Can we discuss the migrant crisis in a sensible and humane way?

ajswan

paddyann54

Maybe ban the use of "illegal" immigrant and just call them people.No one is "illegal" .Using that term is ramping up the bias.People have always left their country of origin and looked for a better life ,in war and in peace .
Many of those arriving will be valuable citizens and contribute to communities around the 4 nations IF we find the way to incorporate them into society instead of making them live in detention centres barred from working for a living .
I was appalled at the opinions on teh Jeremy Vine show yesterday by people who you would think had a brain,,,but it seems the NIMBY is alive and well in 2022 .
Put yourself in their shoes before judging these desperate folk

I think that the best solution would be for the UK coastguards instead of picking them up and bringing them ashore would be to pick them up and take them straight back to France. Illegal immigrants are supposed to stay in the first safe country they get to which is not the UK. We are a small country and we are full up. We do not have a problem with the NHS or a housing shortage or a lack of school places, we just have too many people. I worked for 56 years and paid all my tax and insurance to this country and now because we have hundreds of thousands of extra people the services cannot cope. 400 illegal immigrants arrived in just ONE DAY recently, they all have to fed and clothed etc at our expense. It would be interesting to see how many do-gooders are going to take, usually fit young Afghan men into their homes.

What do we do about this? No matter how many times people are told that what they think is the case is just plain wrong, we get the same tired old comments, again and again.

Let's just do this one.

Illegal immigrants are supposed to stay in the first safe country they get to which is not the UK.

That's not the case. That was the case when we were in the EU and party to the Dublin agreement, but now there is no obligation for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in. That went when we "Got Brexit Done", I'm afraid.

libra10

The French don't exactly welcome refugees do they?

They house them in tents, we offer 3 or 4 star hotel accommodation, with pocket money.

No wonder they love the UK.

The French don't exactly welcome refugees do they?

What rot.

France also grates at moral lectures from Britain; 83,000 asylum applications were lodged in France over the past year, compared with only 31,000 in the UK. In 2020, the UK registered 5.78 asylum seekers and refugees per 10,000 inhabitants, compared with 16.93 for France, 19.52 for Germany and 60.57 for Greece.

Rights of asylum seekers in France: domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/#housing

paddyann54

Maybe ban the use of "illegal" immigrant and just call them people.No one is "illegal" .Using that term is ramping up the bias.People have always left their country of origin and looked for a better life ,in war and in peace .
Many of those arriving will be valuable citizens and contribute to communities around the 4 nations IF we find the way to incorporate them into society instead of making them live in detention centres barred from working for a living .
I was appalled at the opinions on teh Jeremy Vine show yesterday by people who you would think had a brain,,,but it seems the NIMBY is alive and well in 2022 .
Put yourself in their shoes before judging these desperate folk

I think that the best solution would be for the UK coastguards instead of picking them up and bringing them ashore would be to pick them up and take them straight back to France. Illegal immigrants are supposed to stay in the first safe country they get to which is not the UK. We are a small country and we are full up. We do not have a problem with the NHS or a housing shortage or a lack of school places, we just have too many people. I worked for 56 years and paid all my tax and insurance to this country and now because we have hundreds of thousands of extra people the services cannot cope. 400 illegal immigrants arrived in just ONE DAY recently, they all have to fed and clothed etc at our expense. It would be interesting to see how many do-gooders are going to take, usually fit young Afghan men into their homes.

The French don't exactly welcome refugees do they?

They house them in tents, we offer 3 or 4 star hotel accommodation, with pocket money.

No wonder they love the UK.

If they had family living legally in the UK, it’s not too difficult to get a visa but I’m sure most crossing the channel in dingys have a contact, probably not legal.

Coco51

The problem is exacerbated by the lack of infrastructure. How can we house thousands of refugees in decent and affordable homes when there is a crisis in social housing and the poorest have to tolerate uninhabitable properties? When we wait upwards of 5 weeks for a GP appointment how can we offer decent healthcare to additional individuals and families? Schools are so radically underfunded, that ESL support is not adequate. Many refugee children are severely traumatised yet our child mental health services are overwhelmed by existing needs. I’m sure there is an image in refugees minds that all will be well if they reach Britain, but the reality is quite different, and why should they want to come to our overcrowded little Island when they are already in a safe country - France?

Maybe they have family in the UK and can speak English. there's no reason they should have to stay in France.

libra10

Most of those crossing the channel are young men. If they are fleeing from war-torn countries, why are they leaving their womenfolk behind to deal with the chaos?

Most of the young men are single desperate for a better life and willing to take the risk, it’s a dangerous journey for a young woman likely with children, they will be in refugee camps or with family, as safe as they can be.

The reason why it’s mostly young men-
Young men are prepared to make the perilous journey, which can take many months and cost ££££s. Many women and children would not attempt this ( some do of course) and culturally is is seen as the man’s job . The hope is for the men to find a safe country where they can establish themselves and then they hope the women can legally and more easily join them.

.

libra10

Most of those crossing the channel are young men. If they are fleeing from war-torn countries, why are they leaving their womenfolk behind to deal with the chaos?

Agree entirely.

The problem is exacerbated by the lack of infrastructure. How can we house thousands of refugees in decent and affordable homes when there is a crisis in social housing and the poorest have to tolerate uninhabitable properties? When we wait upwards of 5 weeks for a GP appointment how can we offer decent healthcare to additional individuals and families? Schools are so radically underfunded, that ESL support is not adequate. Many refugee children are severely traumatised yet our child mental health services are overwhelmed by existing needs. I’m sure there is an image in refugees minds that all will be well if they reach Britain, but the reality is quite different, and why should they want to come to our overcrowded little Island when they are already in a safe country - France?

And can we avoidp saying "women folk"? It makes it sound like a middle European fairy tale.

libra10

Most of those crossing the channel are young men. If they are fleeing from war-torn countries, why are they leaving their womenfolk behind to deal with the chaos?

Right, first off, your first sentence is wrong. But anyway.

Did anybody watch WDYTYA last night?

Matt Lucas's family tried to get out of Germany in the thirties. Germany wasn't "war torn" in the thirties. They had a government that were doing things for "the people".

Within 10 years, 10 out of 11 of his ancestors were dead in Nazi Gas Chambers. His GM made it to the UK, leaving her beloved mother behind, but never got to complete her training as a doctor.

Never again, we said, but we've lost our humanity.

My thoughts too libra, able bodied young men should not be leaving war torn countries and leaving the women folk to protect themselves and their children.

well said Grantanow.
It is all driven politically . Johnson is scared of losing his red wall seats. He will not negotiate with the French, his way of saying "look I've done Brexit , I'm not going to have anything to do with these nasty Europeans." Political .
Hence no cooperation to set up centres to process the refugees in Calais. If there were legal routes there would be no need for people smugglers.

Most of those crossing the channel are young men. If they are fleeing from war-torn countries, why are they leaving their womenfolk behind to deal with the chaos?

Employers in the UK are desperate to recruit staff. 1.3m vacancies. The asylum seekers are mostly able bodied young men who want work and are often fairly well educated. Why send them to Rwanda when they can be of use here, working, being trained and paying taxes? Johnson is simply playing a divisive electoral game but then he lives in an ethics-free zone. More cooperation with the EU would be of mutual benefit but he's scared of the DUP and his far right MPs who now have him in a corner.

They are all restrictive in different ways, before Ukraine hostilities China was worst of all if you speak out against the government you have problems.
Yet we trade freely with them, moreover, the way they exploit developing countries with no regard for conditions there and fuel corruption, in addition to that Chinese owned shops are driving local businesses out.

What is the difference between the corruption in some African countries and the oppressive behaviour by the police and exactly the same thing happening in Russia Beloruss, India and China and a number of other countries?

M0nica

Katie59 The problem is the “African mindset” it was no until this year that it was explained.

In any country the President is the “chief” everything belongs to the chief, so corruption is not seen as a problem by the population in general. Secondly population control is a taboo issue, it is never discussed, education of women may control population, politics certainly will not.

Good heavens, what a lot of tosh. When was the book you got it from published? 1935?

Africa is an enormous country encompassing a huge range of people with different ethnic origins, cultures and religions, from countries like Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt to Namibia and South Africa, mali Ethiopia - and with different birthrates.

yes Africa still has the highest birthrates in the world, but you have only to look at the patch work of colours on the world in the link to realise how diverse the problem in Africa is.

What the country needs more than anything is sustained and efficient econolmic development and, yes, that includes the education of women. As for corruption. I have yet to speak to any African who condones corruption or does not see it as a problem, but most people impoverished and malnourished feel they have no way of safely objecting to the behaviour of their leaders.

Actually it was a direct explanation of the situation today in most of Southern Africa.
Why population control is taboo and not discussed.
Why corruption is not a big issue in those countries.
The 5 countries I have travelled in are open to tourists, there are many others in West and Sub Saharan Africa that are not, and are much worse.

The respective governments have got anti corruption laws to impress the west, which are completely ignored especially by the ruling elite and the police. Ironically corruption was much less in 1935 when colonial governments were in power, now the mineral wealth is being exploited by China, the Elite cream off most of the wealth, no questions asked, second in line is the army to keep order.

If anything it’s getting worse because expat managers, technicians and aid workers are being replaced by citizens as an example South African Airways closed down but the Government because corruption and nepotism made it impossible to manage, so many were paid for doing nothing.

Aveline

We just don't know the balance of probabilities. Who knows who the Devon boatload were? Whoever they are they are at an immediate disadvantage as they have not gone through the proper channels. They will potentially be permanent outsiders without official papers. That's not a recipe for a positive outcome.

I'm not disagreeing with that Aveline, but then its quite a leap to They could be terrorists here to do us harm. We do know the balance of probabilities. How many people have arrived on these shores and turned out to be terrorists? And how many have arrived and turned out not to be?

I'm not saying that we should ignore every risk, we have to consider everything, but we can't go through life thinking everybody is out to get us.

Katie59 The problem is the “African mindset” it was no until this year that it was explained.

In any country the President is the “chief” everything belongs to the chief, so corruption is not seen as a problem by the population in general. Secondly population control is a taboo issue, it is never discussed, education of women may control population, politics certainly will not.

Good heavens, what a lot of tosh. When was the book you got it from published? 1935?

Africa is an enormous country encompassing a huge range of people with different ethnic origins, cultures and religions, from countries like Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt to Namibia and South Africa, mali Ethiopia - and with different birthrates.

yes Africa still has the highest birthrates in the world, but you have only to look at the patch work of colours on the world in the link to realise how diverse the problem in Africa is.

What the country needs more than anything is sustained and efficient econolmic development and, yes, that includes the education of women. As for corruption. I have yet to speak to any African who condones corruption or does not see it as a problem, but most people impoverished and malnourished feel they have no way of safely objecting to the behaviour of their leaders.

We just don't know the balance of probabilities. Who knows who the Devon boatload were? Whoever they are they are at an immediate disadvantage as they have not gone through the proper channels. They will potentially be permanent outsiders without official papers. That's not a recipe for a positive outcome.

Kandinsky
^ If you’re in an area where migrants are having a negative impact on your life ( school places, housing, hospital waiting lists etc etc ) then you’ll say ‘stop! Enough! ‘ - & it’s usually the areas where there’s already social problems that migrants are settled.^
That’s a pretty accurate description, but doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t want a proper solution to the issue. Dealing with asylum seekers quickly and efficiently would be an amazing advance. Many of those coming are well qualified in their own countries. I’m not sure it would Stilton the smugglers, and I don’t know how to deal with that, except by tackling them at source as has been mentioned.

I am really interested in why people always look on the downside.

They could be a boatload of terrorists, or they could be desperate people looking for safety in a so-called civilised, democratic country that doesn't allow them any legal method of entry.

Given the balance of probabilities, I'm going to go with the second. I think that people go with the first because they are really bad at risk assessment, are scared, have no idea of the world outside their comfy living room and and permanently outraged that anyone could be getting something they don't believe they are entitled to.