Everywhere else has plenty of safe countries between them and us that they should seek asylum in first.

It would be nice of us to help people out if we can, but there's no obligation to.

Reply 26

Llamageddon

Original post by Drewski

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

Even if you dismissed Monaco as a principality or spoke of Europe as meaning EU member states you would still have Belgium and the Netherlands ahead of 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.

Haha, yeah, we don't accept asylum seekers because we want them. We accept them because we have international obligations due to treaties we've signed (namely the 1951/ Geneva convention).

It's funny. People complain about asylum seekers coming in but never the legislation that obligates us to take them.

It's all a joke anyway. How can a Somalian legally enter the UK when we don't recognise their nation, won't issue them a VISA, and charge airlines hefty fines if they accept false or undocumented passengers? How, when they arrive undocumented, can we verify their identity?

How many flights from Syria do we get at the moment? Or are they having to go to another country in order to claim asylum here? On what basis are they arguing that countries nearby that they travel through to get here, like Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, are not sufficiently safe?

Reply 27

Magnesium

I hate the way they think that it's 'easier' for them to get asylum in the UK so that they can eventually bring their whole family here. No, that's not how it works. They should just take up the offer of asylum from France because they're lucky enough to get that much. They don't have the freedom of choice here over which country they'd prefer to move to right now. The UK has no obligation to take on Syrian refugees in any case.

Reply 28

Llamageddon

Original post by MaggieKan

Well, fleeing a warzone is not itself a reason, but Syrians could be persecuted for the following:
race
religion
nationality
political opinion
membership of a particular social group.

Very difficult to prove though.

Reply 29

Vanbrugh

These people arn't really asylum seekers anymore, they can just as easily be classified economic migrants.

If you draw a straight line from Damascus to London - it would go through or next to - Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, the three Benelux countries and only then the UK.

I know in Switzerland and Germany they scrutinise every application for asylum thoroughlly to determine whether they are illegal economic migrants (application rejected) or genuine asylum seekers (usually accepted). Of couse, the lines are blurred sometimes. The syrian question is especially tricky because you can't exactly "send them back". I'm not sure how exactly asylum law works in Britain.