The situation with migrants and illegal immigration

[Gingermakesmesick]

What is the answer?

I would hate to be in the position of making the decision because I hate to think of how desperate the individuals concerned must be.

But I can also quite see that there simply isn't the physical room to allow all of them into the UK, or the resources.

What is the answer? Is there no answer?

It's not just the middle east.

I'm getting confused about what I've posted where. There's another thread
here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2457443-To-be-in-tears-over-the-news-today?

We need equality and democracy across the globe, within countries and within the international system, basically.

I'm not holding my breath.

The French are holding them at the border because we don't want to let them in. Some of the refugees in Calais are waiting from French to process them to stay in France. The French have refugees. IT's not their fault we are refusing to take any.

I couldn't walk past as a fellow human being either but largely that's the problem - decisions have to be made based on economics and space not humanity.

After all, with the best will in the world, is there room for the whole of Syria in the UK and france?

Sigh

6% of Syrian refugees head for Europe.

Most are in border countries.

No need to sigh Ubik; I'm happy to be informed. I don't know much about the situation which is why I posted here.

Ok

Fair enough.
Most are in Turkey and Lebanon.

There is not a mass conspiracy to come to the UK. Most people would not make such a dangerous journey. But some are desperate enough.

ginger here are some facts and figures for last year:

www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

And here some info on UK asylum.

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum?gclid=CIbU0ISr0ccCFUSVGwodMSAE4A

The UK over centuries has an excellent record of granting asylum and allowing in migrants for hundreds of years.

THE FACT IS since the 2000’s our NET immigration figure is far higher than the 1990’s and in the UK, over that decade, the demand for social housing went from 1 million families to close to 1.9 million families (around 5 million individuals) – and current the best we can do is hold it there.

July 2014; ”1.9 Million Families On The Housing Waiting List”
www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/housing-waiting-list

”1,843,992 Families In England And Scotland On Council Housing Waiting List As Average House Prices Are Now Between 5.8 And 6.3 Times Median Earnings”

So people please tell me where the UK will give asylum seekers a UK home, that we are not CURRENTLY offering to the UK’s indigenous poor?

The economically stronger UK within the Eurozone has become the magnet for EU workers seeking a new life, and while we stay in the EU with no ability to control the flows of EU, we have no control over whether that increases yet further for YEARS to come.

WE are building 145,000 new homes a year, annual net migration currently around 330,000 is similar to 2004/5 levels DUE to the strength of our economy/more liberal employment laws versus the Eurozone so that IS likely to continue.

If Europe will not let us restrict OUR borders to EU citizen, then let a citizen ‘hollowed out’ Europe parking their jobless here, TAKE all those seeking asylum, as we PHYSICALLY cannot do both – this (Asylum Seekers MINUS available homes DIVIDED by available jobs) surely isn’t difficult equation to understand - it does not add up, even to the ‘let everyone in’ brigade.

How do other countries house them? turkey? Germany? I'm guessing they didn't have hundreds of empty houses stood waiting

Can we look at other accomadation maybe?

Macadaamia ... Here is the UK versus Germany stats, they have more space per citizen and a few years back that the difference of a few percent of home building on available land in Germany’s favour, made the difference between the UK lack of homes and their apparent enough.
www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/united-kingdom.germany

Migrant labour is not new to Germany, they actively encouraged it via Turkey from the 1960’s, and have, if memory serves, a formal agreement between the German central bank and the Turkish central bank allowing repatriated money free flowing to Turkey, via the Dresdner bank.

www.spiegel.de/international/germany/turkish-immigration-to-germany-a-sorry-history-of-self-deception-and-wasted-opportunities-a-716067.html

In the UK on the other hand, coming up to 2004, we were being told by politicians ’18,000 or so’ could be coming here, so a few million later, we were totally unprepared.

In Turkey itself, officially secular, but with over 90% Muslim and having their own problems, I’d suggest having already taking in around 1 million Syrians since 2011 as ‘guests’ with temporary accomadation, we can’t expect much more help from there.

Here is a suggestion, the non alcohol Muslim refugees could settle in Russia, the land of indigenous depression, cirrhosised livers, and weak little swimmers (sperm).

”Alcohol and suicide to halve crisis-hit Russian population”
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4537989.ece

”Russia’s population is forecast to almost halve within a generation as deaths from suicide and alcoholism escalate and the birthrate falls against a background of economic decline.”

”The number of Russians could shrink from 143.5 million to 80 million by 2050 unless the government takes urgent action, according to Yury Krupnov, the head of the Institute for Demography, Migration and Regional Development.”

Just as long as they are not gay, Putin should welcome them with open arms.

Yes, Isitmebut, the UK is a very rich country.

Richer than many of the countries taking in far more refugees, even though it slightly inconveniences them. We have an obligation to help them, because they are humans, and so are we. Other countries have their own problems too and are not bragging about their 'strong economies' but they still have more refugees.

Here's an article on how Germany are coping with their influx, Macadaamia.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/welcome-european-country-takes-1000-6259155

We'd need to take in 600k this year to match Germany for % of population. I understand Cameron is proposing we take none of them.

The UK does not compare well, especially considering the strong economy Osbourne and other Tories are always harping on about.

We are not doing our bit and we do not have a particularly good record.

wafflyversatile ... what makes you think that the UK is a rich country, an economy currently growing at twice Europe's does not make us 'rich' - we have a £70 billion annual government overspend, £1.6 trillion of accumulating national debt, and have a State UNFUNDED Pension & Public Sector Pension liability of another £1.1 trillion on top of that.
www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

The UK has an excellent record over centuries of welcoming those from other countries for what ever reason, but have a home shortage of around 1 million going back to the early 2000's.

So I don't give a flying fart what Germany is doing, the UK has a net 330,000 official increase in citizens each year, god knows how many more refugees getting in illegally and a 145,000 current home builds.

Is there a housing crisis in Germany, as if not, why the comparison?

So answer me, why do you not care about the current 1.9 million families already here struggling to get housed as surely it is obvious letting more refugees in without being on top of their problem, will only make THEIR problem worse??????

It does not cost anyone to let desolate refugees in, to live in basic safe shelter with access to food banks.
You are making it out to be an economic disaster, when the disaster is humanitarian.

Bring up the strength of the UK economy when it suits you, then bring up the weakness of the UK economy when it suits you.

"It does not cost anyone to let desolate refugees in"

Why are you putting them up in your gaff, schooling them and paying for all the services they use - or will that be the socialist money/housing tree being shaken again?

The strength/restructuring of the UK economy since 2010 is mentioned as a means to get our selves OUT of the worst recession in over 80-years and ALL the problems it caused after 13-years of spending incompetence.

Supporting who you do, I'd be more worried WHY we spent £trillions in the best decade for a century (1997-2007) to shape UK society how we wanted it, and STILL left all those families IN THE UK needing a home and better services.

Why are you suddenly pretending to care about the poor in this country. Your posts are usually devoid of any such concern. Usually they are about what we can't afford any succour to the poor.

We are one of the richest nations. That governments choose to enrich a few at the expense of the many. That they mismanage the country's wealth is not the fault of the indigenous poor people or refugees. And again if poorer nations have to bear some burden then so should the UK.

Yor claims of poverty for the UK ring as hollow as me pleading poverty because by the time I've paid the mortgage on our 6 bedroom house,the school fees a half decent holiday to Martinique, my accountant and stabling I'm absolutely in my uppers with no money for British charities never mind for foreigners.

Indeed.
"I can't afford to help all these forriners, I just got a new yaught"

(not making light of the situation though, apologies)

Wafflyversatile … clearly you don’t READ my posts, as the majority of my posts are on the pee poor record of a socialist government helping ‘the people’ and blaming the new administration for THEIR incompetence AND the financial state of this country having had a socialist government massively increased government spending/debt during the good years, to an unsustainable level.

The UK has the 5th largest economy in the world, around the 17th largest gold reserves in the world and NONE OF THAT means we have enough homes in the UK for the indigenous population – never mind the annual net INCREASE in our population – as the UK allows the poor within the rich and poorest EU nations, to come here as a condition of EU membership.

Has it escaped you attention that there are far richer per capita nations than the UK WITHIN THE MIDDLE EAST with loads of land they can reclaim if currently not enough, where the transition on social and religious customs, will be no problem at all for either the new home or refugee?

I know the Labour government indirectly supported the Assad regime in Syria when Cameron wanted to stop President Assad killing and forcing his own people out of the Syrian towns and cities, but why not put pressure on a Russia who has a demographic time bomb AND supports Syrians, well its dictators anyway.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/26/assad-confident-of-russian-support-for-syria-regime

Angela Merkel/Germany's response has been amazing. I'm ashamed to be British right now. What a bunch of NIMBYs we are, all "me me me". Disgusting.

I guess you are not one of the 1.9 million UK households waiting for Social Housing or other longer term accommodation saying "why me, why me, why me".

Say we make a the usual token gesture and allow 10,000 families in, out of hundreds of thousands, having already welcomed hundreds of thousands of the mostly poorest EU citizens.

WHO is going to tell those any of those 10,000 UK families who are now at the 'front' of the queue after several years, 'sorry, the Middle East rich countries cannot solve their own problems, so YOU lose YOUR chance for a firm base to build YOUR life'?

If we had the homes, why not, but we don't, so when will UK pragmatism looking after UK indigenous citizens trump we always hear sooooo much about at election times by socialists, trump some ideological need to provide jobs and homes to the rest of the world?

P.S. Especially when SOME of those rich Middle East countries FINANCED ISIS to form a caliphate straddling Syria and Irag, so therefore directly responsible for many of the 11-13 million Syrians displaced, internally and externally.

Interesting that 1,843,992 people are currently awaiting housing. Especially when you equate that to the 1,617,961 people in the U.K who declared they have a second home in the last Census.... (Excluding buy-to-let additional properties)

Clearly your statement about 'if we had the homes, why not? But we dont' isnt quite Accurate is it?

We DO have the homes. We just allow wealthier citizens to buy them and leave them empty for large amounts of time.

Yvette cooper talking out the back of her neck again. Ten families per council. I'm sure they won't be fetching up to live in a leafy suburb anywhere near her or mr Balls . They won't affect her job, or kids school place

"but too many appear to be simply economic migrants instead"

what makes them appear to be?
This is just lazy labeling probably straight from the daily Mail.

They are people.

I'd like to ask where any of us would run to if we were in their position? Ireland? Iceland? Where would you go?

"for the indigenous population"

Which is who exactly?