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?

Marigold76 .... so what are you suggesting, put all second home owners up against the wall for the State to take back those homes and allow refugees in, and when will that happen by?

Does it matter where those homes are, and how much they cost to rent, or are you telling me those homes are in the armpits of the UK and come for next to nothing?

I think you'll find that Shelters report after a decade of UK plenty is closer to the TRUE state of the whole UK housing market and clearly there are over 180,000 more families needing homes now - so the trend is not the UK homeless friend.

Shelter (2009); The housing crisis in numbers.
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis.

• Over 1.7 million households (around 5 million individuals) are currently waiting for social housing
• 7.4 million homes in England fail to meet the Government's Decent Homes Standard
• 1.4 million children in England live in bad housing. [3]
• In 2008/09, 654,000 households in England were overcrowded. [4]

• The number of new households is increasing faster than the number of house builds

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

Ireland and Iceland is a lot closer to me than the UK is to the Middle East, when the likes of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the seven emirates making up the United Arab Emirates that FINANCED Sunni Muslim ISIS, could allow in the Sunni Muslim Syrians being chased our of Syria by Assad and ISIS - rather than employ half the Indian sub-continent to service their quite small indigenous populations e.g. if a citizen of Saudi Arabia, you're 'kin indigenous to it.

"for the indigenous population"

"Which is who exactly?"

Who is that, in the UK those already there, don't try and get smart bull-squirt with me and insinuate a poster is racist when OUR PROBLEM is so great and is my main point - as its not as if we are a closed society as a member of the EU - and as have no control over our borders that pressure on housing could continue.

I agree to an extent squidzin.

I think we should take responsibility globally, rather than as individual countries.

No doubt that will not happen though, even though more people can easily raise a country's GDP.

Arguably, it is mainly Saudi Arabian money that finance ISIS. Not sunni muslims in their entirety.

And stop calling ISIS Sunni Muslims because that is Islamophobic.

A small minority of Sunni Muslims support ISIS.

ISIS is a military regime that forces civilians to join or be killed. They are not Muslims in any recognisable form.

Just so we're on track.

*above post to Isit

Bush and Blair destabilised the Middle East. I hate to agree with Yvette Cooper but, as she has said today, if every town took in 10 refugees it would make a massive difference.

I do find a certain irony amongst the 'compassionate' on here and on my fb feed.

In recent months all I've heard from them is that UK poverty is very real, people are starving, the gvt will be bringing back workhouses etc.

Now the narrative has changed to we're so rich, we have plenty to spare, we're all mollycoddled westerners who have never known suffering.

Which is it? Do we have loads to spare or are large numbers of UK children living in real poverty?

"Which is it? Do we have loads to spare or are large numbers of UK children living in real poverty?"

families, children and individuals in this country have seen massive unnecessary cuts made to their benefits, resources and community support. This is REAL but you may not think so because presumably it doesn't effect you.

Similarly hundreds of thousands of people from other parts of the world are displaced, homeless and starving and need our help which clearly you don't think is real either because it doesn't effect you.

The fact that you think people should care about one or the other, while you care about neither speaks volumes about the Privilege you clearly enjoy.

Meanwhile, thankfully there are people who actually do give a shit.

No, Morris.

The narrative is the same. Global poverty is real. Poverty in the uk is real.

The top 10% wealthiest have taken everything for themselves. They need to give it back.

There is enough land/property/wealth being hoarded by a small minority to end Global poverty.

No im not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that we DO have the space (and not necessarily all for refugees) so your point about us not having the homes was factually incorrect.
It is quite revolting that there are millons of people homeless and millions of homes locked up and empty for large amounts of the year.
Im sure it matters where the homes are for the locals who cannot find a home near their families but no, nationally it does not matter.

The links are interesting, thanks. Although both figures regarding children living in poor accomodation and those failing to meet decent homes standards are not part of the lack of homes crisis, they are directly the responsibility of the landlords who fail to keep the properties up to a decent standard while pocketing the income.

I dont disagree that the housing requirements are outstripping the building of new homes either. All that said, It still seems to me that 'we' (as a society) have the means to house the majority of our current homeless but we dont. 'We' either offer substandard accommdation for a princley sum (because hey, you're not in a position to refuse it') or just sit back, and say 'sorry but they just dont exist' when they patently do.
The 'we're full up' argument has been proven time and again to be incorrect but it still gets rolled out every time.

squidzin ... are you playing on here with a full deck, or is this just a rather pathetic attempt to make me out racist/Islamophobic?

*What are ISIS if NOT mainly Sunni Muslims; Shia Muslims or Christians?????????????

A lot of wealth within those rich Arab countries were financing ISIS from the beginning, under the noses of the Royal Families/governments, so who knows how far up the internal food chain their support came from.

The Sunni Muslims of ISIS are Islamist and a serious threat to the civilised world.

The Sunni Syrians, mostly moderates, would obviously not be subject to religious persecution in countries I went out of my way to know were ALL Sunni established royal families/governments - so could practice their faith more comfortably than in Europe.

Oh and just so we are on track;

No one can call me racist, as I worked for multi cultural companies for years, I chose the Middle East to earn a living for at least a decade with frequent travel meeting many interesting people I called friends - and sent my children to an international school.

Put that in your hubbly-bubbly and smoke it.

isn't it nice when people manage to have a reasonable debate without throwing insults, shouting and getting all knicker-twisty - it always makes the discussion so much clearer. After all - people are so much more likely to take 'facts' and 'information' on board when it's delivered in a measured and calm way.

Some of her best friends are multi-cultural.

No one can call me racist, as I worked for multi cultural companies for years, I chose the Middle East to earn a living for at least a decade with frequent travel meeting many interesting people I called friends - and sent my children to an international school.

Who is calling you racist?

To re-iterate. ISIS is a military regime. Do not confuse it with religious faith.

I don't know why they don't stay where they are and fight for their country. otherwise these terrorists win.

If theyre strong enough to travel, they can fight.

In WW" did aeveryone here leave the country as it was being bombed left right and centre? No. we stayed and fought for our freedom and our country.

Im not saying we shouldn't have them but why the hell do they give up so easily?

and why cant the rest of the world help? why is Europe such a sitting duck?

or send the troops in from all the rest of the world to help them stay there.

and there are geunuine asylum seekers and then there are opportunists, the Calais lot for example.

*dispute your

"Who is calling you racist?"

Anyone without a dictionary and has to ask what the indigenous population means when quite clear in what context being used.

Anyhoo ... moving on.

Confiscate the phones to impede communication with the traffickers. Obv they will provide more, but it will disrupt the trafficking network. And repeat.

I thought by questioning the term indigenous population the poster was referring to the UK as a melting pot of nationalities - ie, there is no homogenous group of people who can be referred to as the indigenous population. I think you're getting you knickers into a knot over nothing.

Let them in.
Let them work.
Do not give them benefits.
Those who have no the skills to work here should move to countries that need their abilities.

Stopping asylum seekers from working is just stupid.

The ones who are bright enough and organised enough to get here should contribute to our economy.

When they have money they will either send it home or go home once things settle down

eg many of the first wave of Poles have gone back and bought businesses with their cash and links to western Europe.

The UK has half a million empty homes
and over 1 million homes that are not lived in full time
let alone the tens of thousands of under occupied homes (rich folks in 7 bedroom houses mainly)

AND
the UK is crying out for more
teachers
nurses
bricklayer
plumbers
junior doctors

and if the people from the middle east have those skills, we are idiots not to use them

For clarity (and probably MN discussion), by international convention a "refugee" is defined as " a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution"

An asylum seeker is defined by the UN as follows (though national differences occur) "Asylum seekers are people who move across borders in search of protection, but who may not fulfil the strict criteria laid down by the 1951 Convention. Asylum seeker describes someone who has applied for protection as a refugee and is awaiting the determination of his or her status. Refugee is the term used to describe a person who has already been granted protection. Asylum seekers can become refugees if the local immigration or refugee authority deems them as fitting the international definition of refugee."

A migrant is defined as (UN again)
"The term 'migrant' in article 1.1 (a) should be understood as covering all cases where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual concerned, for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention of an external compelling factor."

I'm not nit picking here. With such an emotive subject it is wise to get the definitions plainly stated to avoid unnecessary conflict between posters