To think we will never know the true numbers

[NovoJester]

... of migrants who have died whilst crossing the channel. I’ve just seen Ahmad Al Rashid’s (trustee of Refugees at Home) Interview and his Facebook post on his own journey where people died alongside him in a refrigerated lorry. A few others have shared their stories. I firmly believe not enough has been done to reduce these deaths and wonder if they have been grossly under counted and reported to authorities now.

Those poor people and their poor families.

There's no point in trying to convey this information mate. I've already done so and have been told it is made up.

But you’re being misleading yourself. Yes the U.K. has a lower number of refugees but that doesn’t mean that we’re not doing our bit or need to take more.

As I said earlier, our asylum is different to the EUs and most people accept, superior and has better outcomes.

We take 20,000 asylum seekers per year who are the neediest and therefore targeted for help and brought straight here with instant refugee status. You can read about it here: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/migration-statistics-how-many-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-are-there-in-the-uk/

The EU asylum system revolves around who can get here, who is the fittest, who has the most money to pay traffickers, who is the most ruthless.

Our asylum system is targeted towards those that need it most.

It’s perfectly possible to think that asylum is a vital system which should be protected without thinking it should be some sort of free for all way of getting open borders via the back foot.

*back door

What about all the migrants who create jobs?
Well that’s why we need a fair immigration system where we take a proportion of people who add value who are needed, a proportion here for family ties and a proportion seeking asylum fleeing atrocities. Just let everyone in mentality is naive and grossly oblivious to the concept of supply and demand

@thedancingbear yes absolutely. It's not even a comparable situation. Plus the people who cross the channel are vanishingly unlikely to present a security threat - terrorists don't tend to risk their lives on ramshackle dinghies - in contrast to unfortunately some of the people going into Turkey.

Thanks, Ibiza2015. Those links are interesting but don't really explain how our approach is different from other countries.

In any event, I wasn't really suggesting that we don't take our fair share. I was mainly trying to debunk the received wisdom that huge numbers of asylum seekers make their way all the way across Europe, spurning all the other major countries on their way, just to fuck over the UK, because it's seen as a soft touch. Because that absolutely ain't what's happening.

But then a load of apologist types jumped in and said that the facts were not in fact facts (iyswim)

and yet there are foodbanks and food poverty is a reality in this country

But that wasn’t the point you and the previous poster were making was it? It’s a totally different issue which is down to government policy. It is not the same thing as claiming that this country can’t take more immigrants because we can’t support the food requirements of the population that is already here, which is what was claimed upthread.

@MrsMaiselsMuff

" it is every person's right to claim asylum in another country. But they cannot make that claim until they are here, and that is why many have to make such hazardous journeys."
The young lady from Vietnam who is presumed to be one of the 39 dead was NOT an asylum seeker. She was coming here to work, as she had previously in Japan, to earn money to pay off the debts of a male family member.

Asylum seekers shouldn't be confused with economic migrants.

And don't forget the reason many people speak English as a second language is because we have colonised and exploited most countries on earth.

We should be paying them reparations, never mind just letting a few of them live here.

Nasty xenophobic nonsense

Well said, @CherryPavlova. I'm in the "full up" south-east too. Less than 200 yards from my house, I'm in open countryside and can walk 5 miles before I get to a road. After half a mile, the only houses I can see are in the far distance. Yes, that's really full. There are pressures on services, for sure, but that's because of under-investment, not over-population.

The thing that makes me laugh about xenophobes is that as well as being opposed to immigration, they're often also opposed to aid spending that makes life in 3rd world countries a bit safer. If there was more equality between nations, and fewer countries disrupted by war or oppressed by dictators, more people would be willing to stay in their own countries.

One of my best friends is someone who fled to this country to escape persecution. She came through several countries on the way, but wanted to settle in the UK because she spoke the language and many of her community were already here.

I've read here that we need more checks at individual borders. The people who can cross the EU (freely, until Britain) have the money to do so. More houses are built than doctors surgery, schools etc. Perhaps if Britain was more self sufficient. Maybe more money was put into Asylum seekers. Our NHS was considered in EU budget. We wouldn't be living in the society we're living in.

Also, illegal immigrants CAN NOT claim benefits, housing or NHS care (without lying about their status). They are not known to be here by any authority.
Refugees seeking asylum is a different thing, and most are denied.

Asylum seekers can't claim benefits or get housing either. Recourse to public funds is only granted when they get refugee status.

And asylum seeker hostels are beyond grim. Rape was commonplace at one of the ones my friend was in. She already had PTSD and her experiences there were so awful, she ended up being admitted to a psych hospital. She was refused refugee status, too - she got 5 years special leave to remain. Her home country is now denying any knowledge of her existence, so she can't get a passport and is effectively stateless.

God knows what will happen when her 5 years is up.

@CherryPavlova*
"The largest number of immigrants are Polish but they are here legally and fought alongside us to free Europe from the horrors of Nazism."
You make them sound so helpful. I think you'll find that we were the really helpful ones who went into Poland to help them out when they were invaded by Germany.

Remember this,,every single person entering this country is competing with you,your children and your grand children for housing,healthcare,school, food,water,energy,jobs and indeed space

Can’t even find the energy to scroll back to find who wrote this pile of toss.
My husband is an immigrant. Unless you, or your children and grandchildren speak his pretty rare language, he’s taken no job from you. He’s been to the gp twice in 11 years, and as for taking up space - well, he’s 5’8. You’ll probably cope

Most importantly for xenophobic people like you, he pays taxes, but he can’t ever claim any benefits for any reason. Ever. So all that nice tax he’s paying -and the majority of other immigrants are paying - goes back into the country, pays for your benefits, your hospitals, your schools.

2018 Figures from the UNHCR: Turkey hosted the largest number of refugees (3.7 million) followed by Pakistan (1.4 million), Uganda (1.2 million), Sudan (1.1 million) and Germany (1.1 million).

There were 1.7 million claims for asylum. The most were received by the US (254,000) followed by Peru (192,500), Germany (161,000), France (114,500) and Turkey (83,800).

According to UNHCR statistics, in 2018 there were 126,072 refugees, 45,244 pending asylum cases and 125 stateless persons in the UK.

Idontwanttotalk

Have a read of this. We helped them. They helped us.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poland-polish-soldiers-help-world-war-two-effort-eu-immigration-a7107701.html%3famp

I'm in the "full up" south-east too. Less than 200 yards from my house, I'm in open countryside and can walk 5 miles before I get to a road. After half a mile, the only houses I can see are in the far distance.

Sounds like the perfect place to concrete over and build a big new estate, @LakieLady. How many houses do you think we could fit on there - 500? 1,000?

Thanks, Ibiza2015. Those links are interesting but don't really explain how our approach is different from other countries

In any event, I wasn't really suggesting that we don't take our fair share. I was mainly trying to debunk the received wisdom that huge numbers of asylum seekers make their way all the way across Europe, spurning all the other major countries on their way, just to fuck over the UK, because it's seen as a soft touch. Because that absolutely ain't what's happening.

I’ve explained multiple times and will do again.

The continental EU has had a policy that asylum is applied for when people have actually physically managed to get to the EU. This means the people who get asylum are the healthiest, wealthiest most ruthless people as they are the only ones who can make the very long, difficult journey. It’s also a system which is hugely open to abuse. At one point in 2015 the UN’s refugee body said only 30% of EU asylum seekers were genuine. Literally anyone who makes it to the EU can apply and even if their claims are bogus they’re almost impossible to deport.

The U.K. has declined to take refugees via that system, it doesn’t want to give asylum on the basis of who can get to Europe because it’s unfair and doesn’t help those most in need.

Instead we have the ‘Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS)’. We bring the neediest and most endangered refugees directly from Syria to the U.K. NGOs in refugee camps tell us who needs asylum the most (sick children, torture or sex slavery victims or persecuted minorities. They never even apply for asylum because we know exactly who they are, where they came from and that their status is genuine. That also means they are never in the limbo of the asylum seekers not allowed to work or have a permanent home. It’s a good system, it’s difficult to abuse it and it is a kinder and less arduous process for the refugees. And most importantly it is targeted at those whose need is greatest.

The U.K. government has also had a position that it seeks to intensively fund and support the camps around Syria and in neighbouring countries because it’s much more cost effective and less dangerous than refugees trying to get to the EU.

It’s a system that has worked really well in practice.

I see people getting in boats in France to get here as people who are abusing and discrediting what is a vital and life saving system. I think that’s morally wrong. However I very, very strongly support our refugee programme via VPRS.

Eliza we could afford to look after the people using food banks too. It is a political decision not to.

Remember the government found £100 million down the back of a sofa to put up “Get Ready for Brexit” ads. There’s money available when they want it to be.

The Tories have been in power for 9 long years now. Please remember their deliberate underfunding of public services and the £1bn promised to the DUP when you vote at the next election.

People think we took loads of asylum seekers during the refugee crisis. We did not. The continental EU did, they are dealing with the (sometimes very serious) fall out from that.

We didn’t. We thought about refugees in a new way and it worked. It worked for the refugees and it worked for the existing communities they entered.

David Cameron is a nob but that’s one thing he did very, very right.

@ Either you failed to pay attention in your history lessons or just want to spout jingoistic nationalist untruths.
Poland was liberated by the Russians not the British.
The Poles has the fourth largest allied army in WW2.
Polish fighter pilots flew in the Battle of Britain and supported a victory.
When Churchill said “Never was so much owed by so many to so few”. It included Polish pilots.

@ Mamamia456 What would I call people who had entered the country illegally? I’d probably call them people who had entered the country illegally. I wouldn’t call them ‘illegals’ which fails to recognise their humanity. The difference is the slippery slope that leads to an acceptance of a sub human underclass that is entirely manipulated by those with nationalism underpinning their value base.

Cherry Pavlova - So an illegal immigrant then.

Infinitely better.

*And don't forget the reason many people speak English as a second language is because we have colonised and exploited most countries on earth.

We should be paying them reparations, never mind just letting a few of them live here.*

FFS

^*And don't forget the reason many people speak English as a second language is because we have colonised and exploited most countries on earth.

We should be paying them reparations, never mind just letting a few of them live here.*

FFS^

Cracking argument, TheStuffedPenguin, really well-made.

Anti-immigrant types are so articulate, don't you find? This thread is so instructive. People making the case for tolerance post facts and arguments, and the other side just come back with 'FFS', 'I can't be bothered arguing with you' etc. etc.

This tells you so, so much.