Illegal immigration - what to do?

papaoscar are you talking about illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. There is a huge difference you know, it's not illegal to seek asylum.

How desperate must you be to try to sail from Africa to Italy or Greece? The village I was in Greece recently just had 450 African's arrive on their tiny beach.
I agree with Hollydaze that the countries from which people are fleeing need to make changes, but the evidence seems to be that the opposition is going to be met with brutal force. Asylum seekers from Africa and Syria spring immediately to mind. I have a bit of experience of working with African asylum seekers, and will never forget the 7 year old girl who had seen her dad murdered because he supported the opposition in the country she, her mother, and brothers had managed to escape from. It's important to remember those desperate folks in Calais are all human beings and anxiety about pressure on services, loss of culture etc which are felt throughout Europe, shouldn't stop us hanging on to our humanity.

People throughout history have challenged the ruling classes who, historically, have cared little about the ordinary citizen. It takes the ordinary citizen to bring about change. The Rochdale Pioneers spring to mind and they changed shopping for pure, unadulterated food forever and brought nutrition to people at a price they could afford. Sometimes, you have to have the initiative and the will to change things; without it, things will remain just as they are.

How long before one of those "desperate folks at Calais" mugged an unsuspecting traveller? They are not all saints. And yes, desperation can bring desperate measures. However, ordinary people have to be protected.

We cannot take all humanity's ills on our shoulders. Only some of them.

They are in France at the moment. A safe country. Why the need to try to risk more danger to life and limb by trying to smuggle into the UK via a lorry?

I think asylum seekers should claim asylum at their first country of entrance and not cherry pick their destination based on what they perceive life will be like for them there, unless they have close family in that particularly country.Although possibly Spain and Italy may find themselves beleaguered as they both seem to be receiving a steady stream of migrants by boat. In particular Italy have stated, allegedly, that if they do not receive more help from the EU they will just release these people so they can make their way to where ever, in many case the UK. Clearly parts of Europe are over populated and there will be a finite number they will be able to absorb.

Friends of ours from New Zealand told us that they only take 300 asylum seekers a year, if that's the case they should take a whole lot more, they could easily afford to double, treble or even treble x treble their population. Canada is a huge country with only 36 million they could afford to take more people. I'm sure they do, but not enough.

However, I do sometimes wonder what is a trickle now could become an enormous flow as life in many of the countries the refugees come from is often appalling. Mass immigration is not really the long term solution.

Good post TerriBull I agree.

papaoscar, why do you talk of 'human'? What is wrong with human?

Simple answers to complicated questions are invariable wrong. I am half Irish; Irish ancestors on both sides fled to England and the Unites States to escape famine and religious persecution. Over several generations my family worked hard and did well so that I was born into comfort and opportunity.

Many of the immigrants may be economic immigrants but most of them are fleeing areas at war or in a state of insurrection. 4 years ago there were few if any Syrian economic migrants to Europe. Now, following the civil war and total collapse of the Syrian economy there are many Syrian economic migrants. Would you place these on the first plane back to Syria? Would you care what would probably happen to them once they arrived there?

HollyDaze 'Surely the answer is for ordinary people of those countries to do something about their own countries? En masse, they would outnumber, quite easily, the armed forces.' Do you really think large numbers of people faced with a large well armed army really stand a chance? Do you remember the various uprisings against Russia in Eastern blocks countries in the 1950s and 60s, Hungary and Poland? Eastern Europe only got its freedom when the USSR itself imploded.

It was internal insurrections against their governments that gave us the Taliban, Boko Haram and The Lord's Army in Uganda, And what about the Arab Spring? Egypt is back under a military dictator, Libya is becoming more violent and disunited and of course there is Syria.........

FlicketyB

Professor Stephen Zunes (Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco) may well disagree with you:

www.thestreetspirit.org/a-power-that-can-overthrow-dictatorships/

To take the approach of 'what's the point, nothing will change' means that nothing will ever change - is that what you want for people who live in those countries? Change doesn't just happen - it has to be created.

Professor Zones says in his opening paragraph 'Nonviolent movements have toppled dictators all over the globe, in Mali, Serbia, Poland, Bolivia, the Philippines, East Germany, Latin America, and Africa. During the Arab Spring, it became clear that the power of nonviolence to overthrow tyrannical governments is giving new hope — and new revolutionary strategies — to people around the world.'

...... and he is wrong. Almost every case he mentions that I know about the regimes have fallen because they were already weak and failing anyway - and many of them I quoted in my previous posting. There is not one in his list where a popular insurrection overthrew a strong and dominant government and as for mentioning Serbia... where a violent and vicious regime went to war, introduced the tactic known as 'ethnic cleansing' and only retreated to its own borders when it failed to colonise and dominate the fellow countries that with it, previously formed Yugoslavia, described as 'non-violent', well words fail me.

Then there is the 'Arab Spring' that was certainly not non-violent in Morocco, Libya, Egypt or as currently being fought out in Syria, where government forces are again in the ascendant - and much of the fissiparous rebel force is now dominated by foreign extremists, whose aims and intentions are far removed from the democratic demands of the original protesters.

Of course things change and they have done in all those countries, but not by popular uprisings against strong governments.

So what do you propose? That they continue to live under oppression? If neither peaceful nor forceful rejection is acceptable, what is?

I am sorry I do not get your point, I have not expressed any opinion on what I consider acceptable or not. I have only stated the fact that popular uprisings do not succeed when the government is strong. Popular uprisings that take advantage of governments that may have been strong but are falling apart do. Which is what I have said in both my previous postings.

Read the last sentence of my previous post.

Terribull- the reasons are multiple. First most of them speak English and no French. 2nd France is still a very racist society on the whole, whereas the UK is seen as much more tolerant of differences, and also because they already have relatives, friends and a community to support them on arrival, and better education prospects, etc. You could say that the UK has become a victim of its much better treatment of immmigrants and asylum seekers (although I wouldn't).

My relatives who fled Switzerland due to the poverty of the 20s, to Canada and the USA, were all economic migrants, of course. All needed support at first, all did exceptionally well and now the 4th generation is very anit-immigrants- having forgotten where they come from and the hardship their elders went through.

Read again Arthur Miller's View from the Bridge. Many of the National Front supporters in the South of France are 3rd or 4th generation Italian and Spanish immigrants, who arrived with no education and in abject poverty. BTW France is a very ageing population and without immigration, there will soon be far too many older people with nobody to pay for their pensions, health care, etc. To a lesser extent this applies to the UK too.

Good posts Flickety and Granjura.
I think the problem is that people want simple answers, but the problems are too complex and interwoven for simple solutions.

I'm very glad I started this thread, even though it has highlighted what a very difficult problem immigration is, with no easy answers. But easy or not, something HAS to be done for the sake of both the receiving country and the intending immigrant. Let's get back to grass roots. Most people have an automatic right to live in the country of their birth. If they don't like that they have the choice of either staying where they are and trying to change things, or packing up their kit and moving to somebody else's country. But moving HAS to be done with the consent of the receiving country after satisfying their entry requirements.

The UK is a small country. Just turning up, with hordes of others having no resources, will not do, and will result in the most dreadful social unpleasantness for all, which noboby wants to see. For better or worse, the UK, renowned for its relatively relaxed and tolerant lifestyle, is a natural target for the immigrant but the UK CANNOT take in all those who want to come. So perhaps we MUST now start thinking about the unthinkable and how to control immigration properly, in the general interests of both our country and the intending immigrant. How do we do it?

Some very interesting comments have been expressed within this thread.

It was heart-breaking to see the camps being broken up by the police at Callais. Where is there for those young people to go?

Why are they waiting to cross to the UK when surely France (the country they are already in) should be offering support. I don't understand why they are desperate to reach the UK shores. Are we considered a soft touch?

We are a small island and our population is expanding far too quickly. Our infrastructure: housing, schools, NHS, etc are becoming stretched beyond compare.

It's an intolerable situation with few answers.

The majority of immigrants here, are here legally, but when we talk about immigration everyone gets fixated by those who come here illegally.

A suggested way to limit migration, is to welcome migrants but give them a 5 year visa that in some cases can be extended to 10, then they return to their home country. We could give permanent settlement to a certain number each year, but priority should go to refugees, and family members of people already permanently settled here.

This would apply to everyone from any country, including Ireland and Scotland if it chooses independence. We must expect other countries to reciprocate so retirements in the sun will be less easy.

There's an idea for a start. I look forward to other people's responses. It would be nice to have a discussion about reducing legal migration, because that is a problem that most people never address.

FlicketyB

I was asking for your opinion on what would be an acceptable approach to the problem that people face in those countries. I gave an example that used:

'research[ed] 323 social-change campaigns from 1900 to 2006. Their electrifying finding was that campaigns of nonviolent resistance are nearly twice as likely to succeed as violent uprisings.

Zunes approaches the study of nonviolent movements with the dedication of a scholar, and with the commitment of a longtime activist for social change.

For the past 18 years, he has taught courses on nonviolent resistance, conflict resolution, U.S. foreign policy, and the politics of the Middle East'

...... and he is wrong. Almost every case he mentions that I know about the regimes have fallen because they were already weak and failing anyway - and many of them I quoted in my previous posting

If he has carried out research on 323 incidents spanning over 1000 years, do you not think that he would have noticed that it was an unsuccessful approach? As he has studied and teaches the politics of the Middle East, doesn't that also give him the edge on what would be the most successful approach? It is because you dismissed his findings that I asked what you thought would be the correct approach to dealing with the problems.

Of course things change and they have done in all those countries, but not by popular uprisings against strong governments.

I do understand the point you are making but I was not advocating a violent approach. The sad fact is that people have to stand up for themselves, it can't be done for them and running away from it won't stop it either. From what I have read, strong government will not be able to stand against the masses - it would getting the masses to act together that could prove problematic.

You could say that the UK has become a victim of its much better treatment of immmigrants and asylum seekers (although I wouldn't)

The mayor of Calais put the blame firmly on Britain, in 2009, for the problems that Calais faces:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5187032/Calais-mayor-blames-Britain-for-immigration-problems.html

When you look at the boat loads of refugees landing at Lampedusa do they look capable of organising any sort of uprising in their own country? To be desperate enough to set to sea in unsuitable, overloaded boats, half starved and with only what they can carry suggests that they have given up all hope of being able to help themselves. What the rest of the world can do about it is completely beyond me.

Good posts from Flickety, Granjura and Deeda.
Jingle's comment that not all asylum seekers/immigrants are saints is true of the inhabitants of the countries which they are attempting to settle in. I don't know which of the desperate people will mug someone Jingle, and I don't know who amongst the asylum seekers will contribute hugely to the country offering them a home.
I had the privilege of working with a number of Manchester's Jewish community over many years. Some of them bore the number tattooed on them on arrival at a concentration camp, some had arrived on the Kinder transport. Yes, I agree not all of the Jewish refugees escaping Nazi Germany, or programs earlier in the 20th century have made good, but I do know a large number who did. They and their families continue to contribute to the social and economic welfare of this country. They also love, and are loyal to this country which gave them refuge. Apologies if this personal and heart felt comment offends anybody.

I accept the fears people express about the impact on our public, especially health services of what seems like an increase in immigration/asylum seeking etc. Diplomacy and sanctions seem increasingly important on a political front. Also, greater efficiency in knowing who is living in this country.

Holly, please read my posts carefully, you keep misinterpreting what I have written.

Professor Zones may be very highly thought of, respected etc etc but this doesn't stop him being factually wrong in the article you give a link to, not to mention, listing the successes but not mentioning any failures.

Having gone through his list country by country I can not find a single example of a popular uprising overthrowing a strongly entrenched and powerful government. In many cases (Bolivia, Phillipines, Serbia) the countries had functioning democracies and legally functioning oppositions, but corrupt presidents, that were ousted by effective opposition with popular support.

In Eastern Europe almost every country had tried the non-violent uprising route when the USSR was strong and powerful(Hungary, 1956, Czechoslovakia, 1968, Poland 1956, 1968) without success. They only succeeded when the USSR had collapsed economically and inherent weaknesses made it unable to respond.

To quote 'Africa' and 'Latin America', both big continents with many countries, is begging the issue. In South Africa there were many popular uprisings when South Africa in the apartheid era, when the economy and the government was strong and all were put down. It was only when the international boycott broke the South African economy and isolated it from the rest of the world that the movement to democracy succeeded. Strong, uprisings didn't work. weak, they did.

Then he quotes the Arab Spring. Do you have any idea what countries he is talking about? I don't Libya? a violent government overthrow and continuing fighting between warring factions. Egypt? once again under a military dictatorship. Syria? a violent uprising taken over by foreign extremists and which the government is now winning. Tunisia is still in political turmoil with deaths and assassinations. Morocco was shaken but unstirred, despite popular protests

Professor Zones' article provides no evidence that non-violent resistance works when it is dealing with strong entrenched regimes. It only works when it is dealing with a weak regime which is on the way out anyway.

And to go back to the start of this discussion. Most of the illegal immigrants coming to Europe are fleeing countries riven by civil war and insurrection and threatened by famine. Quite how do the ordinary Syrians, for example, start a non-violent uprising that overthrows their government, Oh, I forgot - that is just what they did try.

FlicketyB - I do read your posts carefully.

I would not, in any way, shape or form, present myself as an expert on the problems of those countries which is why I was happy to take the word of an expert in his field as I could see no reason why he would mislead his students, let alone anyone else.

The alternative, it seems, is for those people to either do nothing or leave and cause upset in other countries when the systems of other countries become overloaded - akin to sinking the lifeboat. Given the recent voting results (plus countries outside the EU already have strict limits on immigration), I don't think the latter is advisable.

Illegal immigrants would not be able to claim benefits and are vulnerable in many ways - exploited by slum landlords and unscrupulous employers, unable to get medical care, etc., etc.

Asylum seekers are not allowed to work so have no option but to receive benefit - and I believe they can only receive flat rate benefit.

I too don't like the term "illegals".

Perhaps if conditions in their own countries were better, there wouldn't be such a push to migrate to more affluent countries. If I were, for instance, a person from Bangladesh, working long hours in one of those awful clothing factories, I too would do my best to find a better life somewhere else.

Migration from one area of the world to another - in pursuit of a better life or in response to danger - is how the human race has evolved.

yes quite, otherwise our ancestors would have never left Africa. Thought for the day - every one of us non-Africans is descended from African migrants.