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.

Many of them are not afraid to use violence to get what they want. I think it's terrifying that they are coming here to the UK. Ruthless people who take whatever they can get by fair means or foul. And all this nicey nicey stuff from the usual do gooders. A lot of them are violent people not afraid to use force to get what they want as can be seen on TV every day. No regard for the law whatsoever.

Where, unfortunately when people come on to threads like this and do know what they are talking about, there is usually a deadly hush. Admittedly a lot of my own information is from the radio or TV, websites, and I know this may not always be totally accurate, but its all I have. The kent SS on radio five live yesterday was a real ear opener to me about how they are trying to cope, the folk living next door to the reception centre have first hand knowledge of whats going on, but nobody seems to want to know this! as I have said before, I don't have the answers but money is an issue.

I agree with you Vivennemary, they've been using all sorts of instruments to gain access into the back of lorries in broad day light, and there is no shame in it for them. They don't give a toss. It doesn't bother them that the lorry driver will be fined. I think something drastic needs to be done quickly as it's just escalating to a degree that no one foreseen.

" And all this nicey nicey stuff from the usual do gooders "

so you think that trying to do good is wrong then?
Interesting.

Wheretheresawill, do you want to try statistics? I'm not denying your experience but it's clearly a snapshot.

The foreign prison population currently stands at around 14% of the total prison population in England and Wales. (2013 figures, MoJ)

The foreign-born population of the UK is around 12%, slightly higher (13%) for England and Wales.

There are mismatches on both sides of the statistics - the foreign prison population includes non residents (eg drug mules), the foreign-born population includes those who may now be British. I'm trying to get better comparators but this is what I've turned up for now.

The demographics of immigrants (more likely to be working age/young, more likely to be male) are also relevant to how it tracks to the prison population (similar demographic).

Sadly people like yourself just can't see it because anybody with a different view to yourselves is immediately branded racist or uncaring which if u ask me is an attempt to shut the discussion down

Where have I done this? How do you determine what 'people like me' are like?

'People like me' are people who like to debate on facts, rather than mudslinging. Terrible, I know.

The Swedes are very competent at speaking English themselves, so it's hardly much of an issue. In fact, most of the Scandi citizen speak extremely good English.

Not denying that. But imagine you've fled your homeland and you're going to seek asylum. You have a second language, which is English. Are you more likely to go to a country where it's the primary language, or a secondary language?

" It doesn't bother them that the lorry driver will be fined."

and how exactly would they know that then?

Yes, she did have a card but still had to pay something towards medical treatment. Do we also have an agreement about interpreters though? We seem to pay out a lot for interpreters in this country but I have never heard of any British people getting them for free in any other country.

Grays- If you were genuinely just discussing, then I apologise for saying you are complaining.

The intention of my post, the mp expenses, was just to give a perspective on cost. I know which I think is unnecessary/excessive.

why don't you look it up shabby?

" es, she did have a card but still had to pay something towards medical treatment. "

oh right, your first post gave the distinct impression that she had to pay in full!
So in fact in the French system people have to make a small contribution?
That sounds more likely tbh.
And an English person needing a translator when they are living in France is inexusably lazy IMO.

moreshabby my understanding is she will have paid what a French citizen would have paid. So if she did not get a free translator, that is because a non-French speaking French citizen would not get one either.

I believe the EHIC / reciprocal health system entitle you to be treated as well as the local residents are - not differently.

One important thing to remember is that many people learn English extremely well, but then can lose it due to stroke or dementia, etc. Sometimes these debates get wrapped up in "when they never even bothered to learn English" rhetoric when that is not usually the case.

I have a Swedish friend who was fluent in English and pretty good at German. When she had a stroke (in her twenties, bless her) all her German disappeared.

Also, the decision is often that it is cheaper to pay for a translator and treat things quickly and accurately than to not have one and have a prolonged or flawed treatment programme. In areas such as Newham and Brent, where there is significant TB, for example, it is to everyone in the areas advantage that the disease gets caught and treated - so a NHS trust might easily decide that paid translators to catch more cases were a worthwhile investment against a widespread spread of TB.

I suppose having worked in a solicitors where our clients were at various times Korean and Iranian - a lot of them were business people but also an awful lot of them couldn't speak English at all in person and on the phone, let alone read and write it. How does that help England?

so therefore unless they served/interacted outside their local community it was hard for them to converse with English speaking people.

I also know a Spanish man who tried/failed to learn English (he worked in a Spanish restaurant so therefore mostly conversed in Spanish) - however he is now back in Spain and luckily their economic climate has improved a bit.

SuperFlyHigh -- I may have misunderstood your post but I think many people would be daunted about legal issues in a second language. I know when I have done work overseas, even when I knew a lot of the language, I preferred to have a translator to make sure that I did not make any language errors. I think this is quite common. Legal business language is quite different from everyday conversation.

Thank you for your replies.

Stregna - no this was speaking with them as a secretary - where they just have to ask to speak to a solicitor... and a lot of clients could barely speak English... The Koreans were the worst for this!

they generally spoke to Korean or Iranian solicitors who of course were fluent in Korean/Farsi.

Well, good work for the Korean and Iranian solicitors, of course!

But yes, of course it would be easiest for integration if everyone in England learnt English (and had no health misadventures which caused them to forget it). But it is possible to believe that and also believe that where necessary funding translation is appropriate.

No worries friends

"these people are processed, assessed and then dealt with accordingly I am sure that would be a solution"

said a poster on about page 14. Blimey.

OK top five countries of origin for migrants at calais are Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Eritrea. I think in all likelihood they arent economic migrants.

There is the safe first country rule for asylum in EU member states but tahst a different issue.

I think in all likelihood they arent economic migrants Why? How can you conclude that based on an (unreferenced) survey of a highly transient and not necessarily 100% reliable population?
If they fled in genuine fear of their lives, why not ask for refuge in Italy or France? Aren't Italy and France safe?

What would happen if the 3 million displaced from Syria turned up?

If they fled in genuine fear of their lives, why not ask for refuge in Italy or France? Aren't Italy and France safe

By the same token, if you've fled your country and travelled thousands of miles at great personal risk, why wouldn't you go a little further if you're in the minority who see Britain as the best option? If you believed - rightly or wrongly - that you had a better chance of being successful, both in your asylum claim and in the long-term, in the UK? I'm just not quite sure the psychology is automatically 'fled country = will apply for asylum in the first safe place.'

I've been trying to find out more about this but there's not much about. Interesting video on the Guardian (gasp!) website of Syrians at Calais citing being English speaking as the reason they wanted to apply for asylum in Britain, not France or Germany.

I found this on a humanitarian website (so not without bias, but sadly without source):

When asked this question, the main reasons cited by migrants are:

They have family and friends in the UK.
They speak English.
They face racism in Italy and France.
There are more jobs in the UK.

And there seems to be a lot about how long it takes to even apply for asylum in France - 3-4 months before an application can be lodged.

This is a really interesting article.

Jassy - no quarrel with any of that, but I don't think someone's reported country of origin is a reliable indicator of whether or not they are (or are not) simply economic migrants.

BTW for the avoidance of doubt - I don't blame anyone for wanting out of these countries and wishing for a better life.