New EU immigration regulations may lead to deportations

[Mistigri]

Article on new HO regulations concerning the rights of EU citizens in the UK:

www.freemovement.org.uk/briefing-legal-status-eu-citizens-uk/

On the face of it, these new rules would appear to give the HO the right to deport any EU citizen without permanent residency rights, who is not currently exercising treaty rights and who does not have private health insurance. This will include many EU spouses of UK citizens who are not currently working and cannot document a 5 year period during which they exercised treaty rights - regardless of the amount of time they have spent in the UK.

This gives a whole new slant to those HO letters suggesting that EU citizens make plans to leave. Might be time for affected EU citizens to consider legal advice :-/

(Weird and hostile way of opening negotiations with the EU27 over migrants' rights - I am coming to the conclusion that May may actually want the negotiations to fail).

I am really sorry.

Just dropping in to say og my god redpoll. Please stop it

I was hoping for more brexit voters to join in on this thread... perhaps I should be careful what I wish for

RED plenty of refugees do try to go other countries. A lot of them much closer to their home.
If you think that all refugees are trying to come to the uk, you are deluded as to how good the uk looks from the outside.

Btw as an 'immigrant' I can promise that the uk if today is NOT attractive at all.
You might find it's going to be harder and harder to find people to come here to do all the jobs the uk can't fill.

I don't mind a carefull and considered approach to housing refugees (like we currently have). They are fleeing war and terror and therefore I am not opposed to helping.
Another alternative, which is perhaps cheaper and would therefore help more is to provide financial assistance to nearby countries to accommodate more refugees ( with similar values-so less of a culture shock for them)

If we take more refugees we have to ensure that we are able to provide services to them when they arrive. It is true that we are repeatedly hearing that councils are so overstretched that we are unabe to provide these services to our own citizens.

If this is the case then we need to fix that before we can take many more.

Many of the migrants who are being smuggled here are not refugees, but economic migrants and are from a variety of different countries. I do not feel that anyone should be granted permission to stay here if they have willingly passed through several safe countries, with the intention of coming to the uk.

I agree that many housing charities are in receipt of staggering amounts of government ( taxpayer) funding and therefore they are simply an extended form of government assistance.

Btw... if you live in the south of England it is very clear that there are a lot of people who find the uk attractive hence Calais (now demolished) That is very close to home for a lot of people. In my view the people in these camps were not asylum seekers. They had passed straight through several safe places to get there. They were economic migrants and should need to pass the same test as anyone else seeking to live in the uk.

Of course the U.K. will be particularly of interest for some, mainly for reasons mentioned many a time on these threads (already speak the language, have family members here etc etc). However to state that it is ultimate goal for most refugees is just plain daft as well as not taking into account those pesky stats such as the ones I posted earlier regarding where the worlds refugees are being hosted. 6% in Europe if you can't be bothered to look red according to the most recent figure from the UNHCR. And a quick Google will show you where that 6% is shared out. The U.K. is way down the list.

The thing is, of you want to go to a country for its benefit system, the weather and heathcare, you go to France, not the uk.
You will get good weather, good healthcare and a strong benefit system that will not leave 30+% of children living in poverty.

People are coming here because they want to do well, because they want to start something. In effect, to be very involved economically (by starting a business, working etc...). That's what is attracting people to the uk. If you are a self starter, the uk makes it easy to do so (unlike France for example).
Plus a lot of those people actually already have family or friends here which makes it much easier for them to start again with nothing.

I disagree re people in Calais being economic migrants. Will you really say that someone from Afghanistan or Syrian is an economic migrant? Nothing to do with the war, the political regime there etc...?
The problem is that those people at the same time have been robbed during their trip (by whoever is helping making money out of them, that incl passport and any other documents). At the same time, they informed enough to know that having all the documentation doesn't always help either....
In effect, are they real economic migrants? I don't think so. Would they fill the criteria for asylum seekers (which are quite strict btw)? Probably not. What are these people? People displaced by wars and famine and hardship.
Well have to find a way to deal with that type of immigration. But demonising them isn't going to help.

RedAndYellowPeppers

People are coming here because they want to do well, because they want to start something. In effect, to be very involved economically (by starting a business, working etc...). That's what is attracting people to the uk

...

I disagree re people in Calais being economic migrants

Bit of an inconsistency there.

i don't see one.
You can be migrants for a lot of reasons incl war and issue with the plitical regime of your initial country.
AND be the sort of person that want to do well etc...

Why would someone who is escaping war not also be someone who is dynamic and a self starter ??

If you're in Calais with the intention of leaving a safe country like France for the UK, then of course you're an economic migrant. Unless there's some war raging in France that means they can't apply for asylum there?

They are not settled in France, just merely passing through it. The same that they have pass though a lot of other countries before arriving there.

So why would you think that they have to stay there? Or that the country they are coming from suddenly isn't important anymore. (Note: their original country will be critical when they apply for residency as a migrant or an asylum seekers. The fact they went through France will have no impact at all...)

Besides, a lot of migrants do NOT come through Calais at all so really the point is moot.

They were economic migrants who were frequently been offered to settle in a country with good healthcare and benefits and no war. They still wanted to come to the uk.
They are not asylum seekers.

*had frequently

The Dublin agreement used to mean that asylum seekers had to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrived in.

The eu put a stop to that and look at the hideous mess they created. Angela merkel put out a message to the whole world to make them think that they could move to any European country they liked with no questions asked.

She is guilty of damaging the eu beyond feasible repair and risking the lives of innocent families, by encouraging them to take perilous journeys on the back of a promise made by her, which she had no right to give.

They are not settled in France, just merely passing through it. The same that they have pass though a lot of other countries before arriving there.

The whole problem is that they're "passing through" half a dozen safe countries so that they can pick the one they want, which is the definition of economic migration!

thegruffalo I didn't say they were asylum seekers. I actually said it is likely that they would not fill the asylum seekers criteria that are very strict.

I have said that they are not IMO economic migrants either, i.e. people who move just to get a better a job somewhere else.

They have moved because of war and the repressive political regimes of their countries. How are we going to call those people??

Of course this is just about Calais. There are plenty of other immigrants in the uk. And they aren't coming for the benefits or the NHS!!

Re the Dublin agreement.
Seeing that most of those people arrived in the same countries, turkey, Italy, Spain. Are you saying that only those few countries were supposed to share the whole lot of asylum seekers with no input at all from all the others Europeans countries? With the human and economic cost associated with it?
It wasn't a sustainable position. Those cous wouldn't have been able to cope and then what??

If your country is ravaged by war, your first safe country should be where you apply for asylum. It is a responsibility from a moral perspective that every country should provide financial aid to assist with this.

If you want to live somewhere else for economic reasons then you should have to follow the rules that everyone else has to follow.

I am happy that we have taken asylum seekers directly from camps in Syria. That is a different matter entirely. I think we should do this, but only at a rate that is sustainable.

We could change the lives of many more asylum seekers, by financially supporting them in countries where the cost of living is lower.

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06805

Over £2billion has been committed to aid for Syrians and surrounding areas.

I don't think we are that stingy tbh

A lot of the housing being offered is owned or funded by charities, churches, voluntary organisations or individuals

So available housing is now diverted to people from outside the UK and the homeless from the UK is pushed to the back of the queue?