What is the answer here?

Redhead56, I saw that programme too. It was so upsetting.
They were certainly in real peril on that little overcrowded boat. We are talking, overwhelmingly, about refugees - fellow human beings, those desperate enough to risk their lives, even those of their small children, to get away from appalling conditions at home.

Economic migrants are a different matter, far more likely to have a choice (and to choose) a safer, more comfortable way, such as overstaying a visa, going off radar and disappearing into the shadow economy. (We should never pay cash to support that.)

Where is the indignant outcry about these people? They live and work here simply to have a better, more prosperous life, pay no taxes, send funds back to families and arrange for others to follow them.

We don't know how many there are, they stay hidden, not on the news, out of the public eye - so let's just pick on the poor desperate ones instead - disgraceful!

Migration has had peaks after warfare, after WW2, Gulf Wars, Balkan War and currently the Afghan and Syrian wars, it can be expected to reduce if we stop interfering in other countries affairs.
Presently the population is increasing by .5% each year around 1000 per day, that’s net migration, too, no doubt we will still get economic migrants but war displaced should reduce.

If the aim is to stop the profiteering by those who cram little boats full of desperate people, charging them enormous amounts of money that the refugees could actually use when they get here, then surely that’s a valid aim.
However it doesn’t solve the problem for those same desperate refugees.

Hetty58

Redhead56, I saw that programme too. It was so upsetting.
They were certainly in real peril on that little overcrowded boat. We are talking, overwhelmingly, about refugees - fellow human beings, those desperate enough to risk their lives, even those of their small children, to get away from appalling conditions at home.

Economic migrants are a different matter, far more likely to have a choice (and to choose) a safer, more comfortable way, such as overstaying a visa, going off radar and disappearing into the shadow economy. (We should never pay cash to support that.)

Where is the indignant outcry about these people? They live and work here simply to have a better, more prosperous life, pay no taxes, send funds back to families and arrange for others to follow them.

We don't know how many there are, they stay hidden, not on the news, out of the public eye - so let's just pick on the poor desperate ones instead - disgraceful!

We really don’t know how many of these channel crossers are economic migrants though, they “lose their papers, and are very clever at hiding amongst genuine refugees. They are handed taxpayer mobile phones, calls paid by us too, and are interviewed over the phone. How can we possibly know who has the right to be here and claim asylum, who has not. Ever since Gordon Brown implemented his open borders policy, in 2004, every chancer has had his opportunity to illegally enter the UK. This can often harden peoples minds against genuine refugees. Just another point of view.

Lincslass

Hetty58

Redhead56, I saw that programme too. It was so upsetting.
They were certainly in real peril on that little overcrowded boat. We are talking, overwhelmingly, about refugees - fellow human beings, those desperate enough to risk their lives, even those of their small children, to get away from appalling conditions at home.

Economic migrants are a different matter, far more likely to have a choice (and to choose) a safer, more comfortable way, such as overstaying a visa, going off radar and disappearing into the shadow economy. (We should never pay cash to support that.)

Where is the indignant outcry about these people? They live and work here simply to have a better, more prosperous life, pay no taxes, send funds back to families and arrange for others to follow them.

We don't know how many there are, they stay hidden, not on the news, out of the public eye - so let's just pick on the poor desperate ones instead - disgraceful!

We really don’t know how many of these channel crossers are economic migrants though, they “lose their papers, and are very clever at hiding amongst genuine refugees. They are handed taxpayer mobile phones, calls paid by us too, and are interviewed over the phone. How can we possibly know who has the right to be here and claim asylum, who has not. Ever since Gordon Brown implemented his open borders policy, in 2004, every chancer has had his opportunity to illegally enter the UK. This can often harden peoples minds against genuine refugees. Just another point of view.

How about innocent until proved guilty?

Don't know what the answer is- but Brexit has (yes, truly) made this much much worse as we have lost the cooperation of the EU. As migrants want to come to UK (language, contacts, etc)- the EU is quite happy to let them through and on their way. Not their problem anymore. We did warn about this, again and again some more- you called it Project Fear.

MaizieD

Lincslass

Hetty58

Redhead56, I saw that programme too. It was so upsetting.
They were certainly in real peril on that little overcrowded boat. We are talking, overwhelmingly, about refugees - fellow human beings, those desperate enough to risk their lives, even those of their small children, to get away from appalling conditions at home.

Economic migrants are a different matter, far more likely to have a choice (and to choose) a safer, more comfortable way, such as overstaying a visa, going off radar and disappearing into the shadow economy. (We should never pay cash to support that.)

Where is the indignant outcry about these people? They live and work here simply to have a better, more prosperous life, pay no taxes, send funds back to families and arrange for others to follow them.

We don't know how many there are, they stay hidden, not on the news, out of the public eye - so let's just pick on the poor desperate ones instead - disgraceful!

We really don’t know how many of these channel crossers are economic migrants though, they “lose their papers, and are very clever at hiding amongst genuine refugees. They are handed taxpayer mobile phones, calls paid by us too, and are interviewed over the phone. How can we possibly know who has the right to be here and claim asylum, who has not. Ever since Gordon Brown implemented his open borders policy, in 2004, every chancer has had his opportunity to illegally enter the UK. This can often harden peoples minds against genuine refugees. Just another point of view.

How about innocent until proved guilty?

Please show me where I said otherwise, or am I not allowed to think there may be some economic migrants on board.

Most migrants are both - fleeing conditions in their country, for fear of their life, but also wanting to get an education, for themselves or their children, be able to find a hold, somehow, so they can help family back home (it is no wonder young fit men go first... because they have the best chance).

100s and 1000s of our forebears were both, economic migrants too- who moved all over the world to find a better, safer life- and jobs too. First just across the water from Ireland, or from North to South, or across the water into Europe and on to USA and Australia.

I know one thing, if I lived in a country with no hope, with war, famine, constant hunger and fear of being blown up, and no chance of an education - I'd go and try, and try again- and then try to help my family back home, one way or another.

I mean it was not long ago that people in this country were told 'to get on their bike'.

Please show me where I said otherwise, or am I not allowed to think there may be some economic migrants on board.

Of course you can think whatever you like, Linclass. I just think that it feels like prejudging, and hostility.

Most of us will remember this clearly

''I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it.''

Norman Tebbit.

Wouldn't you?

My OH's dad did, in 1947- and when he got a job and a place to live, his wife came over, and when she got a job, and they found a bigger place, the children, who had been left with relatives in South Africa, joined them in 1948. Yes, they needed some support at first- but all of them contributed hugely to the UK in so many ways. OH and sibblings all did so well, next generation too, and the current generation knows so little of what their great-grand parents had to do to secure their safety, education, health, and so much more. HUGE contributors, all of them.

MaizieD

^Please show me where I said otherwise, or am I not allowed to think there may be some economic migrants on board.^

Of course you can think whatever you like, Linclass. I just think that it feels like prejudging, and hostility.

Think what you like. It makes no difference to me.

? Ahhh, Vienna.... ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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/

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.

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.

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 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