to think that the Calais migrants are economic migrants and should not be given asylum?

[cabbagesouppirate]

All of the Calais migrants are young men. If they were true asylum seekers seeking safety from persecution they could have claimed asylum in a number of safe countries Western countries already, including France which is hardly a dangerous place. Instead they camp out in Calais, causing a nuisance, a mess, costing the UK and France a lot of money, making the lives of lorry drivers and tourists hell and the situation is becoming increasingly dangerous. I sincerely hope these people are not given asylum in the UK and any that have managed to reach the UK should be fast tracked out of the country and given economic assistance whilst they are here.

Is that really relevant to this though? It's two separate issues.

(Although MP expenses are something that get me very annoyed, it's disgusting what they get away with claiming)

Do people accessing healthcare disgust you?

Hillingdon, I think you're talking about the CPS report which itself talks about the many caveats around the averages cited.

To quote an article on the study: Whether you pay more than you get back will depend a great deal on whether you have children of school age, whether you claim child benefit, or whether you need to call on the NHS. Have you taken maternity or paternity leave, or taken part in a government training scheme? It all increases the value you are deemed to have extracted from the state.

And the averages are skewed by retirees.

Immigrants are more likely to be of working age, less likely to have dependents, less likely to claim benefits (including in-work and universal benefits), their education has geberally been paid for elsewhere, etc.

Interested to know where you're getting info on the skills base of the migrants at Calais?

Dad - most of the studies I've seen try to account for those impacts, which is why net contribution declines over time (more likely to be accessing various services, educate children, etc).

UCL did a pretty good effort at it I think.

Can anyone explain to me why if a british person marries someone from another country they have to prove that they are earning a certain amount and are able to support their spouse or the spouse will be deported yet migrants can come here with nothing and be allowed to stay.

Doesn't seem right to me.

Shabby, what sort of migrants are you putting in that category? Asylum seekers?

Can anyone explain to me why if a british person marries someone from another country they have to prove that they are earning a certain amount and are able to support their spouse or the spouse will be deported yet migrants can come here with nothing and be allowed to stay

Of course that rule about the non-EU spouses of British citizens is completely wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right.

The ones who are here illegally.

But if they're here illegally, by definition they're notallowed to stay.

Just like a spousal visa applicant who didn't qualify for the (horrible) income criteria, but didn't leave the country when their previous visa expired.

Can someone explain to me why the Calais migrants want to head to the UK over any other European country.

Er...People who ask the question officially and have something to lose are much easier to find and deport. People who stay off the radar aren't.

Being theoretically not allowed to be here and actually getting deported are two very different things.

We do consider applications for asylum from people who have entered illegally, it normally helps their case if they declare that intention as soon as they arrive, but marrying people from non-EU countries is different from people seeking asylum.

A few ideas have been posited on the thread.
English being so widely spoken.
Erroneous belief that opportunities are better.
Possible relatives here.

MorrisZapp above all has been the voice of reason on the thread. It's possible to empathise with these people but also acknowledge that finding practical solutions to the problem is very difficult and will have to involve setting some limits. It's one thing to say that people fleeing Syria need help and should be taken in, but are we going to do that while just accepting the situation in Syria? Politicians and public alike are reluctant to take military action there, understandably, but then how is it going to work long term to just leave ISIS to take over and absorb as many escapees as can get away from what used to be Syria into European countries instead?

Taytocrisps

We don't have a lot in the way of enforcement once they're here, so the ones that want to can find illegal work and housing fairly easily.

English is a widely spoken languague.

We don't ask too many questions when people need healthcare.

We are generally pretty tolerant.

Some of them may know people already here.

Like anything else, there's never a single simple answer.

Sorry, Dad, you're right.

There's very little way for people to claim asylum if they don't enter illegally, is there?

I'll admit I assumed the poster was talking about those who don't claim asylum - but that doesn't excuse my stupid statement. Apols.

So its fair to deport people who are married, probably with homes, jobs and families because they dont earn enough but homeless, jobless people get to stay because they are here illegally and disappear or claim asylum because they like the look of the uk.

No wonder the country's fucked.

Did anyone say that?! Quite the opposite, I thought, from the comments (including mine) on the income test for spouse/partner visas.

People don't claim asylum because they 'like the look of the U.K.'

Moreshabby, you continue to want to make these poor people responsible for an appalling rule imposed by the Home Offic on non-EU spouses. It is like blaming the disabled because there is not enough money for a single mother to feed her children.

There should be a card system to use public healthcare like many countries.

blowin
Well, looking at a world map, you need to travel west from Syria to get to the UK and on route there you pass Germany and Sweden which are nearer than the UK. Much easier to go north to Sweden on your travels than travel all the way across Europe to get to the UK.

You've added Germany in now to muddy the waters. Is that because when you looked on a map you saw where Sweden actually is and realised you'd been talking mince?

Of course I'm not blaming the migrants, I was genuinely curious. Its a stupid and unfair rule and I cant understand the logic of it.

Short-term solution to Calais madness is RUDDY obvious. Let them claim asylum at UKBA desk in Calais, and the rejected ones get deported to Timbuktu. Any one who tries to sneak illegally onto lorry or train goes to jail for a week and then deported. The security situation is a nightmare right now, beyond unacceptable.

Does not solve enough long term. The rest of the world's poor & huddled masses will keep coming.

Any one who tries to sneak illegally onto lorry or train goes to jail for a week and then deported
Yes - they have committed a criminal act - that would be a normal response to crime ands anywhere else in France, or anywhere, the law would be upheld for criminal damage/threatening lorry drives with knives.
Complete lack of sympathy on MN for lorry drivers - deemed not MC enough?