Illegal immigration - what to do?

Sorry - I tried to highlight my comments, to separate them from the original, but it didn't usually work.

The OP asked about:
1) sending illegals back to where they came from* Not an option - they fled from there. Also it is NOT illegal to seek asylum*
2) ringfencing national borders with steel* Come on - logistically impossible*
3) denying illegals i.e. refugees access to all but the minimum help necessary to maintain health and safety.* That's pretty much all that many of us get, but to really keep them in need is against human rights*
4) denying illegals i.e. refugees access to benefits* Civilised countries don't let people starve*
5) setting up secure and humane holding areas where illegals can be detained. Detained for how long? and IF these places ARE humane: the Australian offshore processing proves they often are not
6) carrying out continuous and robust internal identity checks * what - make us ALL suspect?*
7) actively liaising and working with other countries facing similar problems*This is happening*
8) encouraging the illegal's i.e. refugee's countries of origin to get their act together so as to discourage emigration (very difficult, that one)* Yes - virtually impossible, at least in the short term*
And finally
9)making it obligatory for everybody to carry proper ID*Sounds reasonable but too Stasi-like for most of us*

Something has to happen as the problem is reaching critical mass. Politicians know they lose votes by helping refugees. They think they'll get more votes by lying about them, calling them illegal, and treating them like sub-humans. Perhaps it is time for politicians to lead not follow. Time to find a safe haven, where they can be helped to integrate, taught the language and customs of the country giving them refuge, and their skills evaluated and respected.

Who knows - perhaps the results of humane treatment will cost less politically than is commonly believed.

Certainly Australia did not suffer when they let the boat people come, after the fall on Saigon in the mid 1970s. My DiL is the offspring of such a family, and is a brilliant, beautiful, kind, loving Chinese/Australian, who is a hospital scientist.

True.

Ignore it. It's just meant as a provocation.

Sorry, substitute quiet for silent, though I don't hear him as all that quiet (even less as silent)

What if the next disaster is in silentmajority's area and he has to get out and go elsewhere? Will he take his weaponry with him and blast his way in?

It would cost too much and spoil the areas of natural beauty but on the plus side in fifty years time the watch towers would become desirable residences and be on property tv shows.
I don't know if the population shift during WWII is comparable to this population shift from Africa but it seems to have settled down somewhat( Jewish people to Israel,Berlin wall down) we've muddled through.

Must be a man - women tend not to advocate machine-gunning economic migrants.

I'd leave the post up - so it can be scorned at

Well yes, I don't think Forum rules anticipating members suggesting murdering vast numbers without trial would happen here.

I think the majority of these men are fleeing from violent regimes. They probably just want to work and live a decent life. But how can Europe accommodate the whole population of Africa?

I cannot see a realistic answer. Apart from the one that would probably cause the destruction of the whole world.

It's his view (yes, I think a man). Nothing against forum rules. I don't think.

In fact, haveing re-read it- I have reported it. Suggesting that blowing up or shooting on sight is the solution, is really inciting hatred, and murder- and goes way beyond the acceptable for a public forum. Hope others do to.

where on earth did 'quietmajority' suddenly come from? I am hesitating to report the post - perhaps it is best to ignore totally.

That is a dreadful post quietmajority. Absolutely ridiculous!

soutra love your response.

A bit extreme I would have thought!

I don't think our cruising grans would approve of mining the Med!

#floggingadeadhorse

I'm assuming that quietmajority's post is an extreme proposal to incite debate. Well, I'm not joining.

But apart from that (the land mines and watchtowers and shooting to kill and state of emergency)

Don't panic

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Michael Howard's father was a Romanian migrant
The Welsh UKIP MEP Nathan Gill has joined the ranks of UKIP stars that have been employing E European migrants in his family business (care homes)
It matters ana if political parties use incorrect figures to inflame a panic - if the overestimated numbers lead to headlines like "illegal immigrants head for a million" - not that such a thing would ever happen.
It still amazes me that we do not have a computer system that records arrivals through ports (not that that would pick up trafficked illegals)
Countries like Hong Kong, Australia and NZ record everyone arriving and departing.
Vast majority of illegals are going to be on the fringes of the economy, no NI number, earning cash in hand below minimum wage. Extremely hard to count!

Who knows, Ana.

Wouldn't an equivalent number 'go home' from the UK if that happened?

The UK population is 63m, so illegal or irregular residents amounting to about half-a-million or a million (nobody seem to know!) represents less than 1% at worst. That doesn't sound to bad so what are UKIP making all the fuss about? On the other hand if all the UKIP/right-wing agitation eventually leads to the UK leaving the EU then 2.5m UK expats might well be coming 'ome. That would certainly stretch the old national elastic in terms of healthcare and accommodation. Or perhaps UKIP would ban them as well!

What does it matter exactly how many there are?