Why do Asylum Seekers cross the channel on small boats

This was a suggestion by the immigration minister in response to Putin encouraging migrants to access Germany via Russia. If they did want to do this they would face the same challenges as the UK did ie they would have to change their own laws regarding the treatment of asylum seekers and would probably not get sufficient support to pass the changes in law required.

Iam64 point taken. However it is an interesting development imo.

All the people who live in Germany ronib. I’m not sure Petra can manage that

petra try speaking to the people who live in Germany. Newspapers??

ronib

petra it seems to be gaining some momentum in Germany and that is news.

Not if you read European newspapers.

Excellent piece detailing the reasons why asylum seekers come. Most come from countries where the western governments have sown deep divisions. We go there tell ahmed’s tribe Abdullah and his lot are evil then to ahmed the same about abdullah’s tribe. When the west fails politically or militarily….oh shit we better leave…we’re chased by men in flip flops. Then the BBc and sky bring tear jerking news about the oppression of women and how they need sanctuary and yet we haven’t brought any Gazan women to the uk…..who are being killed in their thousands.

petra it seems to be gaining some momentum in Germany and that is news.

That's going to be interesting if Germany actually do it?

ronib

I see that Germany is now looking to send its asylum seekers to Rwanda. Couldn’t make it up.

Harley news 🤷‍♀️
It was reported in November 2023

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67343002

ronib

I see that Germany is now looking to send its asylum seekers to Rwanda. Couldn’t make it up.

I suspect that it has everything to do with the latest election and the AfD, and nothing to do with government policy.

It’s anecdotal ronib. Until something becomes policy, that’s all it is.

FDP Liberal did very badly in local elections and wants to win some votes back according to my source Casdon

Casdon I have had confirmation that this is a possibility from a friend living in Germany.

ronib please read a reliable source. This is a proposal put forward by the migration commissioner, not a government plan.
www.reuters.com/world/germanys-migration-commissioner-proposes-rwanda-migrant-deportation-plan-2024-09-05/

I see that Germany is now looking to send its asylum seekers to Rwanda. Couldn’t make it up.

No wonder crossings have increased and will continue to do so. Labour have scrapped the Rwanda Scheme, the Bibby Stockholm barge and now the accommodation in the former RAF base in Lincolnshire. Saying they will continue housing in dispersed accommodation ie hotels. If they continue down this route with no deterrent to illegals trying to get to 'Treasure Island' then Nigel has a good chance of being the next Prime Minister.

I am not quibbling on the 1.6 million figure but I think we do have to think about who that represents if they are between the ages of 16 and 64, that's nearly 50 years and in the last 50 years we've had all sorts of people arrive for all sorts of reasons. I wonder if this figure includes people from Europe who decided to stay after Brexit? Also, there will be many who have worked and paid into our society and then for all sorts of reasons are not working eg women who have raised families with children working here and paying taxes, people who have retired early because of ill health or because they can afford to, people who are temporarily out of work. There are over 9.2 million people in this country who are economically inactive that's 22% of those who could be working so it's a big problem for our economy because we have an ageing population. I don't know how the figure of £8 billion has been arrived at so I can't comment on that but there will be lots of economically inactive people including those who came from abroad and have been given leave to stay who are deserving of support from the public purse. There's no easy or quick answer to this issue but I'm aware that stats can be used quite mischievously to cause alarm and I wonder if this is one of them?

Maybe, but I've still plenty too. I just keep quiet lol!

many of whom are addicted to the adrenaline it produces that makes their sad and empty lives a little more bearable I guess.

The most patronising comment I've ever seen on here. 🤦‍♀️

All refugees are good and should be welcomed. All refugees are bad and should be sent home.

The truth and the solution lies somewhere in between.

The media don't like common sense and reason though, it thrives on stoking up fear in the electorate, many of whom are addicted to the adrenaline it produces that makes their sad and empty lives a little more bearable I guess.

I agree it's depressing reading. I just feel too many people refuse to believe we have a problem, but maybe that's their coping strategy. I don't think we will find a solution until people face the reality of the situation.

You are right - I haven’t read the article. Sorry. I find it too depressing to read (what I assumed would be) more propaganda, but I shouldn’t have commented before reading it.

Doodledog Will that include the old, the young and the ill/disabled? Oh, and the rich, and people who claim to be being supported by someone else in the family? And students?
You need to read the article. It covers people aged between 16 and 64 who were born overseas and have the right to live in the UK, but excludes students and asylum-seekers. There are 1.6 million of them, costing us £8 billion a year. Do you really think we can get enough of them working to pay that amount? Most of them will have low paid jobs.

Will that include the old, the young and the ill/disabled? Oh, and the rich, and people who claim to be being supported by someone else in the family? And students?

All of those groups are economically inactive, whether they are UK nationals or not. Some of them will have already contributed over the course of their lives, and others will do so when they mature or if/when they recover from illness.

If we allow the non-UK people to work and remove the burden of economic activity from UK-born workers so that all able-bodied adults are expected to make a contribution for a set number of years then maybe we can provide for those who can't provide for themselves?

Doodledog

Which facts and figures are you referring to, Chestnut?

You quote numbers of 'non-working' asylum-seekers, but as they are not able to work by law, that statistic can only have been arrived at to suggest that they are a drain on society. If they are processed faster, and allowed to work ASAP then many would be active contributors to the economy - why not frame it that way? As I'm sure you know, it's not the 'facts' that matter - it is what those 'facts' represent, and the Mail is one of the sources that uses 'facts' in a very particular way (ie to show immigrants, benefits claimants, anything to do with the Labour Party and its supporters and other groups) in the worst possible light.

I didn't mention asylum seekers, the article said:
Official figures show that 1,689,000 non-UK nationals are either unemployed or classed as economically inactive because they are not looking for a job.

Maybe silverlining48 who is not terrified by these figures can tell us how we can keep providing for so many people as well as our own citizens.