To ask where I can send my 57p?

[drspouse]

According to the Mirror if all the asylum seekers currently in Calais came into the UK and (highly unlikely) never paid any tax, it would cost each of us 57p.
To save a group of people from some of the most unimaginable horrors in their home countries, I'm more than happy to pay that.
So, where do I sign to pay up (and make it clear I'm happy for them to officially seek asylum and have their claims verified)?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-migrant-hordes--people-6165167

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/01/calais-illegal-immigrant-uk-facts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

As for "legal routes", illegal entry by whatever means is nothing which invalidates a claim for asylum and is not deemed as breaking the law.

If you'd have read my post Swallowed, you'd have seen that my friend, her mum and gran went to UK, youngest brother went to USA (he was the youngest and had family there - yes I know that supports your argument. I have never argued against that. If I had to flee I'd try for a country I could be comfortable in BUT if that proved difficult I'd take what I could - my family's safety is more important than that one aspect) and her two sisters went to Germany. Unable to speak the language. They split up because they knew that one of them was bound to be offered asylum, where the others perhaps would not and could then apply for the others to join them. Plus, when they literally ran with their bags and passports after the death of the father, they got on the first planes they could find space on. No space for all six of them on one flight (don't forget at this time everyone who could was trying to leave), so they split up. But all three countries offered asylum and they all decided to stay where they were and they made their respective countries their homes.

I've not argued against anyone coming into this country. But there is a system in place to deal with them. Storming the tunnel isn't the way. That, to me, not only shows people desperate to live here (which I understand) but also shows some people who suspect they will not get asylum.

The biggest problem the UK has is, apart from the fact that if they had kept the asylum office in Calais open they could deal with claims on the spot, if they let people into the UK now and they are not genuine asylum seekers, the government can't deport them as easily as they used to.

That's the reason the government won't let them in. Because, once they are here, they are here. And if others who do not need asylum, but want to get to the UK, hear that we bow to pressure without them having to use the proper system we will have more than 5000 queuing in Calais.

I totally agree something needs to be done. Those with genuine asylum needs need to be helped...by the UK. We are a caring nation, despite what some would have you think. But helping a person with a genuine need to make their home here is very different from giving everyone an entry ticket.

If people want to come to the country and are not asylum seekers they can apply to immigrate (as my sister did when she went to the USA a few years ago). However, some of the people in Calais I would bet want to circumvent the systems (both asylum and usual immigration). These people are not stupid. They know that once they are here they have very little chance of being deported even if they aren't genuine asylum seekers and they are making it even harder for the genuine people in need as everyone gets tarred with the same brush.

If we open the gates the message becomes 'if you can't be bothered to do the usual immigration paperwork and take your chance with everyone else, just run the barricades in France and the UK will let you in'. That message cannot be the one that comes out of this country. Not only does it ridicule the systems all countries have in place to filter out genuine and non-genuine immigrants and asylum seekers, it also gives the idea that if you're not happy with something in the UK just riot and the government will give you what you want - which is a bloody dangerous message.

I really can't see where this idea that people want to come Britain because they suspect their asylum claim is not valid comes from. Other than from anti-migration propaganda.

Can't be arsed to Google for you Jassy; terribly sorry.

It's more for yourself - if you informed yourself you'd look a bit less silly.

I'm amazed at prevoius posters offering to donate their benefits

Do you seriously want to keep us so poor that we can't afford to give away £1?

Am I of so little value to you?

As it happens, I'm still a net lifetime contributor but that's irrelevant ... unless you want to give me back your maintenance grant if you had one, the cost of any child-related services you have used and any major NHS treatment you've had. I was paying for all that while not using any of it so, if we're all pay-as-you go now, I want refunds.

This whole 'people as slot machines' attitude is what's driving the inhuman meanness displayed towards refugees on this thread.

I'm reminded of the time, many years ago, when I collected for a children's charity. One of the roads I was assigned had some large private houses at the top and a council estate (where I lived) at the bottom.

I remember two houses in particular. A woman in one of the large houses routed around in her purse before finding 2p to put in my tin.

A man, who I knew was hard up, emptied his pockets of all the money he had.
I'm quite sure he went without because he believed he was better off than the children I was collecting for and wanted to make their lives that little bit happier.

I'm equally sure that our richer neighbour didn't even notice the difference to her purse.

Alltheprettyseahorses

I do know that we have to grow food and our national parks do need to be protected. However, we will never be self sufficient in food unless you want to go back to rationing and with an increasing population then we never will be unless we take a radical approach to farming in this country.

The most logical way of increasing housing stock in this country is to put incentives into building on brown field sites and mixed use zoning for industrial, commercial and residential areas. If you have an industrial estate in your town, I can guarantee it’s got little or no housing there. Zone it as mixed use and you will get ultra cheap housing for people on low incomes and who can probably then walk to work rather than drive which is what happens now.

swallowed I migrated from the UK to take a job as a teacher in another European country. Are my friends and family in the UK? Yes. Does the UK need teachers? Yes. Am I taking a job from a home country teacher? Well no, actually I don't think I am but as to whether I prioritise making money over seeing my friends and family.... well errr yes I do! I need a job, I need to pay my bills like anyone else! Would I be comfortably off in the UK? Yes ...

I don't understand this. If the UK needs teachers and you'd be comfortably off in the UK, how does "needing a job" mean you had to leave?

Why would you leave friends and family behind simply for more money if already comfortable?

As for the problem... I was pointing out that the idea we "need" nurses when training courses are so competitive and ovesubscribed doesn't add up. I've nothing against anyone (migrating here) who wants to take advantage of our mismatched supply and demand in that area, but the idea that we couldn't possibly manage without them is simply not true (obvs. would take time to train new nurses and get all that in place, and wouldn't be right to send back those already here... before anyone thinks I'm advocating that).

And this is all within the wider debate about what (if any) controls should be placed on immigration - if we can't take everyone who wants to live here, how do we decide? If it's inhumane to turn away genuine asylum seekers, people risking their lives etc, then surely the numbers have to be cut elsewhere?

Marylou2 We need the brightest and the best from all over the world.

Yeh, sod the rest of the world, they can have our scraps

I informed myself yesterday Jassy; I'm not paid to inform you.

Fortunately, I already know what routes are actually available to the vast majority of asylum seekers - fuck all, especially post-Sangatte. Saying that they exist, but you don't know what they are, makes you look particularly daft.

I'm resolutely ignoring the paranoid "debate" and noting that there are even people in the UK who are prepared to help. Gosh, they must need their heads seeing to, since these dreadful refugees are so unworthy.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/europeans-who-welcome-migrants?CMP=twt_gu

I want to clarify what I said a few days ago because someone has interpreted my post as blaming immigrants for the NHS's problems. That is not what I meant at all. Indeed the NHS would be up shit creek without all the immigrants who work in it.

What I meant is that all the current people here, regardless of where they were born already number too many for the NHS to cope with. It is at breaking point and it is scary every time I take someone to hospital. The lack of resources, time and staff, the shockingly run down and not fit for purpose buildings. It is just one example of an essential public service that cannot take any more. It's not about disliking immigrants or to wanting to help. It's just numbers!

So my question remains to those who want to let the people in:

• will you give up your child's place in the A&E queue when they are desperately ill?
• will you give your child's school place up so someone else can have it? And you can either home ed or go private?
• do you want to be turned away from the maternity unit whilst in labour because all the beds are full?
• Already our roads are gridlocked. Do you enjoy commuting on them? Do you want it to get worse?

There is no more money. Public services have necessarily been harshly cut.

These are the real implications of increasing our population. Not donating 57p. It is so idealistic to donate 57p. It's really nice of you but it just doesn't work in practice.

Thanks for that, drspouse - I really need chinks of light in this wave of darkness :)

There is no more money. Public services have necessarily been harshly cut.

That's the main difference between the 'haters' perspective and mine.

There is loads of fucking money. This little group of islands is the 6th richest country in the world.

Public services are being unnecessarily harshly cut.

That kills all the affordability arguments stone dead.

Garlick, if there is so much money, why has my mum been deprived of a cancer drug? Why also did she have a mastectomy and then spend the night on a trolley with no hospital bed? There is not loads of money. And there is no capacity in public services to cope with more.

I honestly think that the argument "let them in" is like 5yo offering their birthday money to stop a relative's house being repossessed. It's really sweet but just completely unrealistic.

I live in Canada, but have a couple of £1 coins. I'd happily send them back. (The coins, not the asylum seekers).

People are being deprived of essential NHS treatment because we have a government committed to running it down prior to privatisation, Binit. It's horrible but true.

Depending on your statistical measure, the UK is:
4th by GDP per capita
23rd by GDP purchasing power per capita
6th or 7th by size of economy.

No matter which way you cut it, we have plenty of money. More and more of it, however, is being concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest few. This is perfectly in line with Conservative ideology, which holds the view that super-rich individuals and corporations form the pivot around which a healthy economy revolves.

When we say "we have no money", what we mean is "we haven't enough money left over after channelling our wealth to the wealthy."

Conservative ideology doesn't believe anyone should get anything unless somebody profits. Your mum should buy her treatment in an open market.
This is basic economics. Traditional Labour ideology says an economy pivots around the many, not the few. Fuck knows what modern Labour thinks.

"We can't afford to help people in need" doesn't mean we haven't got the money, because we have. It means we feel that helping 'little people' hurts the 'big people' - and we need the big ones to be very, very rich.

Spot on Binit.

Regardless of their origins, these people are no longer fleeing oppression. They are safely in FRANCE for fuck sake.

They should claim asylum there in line with international convention / law.

Richest countries by GDP 2015 projections.

The first chart shows income distribution in the UK. It doesn't show the full extent of the difference between the richest and the rest of society. This is because the top 1% have incomes substantially higher than the rest of those in the top 10%. In 2012, the top 1% had an average income of £259,917 and the top 0.1% had an average income of £941,582.

The second chart shows the UK is the least equal country of the OECD nations, and the most unequal in Europe.

I know this is a sidetrack, but it's hugely relevant to the arguments on here.

The government is not committed to running down the NHS. In fact, all parties publicly prioritised the NHS in 2015. There really is no money. By money I mean actual net cash. Our debts are monumental.

Sorry, the UK is the 4th least equal country of the OECD nations.

Source of charts. I'm hiding this thread now, it's making me miserable!

Our debts are monumental.

No, our deficit is monumental. Our debt is low for Europe. Osborne has borrowed more in his position than all the previous governments put together. But has failed to improve revenues, so our deficit has ballooned.

OK, really hiding it now!
Some quick links for the interested:
www.economicshelp.org/blog/2765/economics/deficit-vs-debt/
www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/09/29/the-seven-most-indebted-nations/

Sorry, I'm sure you are all very well meaning, but this is laughable.

Same old issue, the inability of those left of centre to reconcile their well meaning "feelings" with real world economics. 57p a head, give me a break, do you realise how that figure would increase exponentially once we've solved the existing Calais problems?

Anyway, the vast majority behind the cause will be onto the next cause next week. Same as usual, no genuine commitment to the issue, nobody taking real action to improving things for those at Calais, but as long as you get to add your two pennorth to the mobs cause of the week you can ease your consciences and feel good about yourself.

The Internet and social media could do so much to improve conditions for people around the world, but sadly only 0.000005% of the people clicking "like"and posting "I'm in" on threads like these, will ever actually do anything other than sympathise.