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?

Important clarification to make.

These are the countries taking the most Syrian refugees

We need to look at the bigger picture. People are struggling in this country to make ends mean because of austerity measures and cuts that affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. Meanwhile, there are houses for sale in London for £50M. We're one of the richest countries in the world. We could easily help everyone who needs it (british citizens/migrants/refugees/people) but we have our priorities wrong. It makes me despair for humanity really. What is wrong with us?

Agree with futforbaby.

It is all about priorities. £500million proposed for trident/no money in the pot for poor and disabled citizens.

'Housing crisis'/ over 1.5million homes empty or second homes.

MPs with two homes because they choose to represent a constituancy they dont live in or even near?! (totally dont get that!)

Housing/NHS/school places/GP appointment waiting times/benefit cuts etc. Immigration is not the cause of these problems. Our priorities are out of synch.

We dont 'own' this land, we just live on it and by accident of birth. Why cant we help other human beings that need it? Its not 'ours' to refuse surely?

GasStreet: it's always useful to see the law, but beyond the legal, there is the vernacular. I believe the term asylum-seeker has become irredeemably tainted through the efforts of those opposed to granting asylum (eg some tabloids). I think that many many people are now automatically negatively disposed to someone who is described as an asylum seeker. So I prefer to use the term refugee: even if it is less legally accurate, it does not have those same connotations.

I cannot express how sad it makes me to contrast the treatment of current refugees with the treatment of my three grandparents who fled the Nazis and came to the UK. They were taken in by strangers, literally: they fed, clothed, sheltered and taught to speak English by people they did not know. So few of us would do that now. I am going to speak to my DP about this and see if we can do something ourselves. I wonder if there will be a UK equivalent to this:
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/icelanders-call-on-government-to-take-in-more-syrian-refugees

I'm a first generation Economic Migrant by the way

Marigold, while I agree with the main thrust of your sentiment, MPs don't have two homes because they come from place A and represent place B. They have two homes because they represent place B and need to stay in London to go to Parliament!

The last part of what you said reminds me of the famous Rousseau quote:
hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/jean-jacques-rousseau-the-first-man-having-fenced-in-a-piece-of-land-said-this-is-mine-and-found-people-naive-enough-to-believe-him-that-man-was-the-true-founder-of-civil-society-from-ho.jpg

Is there anything we - and I mean Mumsnetters - can do?

We need to help these desperate people but how?

thehyp
Force Theresa May and David Cameron to change UK Law so that those already here can work and contribute from the day they arrive
and
allow at least 30,000 in and get them contributing.

France managed to take 100,000 Vietnamese in the 70's without collapsing after all

Is there a petition you can to link to?

(Click-activist)

Politicians love petitions :
people click them thinking they have achieved something
and then the politicians still do what they were going to do.

Emails directly to them make a difference

"We need to look at the bigger picture. People are struggling in this country to make ends mean because of austerity measures and cuts that affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. Meanwhile, there are houses for sale in London for £50M. We're one of the richest countries in the world. We could easily help everyone who needs it (british citizens/migrants/refugees/people) but we have our priorities wrong. It makes me despair for humanity really. What is wrong with us?"

Maybe you are looking at the distorted ‘picture’ you want to see?

Apparently there isn’t much wrong with us based on all those global rich or poor who want to live here – and just think how many more people in the Eurozone are struggling with TWICE our unemployment rate.

When a UK increases annual government spending by over 50% from 20001 on a an unreformed fat State on the tax proceeds of a financial bubble, and when the bubble bursts our government is overspending in 2010 by £153 billion a year, cutting it back is not austerity, its cutting our national financial cloth back to where it was pre financial bubble.

Homes for sale for £50 million anywhere in the world isn’t an issue other than for the jealous, as doesn’t negatively affect anyone, other than the tax receipts from Stamp Tax etc.

Why do people keep saying that we are one of the richest countries in the world, does our £2.7 trillion of National Debt and unfunded national pension liabilities not count in your world, and the fact its taken us 5-years to get our annual government overspend down to where socialist France had theirs in 2010, shows just how bad it was – the largest overspend in Europe and in our peace time history.

As the 5th largest economy, but hold around the 17th largest gold reserves in the world, thanks to socialism selling the family silver to finance their fat bloated State, we can’t even flog gold to build homes.

There's a petition here thehyp

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2458048-Britain-needs-to-do-more-with-the-Mediterranean-Refugee-crisis

Prob more on change.org

The "spare" or second homes have been with us for decades, the 1.7 million families from that Shelter report on the previous page were with us in 2009.

How is that relevant to the Syrian situation, when wasn't relevant to our indigenous (melting pot) of citizens needing homes throughout the 2000's when the population increased by around 3 million citizens over a very short time?

Why hasn't anyone answered the question why the seriously rich Middle East nations with an insatiable need for imported labour can''t take most of the Syrians as we as EU Members have taken in so many of the poor of Europe from rich and poor nations?

The refugees would not have to risk their lives using people traffickers and dodgy boats to get to Europe.

The 100,000 Vietnamese someone is impressed with France for taking would be a piece of piss compared with the millions we have taken in over the last 15-years, with no break.

isitme
The second homes and empty homes issue is relevant because the UK is unusual in developed countries in that there is no "Land Tax" which penalises those who keep homes empty.

In London, the Council Tax on a £50,000,000 home in Kensington is £2124.66
www.rbkc.gov.uk/council-tax/band-values-and-charges
THe land taxes on the same value property in Manhattan is around $150,000 a year

just think how many homes and services could be provided if the super rich were maid to pay an appropriate charge on their property investments

TalkinPeace ... what is the Stamp Tax that cannot be avoided under Osborne on properties over £1.5 million, 12%?

isitme
Stamp duty is only when the property changes hands, not every year
so all of the ones who have been sold are scott free.

Its insane that the rates bill on a £50 million pound mansion in Kensington is the same as on a town house in Folkestone

AND that there is no penalty for keeping property empty and thus adding to the housing shortage / housing benefit bill / strain on councils

12% of £50 million would empty an awful lot of bins and pay for services.

Every country has their 'hot spots', as does every major city in the UK, but whether a property is worth 1 million or £50 million, it makes no difference as long as taxes are paid.

Isitme.

Here is your answer. The seriously rich ME countries can and should take in many more refugees. They should also stop funding extremism and it would also be quite good if Saudi Arabia finally allowed women to drive. And we should pressure them to do all that. But they are run by a bunch of arseholes and that means they won't do it. So what are we going to do in the meantime? Watch all those refugees die? Sadly, the answer seems to be, yes. Sadder still, you seem to be content with that line of argument: if the rich people nearby won't help, you don't want us to help either.

It's okay. You don't need to worry. The message that Britain is a hostile, stubbornly difficult country to enter is already spreading and many many migrants are expressing a preference for other countries instead. The ones who want to come to Britain usually do because they have relatives there.

Well done. So proud. Passport control when I come back is just a joke, it is so, so embarrassing.

Its insane that the rates bill on a £50 million pound mansion in Kensington is the same as on a town house in Folkestone"

The Council Tax over 13-years of a socialist government that went up on average over 105% on a group 'D' property on average affected the poor more than worrying about the cost of a home paying the top rate of Council Tax for the same bin collections etc as a group 'D' property.

HomeHelp ..... without all the socialist bollocks on second homes, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT THEM when we have 1.9 million families NOW waiting for social homes??????

It really is THAT simple.

"I think that many many people are now automatically negatively disposed to someone who is described as an asylum seeker. So I prefer to use the term refugee: even if it is less legally accurate, it does not have those same connotations."

I can understand your reasoning homehelp, but are all of those unhappy people trying to get into Europe refugees by your definition?
The problem with all being referred to as refugees is that it will, in short order, cause the same problems you describe with the term "asylum seeker"

"They were taken in by strangers, literally: they fed, clothed, sheltered and taught to speak English by people they did not know. So few of us would do that now."

Or could I would suggest.
I know I cannot. I can barely feed myself and I know many others who are in the same boat.
We could ask the question though?

How many of those on this thread would be wiling or able to take in a "refugee"?

Isitme: If we managed it during WW2 for my grandparents and many hundreds of thousands of others, we could manage it today, by putting people up in our own homes. However, we could not manage it without affecting our own standards of comfort. So we almost certainly won't, and they'll almost certainly die. I find no solace in this.

GasStreet: while many millions of families could not put someone up, many other millions of families do have the resources to do this. But hardly anyone will.