What is the answer here?

I would like to comment on the assertion that they men coming here are "cowardly". This is based on a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation.

It seems to be that you think all these single men have left their families behind in dire circumstances just to save their own skin and make a packet in a foreign country.

I am reminded of the large numbers of my own family in the past 150-200 years who left Scotland, with and without their dependents, to go and make new lives in the US, Canada, Australia, wherever. Sometimes their families followed, sometimes they didn't. I find the suggestion quite offensive that any migrant is cowardly, for trying to improve their own life and that of their families.

Ultimately their own countries need to be made better places to live in. A lot are fleeing from war zones which have turned their countries into desolate violent poverty stricken places.

"The NHS cannot cope as it is now with the number of people requiring treatment."

I spent four months in two hospitals recently undergoing various procedures in multiple departments. Both hospitals were within areas that are typically representative of the immigrant / native communities in England. The majority of immigrants I saw were among the staff working in these hospitals.

One of the reasons why the NHS cannot cope - apart from the devastating effect of the Pandemic - is because it has not been realistically funded for decades. And because of the changes to the modus operandi which has resulted in staff leaving, or not applying for positions in the first place. The NHS continues to be expected to do more - with less. And no government has ever been honest enough to tell us that, if we want a first class health service, we have to pay for it. Taxation is seen as an 'evil' and no government will risk their popularity by increasing it. Successive governments get into power and then deal with the problems with short-term answers - which seem only to increase the burden of the already over-burdening of staff with yet more paperwork and admin.

Yes, immigration contributes to financial pressures on the NHS, but the impact is small compared to other factors. The biggest additional costs born by the institution are those which stem from an ageing population.

The problems arising from immigration will not be answered by individuals sponsoring an immigrant family into their homes. Do you suggest the answer to homelessness is for people to take in a homeless person, or an ex-serviceman? No, you don't, because it is not a realistic proposal.

The problems created by mass immigration - anywhere - is for governments to get their act together and deal with the issues on a world-wide basis, realistically and pragmatically. We have been actively involved in de-stabilising some of those countries that immigrants flee from due to our involvement in the running of those countries. The changes in Climate will also cause an exodus of immigrants.

The problem's here to stay, and it won't be solved by your suggestion. Taking in an immigrant - or indeed a homeless person, is a charitable gesture, but most people cannot do it - even if they wanted to, for practical reasons. We pay governments to deal with these issues, and that's what they should be doing. All parties should be working together on this.

It's a tough one. I think people arriving on boats, lorries etc should be sent back to the last safe country they passed through. After a few months it would hopefully put traffickers out of business. However, I am not totally against immigration - just illegal immigration. And we should always keep routes for asylum seekers available. I also think that our government should be setting up better, quicker facilities in UK embassies abroad. Prospective asylum seekers and financial immigrants would have access to them before they get here. For people already here, coralled in various centres, the whole process should be speeded up by employing and training more staff. And might I also venture to say that once the "business" of trafficking illegal immigrants into the UK has been significantly reduced, I think there should be an amnesty for all those people that have been trafficked here that are currently living desparate lives under the legal radar. Amongst these people there may very well be enough to ease the shortages for care staff, drivers and other professions. If they are truly here to work, as they profess, then they will be a welcome addition to the workforce, and welcome the opportunity to work, providing employers do not see it as a way of driving down wages again. If they are working they do not need benefits and can pay their way. They come from all walks of life - I remember talking to a cleaner at my local hospital and he had been trained as a doctor in his own country but could not afford to retrain. That is madness when we are crying out for doctors, nurses etc.

Someone else mentioned how many young men there are amongst the illegal immigrants already here and those trying to get here. It's not just young men, there are men of all ages, and very few women. I wonder what happened to the women they abandoned in their home countries? Their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives have been left to fend for themselves in generally misogynistic regimes, caught between warring factions and at huge risk of rape and abuse. I can't help but think of some of those men as cowardly.

There are quarter of a million empty houses in England alone.

www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/

What we need is a government interested in providing good homes for everybody instead of a second home for the privileged.

Actually I do care about this at the moment as one GD+ family tries desperately to get a house. I can blame any government for not producing enough first time buyer houses-or finding a way to stop those they do build being snapped up by those who can work the system and then sell them on at even higher prices.
I don’t begrudge homes for refugees, I’ve watched videos of life in the lands they’re coming from. They are here hoping for a better, safer life, and my GD hasn’t had to face what they have. It’s still hard to hear the cries of house the refugees when people who have grown up here can’t get houses either.

Och away and stop havering.

If we're that short of houses, have you taken in an old person? A former soldier? A homeless family from down the road?

There's plenty money in this country but we let them spend it on the old boys club or send it offshore to a tax haven.

Don't blame the poor unfortunate people feeling terror or poverty in their own countries. Blame the wicked men and women telling you its not their fault and we're all in this together, whilst squirrelling away their millions.

Do you think we can keep all the people that want to live here?. Many people born and bred here can’t get houses, can never afford one despite working long hours on low paid jobs. The NHS cannot cope as it is now with the number of people requiring treatment. . It is the tax payers that pay for it all. If you are prepared to house a family fine, if not you are saying it’s someone else’s problems.

Curlywhirly

Spot on Dickens couldn't agree more.

... thank you.

I like your name. But I now want a Cadbury's 'Curly Wurly'

Spot on Dickens couldn't agree more.

"What is the answer here?"

I think the answer is that the developed world has to bang its collective heads together and get to grips with the fact that migrants are an issue that we all have to be involved with.

It cannot be left to any one country - countries like Greece, Italy, etc, to be the gatekeepers.

This is a problem that is not going to go away by being ignored, nor by hand-wringing, nor by immigrant 'bashing'.
Asylum seekers will continue to defect, and economic migrants will continue to leave their impoverished homelands.

The media, too, will have to take a more responsible attitude, and be held to account for the way they report on these problems.

As for our infrastructure being "brought to its knees", this is not something that can be attributed wholly to immigration. Successive governments have continually cut back on the spending that is necessary to maintain a workable foundation under which the country can function efficiently. Both Tory and Labour governments have ignored the realities. Tony Blair - an EU expansionist - allowed a free-for-all entry to East Europeans to this country, when the EU allowed the option of staggering the numbers... because they recognised that member states needed time to build up their infrastructure in order to cope with the numbers. Blair - for whatever reasons - ignored that option. Other EU nations were more cautious.

Controlling borders, housing and vetting immigrants, costs money and time. It cannot be done on a shoestring. It needs the will and the commitment, and the funding.

We desperately need more immigrants

www.bigissue.com/news/employment/labour-crisis-the-uk-needs-almost-1-million-people/

i do not want to get involved in any debate but here are another 2 links to the 'effective nauru solution' to immigrants. there are more links within or at the end of the articles.
anyone who believes the australian solution works, needs to read further. to say it is inhumane is just not strong enough

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/a-short-history-of-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/-sp-australias-detention-regime-sets-out-to-make-asylum-seekers-suffer-says-chief-immigration-psychiatrist

halfpint1

I think we are long past the 'are they legal or illegal point' and any government using this angle is not dealing with the reality of the situation. Thousands of people are already on the move, legality is a useless arguement.

That's as maybe, but I think the point of law is important for the asylum seekers.

I think we are long past the 'are they legal or illegal point' and any government using this angle is not dealing with the reality of the situation. Thousands of people are already on the move, legality is a useless arguement.

These threads depress me unutterably.

I sometimes think I'll start giving the facts about what people post as their beliefs and views on the matter, but there's not enough hours in the day. And I couldn't post anything that hasn't been said before, and ignored before.

The desperate people crossing the Channel are not stealing your services, they are not overwhelming anybody's countries, not in Europe at least, and they are not the ones to blame for the state of this country. Although it's a nice scapegoat for the government to hide behind.

From the UK Common's Library

International law does not require asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. This principle has been recognised in UK case law, and Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 also provides a defence against prosecuting refugees for entering the UK illegally.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/migrants-crossing-the-english-channel/

MaizieD

^I have no problem with legal migrants to UK, however, if someone has to enter the country illegally that leads to assumptions as to why they would not be allowed to enter legally.^

They can only be ruled to have entered the country illegally, and deported, if they prove not to be bona fide asylum seekers.

Would you not seek asylum in the first safe country you reach and then apply to enter the UK legally?

I have no problem with legal migrants to UK, however, if someone has to enter the country illegally that leads to assumptions as to why they would not be allowed to enter legally.

They can only be ruled to have entered the country illegally, and deported, if they prove not to be bona fide asylum seekers.

I would say the majority of migrants crossing the channel are economic migrants, simply because they have crossed many borders before they claim Asylum in the UK

There is nothing in international law that says that refugees have to stay in the first 'place of safety' they reach.

The EU Dublin Agreement does imply this stipulation, but as we're no longer in the EU it no longer applies to the UK.

Those saying that Germany and France take more migrants than UK need to remember that Germany is approximately 50% larger than UK, and France approximately 130% larger.

I have no problem with legal migrants to UK, however, if someone has to enter the country illegally that leads to assumptions as to why they would not be allowed to enter legally.

The numbers trying to enter Europe (Poland as an example)
are overwhelming every country. This attitude of blaming
the French for not stopping it is well, sigh , media propoganda.
Always blame someone else , shall we all blame Poland now
for not holding them back?

I would say the majority of migrants crossing the channel are economic migrants, simply because they have crossed many borders before they claim Asylum in the UK

Asylum is a place of safety, not a place where you would like to travel to, of course many have reasonable English language so it is their first choice

Last week 1000 crossed the channel in one day, I can’t believe the French tried very hard to stop that number, much better coordination needs to be done instead of squabbling all the time.

I live in a small town of 6,000 people (France), we have absorbed 40 Syrian refugees (at least) over the last 2 years
into the community . I said "where?" to the information, they are not visible.
Up the road an old children's holiday centre is housing refugees awaiting a verdict , they came from Paris/Calais
somewhere better than where they were.
France is also dealing with the problem not just waving them on.

? Ahhh, Vienna.... ?