Asylum seekers in small boats.

[randomer]

What is so dreadful about France that somebody would put unaccompanied children in a dingy and send them to England? I just can't begin to imagine what is going on. Is it a brutal regime in other European countries?

I should add that this isn't some racist rant. I understand that England and English is a draw for many, they may have relatives here and so on.

The ignorance and prejudice on this thread is horrendous. So depressing.

I am not obsessed at all . I just think we are a bit crowded and also a lot of people are dying crossing the channel and giving far to much money to traffickers.

On the who many came this year so far as said about the Guardian and BBC put it at 4000 and I thought I read 5000. I am not sure we know exactly as those figures are probably those the police caught rather than everyone who crossed the channel as some presumably get through with no one noticing.

There are asylum seekers, and there are economic migrants. Those who are seeking asylum and have arrived in a country such as France who then treat them abysmally and attempt to enter the UK as a result I have absolutely every sympathy for. Those who are looking for a better life (understandably so), believe the UK can offer them this and thus decide to circumvent the immigration system (not that I necessarily agree with the current system) I'm afraid I have little sympathy for.

“ The problem is the numbers and over a short period - 16m more people plus another 1m illegal non registered people - here since I was born is a fair bit and that is not all due to those here when I was born having lots of children although some will be due to that.” @Xenia where did you get your figure of 1 million illegal non-registered people here?

Many generations living here have contributed financially to this country through taxation and NI for things such as healthcare and services. it’s hard to quantify though isn’t it? How much and what people have contributed, I mean. For example many colonies have contributed massively the the wealth of our nation, then there’s slaves and of course more recently the huge numbers of migrants propping up the NHS for example. I don’t think we CAN assume that our wealth and position is independently created.

Yes true there is an element of that to consider, but surely it gets to a point when we have indirectly recompensed for our colonial past by having colonised nations emigrate here and have been given housing and a better life etc

This argument cannot go on forever plus I still think a lot of the working classes had a terrible time here - think of the hymn Jerusalem, the dark satanic milks

I think it’s far easier to just accept all people are worthy than try to create and then justify hierarchies.

For me creed/colour/culture are something to support rather than fear. So that is less of an issue. I truly believe we should provide sanctuary to those fleeing horror and that we have much to offer.

I truly believe we should provide sanctuary to those fleeing horror and that we have much to offer.

So my question is why not accept them directly from refugee camps where you can make assessments as to the neediest cases? You can prioritise women, religious minorities, elderly, families with young children, etc.

@Xenia

I am not obsessed at all . I just think we are a bit crowded and also a lot of people are dying crossing the channel and giving far to much money to traffickers.

On the who many came this year so far as said about the Guardian and BBC put it at 4000 and I thought I read 5000. I am not sure we know exactly as those figures are probably those the police caught rather than everyone who crossed the channel as some presumably get through with no one noticing.

And yet ONS says very clearly less than 2,000

Does anyone have a postive tale to tell?

I have a friend who was an asylum seeker and has just passed his GCSE English with a good grade. I cannot begin to tell you what he has overcome to achieve this.

CherryPavlova - both The Guardian and the BBC have reported that 1,900 migrant boat arrivals was in 2019. Just over 5,000 migrant boat arrivals is the number so far for 2020.

Cherry, I thought ONS data was last year - the 2000 and this year the BBC and Guardian estimate at 4000 and others at 5000?

I don't want more to die. I am sure 100% of people on this thread want to stop the Channel crossings as they are so very dangerous whether you want more people in the UK or not.

So my question is why not accept them directly from refugee camps where you can make assessments as to the neediest cases? You can prioritise women, religious minorities, elderly, families with young children, etc. has anyone suggested this is a BAD idea?

Xenia - you might be right. 2020 figures aren't yet published so nobody can be certain but national press is reporting more.

Nobody wants them dying in channel - apart from CNN reporters and a certain senior politician who filmed them but didn't assist.

There is no way that it would be possible to ascertain 'the neediest' from a refugee camp, the scale of the camps is just too vast. The critieria would be impossible to determine with any accuracy at all. The neediest at the time are probably those in a blow up pvc dinghy in the busy shipping lanes of the channel.

These are people. Sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, desperate people who have already completed a fairly perilous journey,
Many most) are not paying people traffickers. Many are just desperate to get to England and begin a hopefully better life.

I think if there were safer ways to get here people would take them. If it was safer at home people would stay. If people could work while they waited for their status to be rubber stamped they would.
Blaming the victims is ridiculous and unjust. Demonising them even worse.

There is no way that it would be possible to ascertain 'the neediest' from a refugee camp, the scale of the camps is just too vast

This is how the US does their refugee intakes and they do have a vetting process. The scale is vast, but if you know the numbers of visas you can give it, you can prioritise certain classes: women, religious minorities, LGBT, elderly, etc etc.

The neediest at the time are probably those in a blow up pvc dinghy in the busy shipping lanes of the channel

The neediest happen to be young men? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Many most) are not paying people traffickers. Many are just desperate to get to England and begin a hopefully better life

Do you have a source for this?

@MangoFeverDream

There is no way that it would be possible to ascertain 'the neediest' from a refugee camp, the scale of the camps is just too vast

This is how the US does their refugee intakes and they do have a vetting process. The scale is vast, but if you know the numbers of visas you can give it, you can prioritise certain classes: women, religious minorities, LGBT, elderly, etc etc.

The neediest at the time are probably those in a blow up pvc dinghy in the busy shipping lanes of the channel

The neediest happen to be young men? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Many most) are not paying people traffickers. Many are just desperate to get to England and begin a hopefully better life

Do you have a source for this?

No, plenty of young children in Sangatte.

I’d not hold the USA up as a positive example of anything related to asylum. The number of refugees admitted to the states has fallen significantly under current administration.
Refugee resettlement numbers per capita also differ across countries. The U.S. resettled about 70 refugees for every million of its own residents in 2018, lower than the rate in many other nations. Canada led the world on this measure by resettling 756 refugees per million residents. Australia (510), Sweden (493) and Norway (465) also had much higher resettlement figures per million than the U.S.

The largest camp in Kenya has around 200, 000 refugees. The conditions are harsh and worsening. Malnutrition is ever present. Infection is ever present. Surprisingly and as testament to their determination, many young people outperform other Kenyan children academically.

Currently there are around there are now over 1,500 people living in the forests in Northern France. Almost 200 of these are unaccompanied children. The number of women is such that the Women’s Refugee Centre in Calais needs 39 workers to support female survivors who have experienced horrific journeys to reach northern France.

Many do not apply in France because they don’t get accommodation. They have face police brutality or simply want the U.K. because of the language.

An interesting read www.antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/media/1262/nobody-deserves-to-live-this-way.pdf

Many have also spent years travelling around Europe being denied asylum, and being moved on by other countries. They inevitably end up at the "end", UK is the last possible stop.

The answer would be to increase the amount of visas, not look the other way and allow irregular crossings. That’s my point. You can’t ‘save’ them all but you can make a big difference for those selected from the camps.

Many have also spent years travelling around Europe being denied asylum, and being moved on by other countries. They inevitably end up at the "end", UK is the last possible stop

If they haven’t been given asylum in another European country, there’s probably a good reason for it (i.e. they are not refugees or their stories don’t check out).

When the Uk was in the Eu and probably today too we gave more than any other nation to people in camps fleeing Syria and had a scheme to get them here - women and children of course not just the loads of economic migrant young African men who tend to have more strength to get here than others.

I am not sure why UK is last stop. Surely Ireland is even further out West?

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

Personally I favour the 'take a naval vessel to France and pick up all those who want to come.

Park a 3 or 4 super tankers in the channel in international waters.. and use that as a processing centre to sort those with a genuine claim for asylum..

I like this idea because it hits the traffickers across the channel in the pocket.

It's probably an idea fraught with holes.. but I hate those who make money out of human desperation.

The division between someone fleeing for their political views for fear of death and those economic migrants fearing death from starvation is not so different. They will both be dead if they stay where they are.

The real solution is to educate at source. To educate that corruption in governments leads to economic disaster. To educate the people fleeing here to make their home 'like here'.. but that stinks if colonialism.. to some. For me it is the only solution.. because the end game will be, everyone 'here' and no one 'there' ..

You’re right. We need to improve these countries. Or they do. Can they? 64000 dollar question.

You’ll never erase the pull factors, you have get rid of the push factors.

@Xenia

When the Uk was in the Eu and probably today too we gave more than any other nation to people in camps fleeing Syria and had a scheme to get them here - women and children of course not just the loads of economic migrant young African men who tend to have more strength to get here than others.

I am not sure why UK is last stop. Surely Ireland is even further out West?

I'm pretty certain we didn't give more than any other nation. Prior to Trump taking over control, the USA was the biggest donor but this has reduced. The EU, Kuwait and Canada all outstrip the aid given by the UK. Currently Turkey hosts the most Syrian refugees. There are 5.5 million Syrians living as refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The EU has recently launched a $375 million aid fund for Turkey to support their million refugees by providing an aid debit card for them to regain some control over their lives. On the scale of global crisis and human movement, the people arriving in the UK by boat are barely noticeable. There are plenty of women and children in Sangette waiting to reach UK to claim asylum.

Yes, Ireland is further west. However, in all fairness, the UK has probably contributed vastly more historically and recently to the availability of weapons and training thereof in the middle east. Iraq, Yemen via Saudi training etc. So, while Ireland do take refugees on humanitarian grounds, they haven't been involved in creating the historical context or in the current provision of arms and associated training. Therefore it is probably more fitting the UK are proportionately more involved in extending a humanitarian hand to people fleeing those very areas where they have lent a 'helping hand', directly or indirectly.

www.middleeasteye.net/news/revealed-britains-secret-arms-sales-middle-east-human-rights-abusers

CheryPavlova, there was a very interesting programme by Simon Reeve on the Refugee camps in Turkey. Despite EU finding, they only seem to have Turkish flags up and the people there believe the humanitarianism is all down to Turkey and Erdogan. This is not true, of course, and their situation for a future is not great in Turkey. I don't think they can get citizenship in the normal way as their status means their stay does not count towards naturalisation. Only in exceptional circumstances.

Sorry, I meant in the EU. I got myself into knots because the UK has left the EU. David Cameron was involved in setting it up. Our plan as someone said would be be a good idea (and the UK in fact is already doing it) was to target Syrians in the camps and bring some people here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913. I think I remember a report of a group of Syrians going to a Scottish island probably under that scheme.