A new influx of boat people from france.

[Cyclone 10]

11 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Out of interest what do you think is the reason why they are risking drowning and apparently paying quite a lot of money when they are already in one of the safest and richest countries in the world? Clearly there is a reason, as they are taking that risk, but I can't see what the pull factor from France is? 

Quite a few reasons already given.  Perhaps they speak English and not French, perhaps they have friends or family already in the UK or for some reason believe that it's a welcoming destination.

11 hours ago, Pyrotequila said:

But those countries won't give them free houses and money like the UK would.

How can anyone still believe this nonsense. 

Have you ever bothered to investigate the level of support someone claiming refugee status will get?  Or perhaps you imagine that illegal economic migrants who aren't claiming asylum can somehow get free housing and money?

[Branyy 10]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Quite a few reasons already given.  Perhaps they speak English and not French, perhaps they have friends or family already in the UK or for some reason believe that it's a welcoming destination.

Then there's a standard procedure of claiming an asylum with respect to family reunion, etc. Why don't they follow it?

Edited January 3, 2019 by Branyy

[Cyclone 10]

Are you expecting me to read their minds for you?

 

Having a quick look at the rules there are quite a few possible reasons though, for example;

They've already fled their home, they aren't in a position to gather evidence, fill in forms and wait months, perhaps they don't even have the means to contact the UK based relative.

The relative (or relatives) in the UK have been settled here for some time and are British citizens.

The relatives are not immediate family (according to the rules you had to live with your family), aunties, uncles, grand parents, none of these count if you didn't live with them as a family.

They are unaware of the family reunion rules, not themselves being British.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Cyclone

[Branyy 10]

Among all those listed reasons I don't see a single one that should be taken as an excuse for breaking the law.

[alchresearch 214]

13 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You think that people risk drowning in the English channel in order to come and steal a shelf stacking job from you in your local supermarket?

You've said this a few times.  Do you have figures showing that's where they end up working?

Or is it more a case of this?

Illegal immigrants 'have very little chance of being caught' due to Government cuts, union boss claims

 

Quote

Illegal immigrants in Britain can “survive very well” and have very little chance of being caught, a border workers' union boss has claimed.

Lucy Moreton, general secretary of the Immigration Service Union, said there were hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants working on the black market that cannot be tracked owing to a lack of resources and workforce cuts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-immigrants-government-cuts-resources-lucy-moreton-immigration-service-union-brexit-a8081511.html

[Cyclone 10]

57 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Among all those listed reasons I don't see a single one that should be taken as an excuse for breaking the law.

Changing the goal posts of what you asked me.

1 minute ago, alchresearch said:

You've said this a few times.  Do you have figures showing that's where they end up working?

Or is it more a case of this?

Illegal immigrants 'have very little chance of being caught' due to Government cuts, union boss claims

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-immigrants-government-cuts-resources-lucy-moreton-immigration-service-union-brexit-a8081511.html

It's an example of low paid, unskilled work.

I don't imagine that many neurologists are attempting to cross the channel in a dingy for example.

[Lockdoctor 10]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

That's just the thing, you see: I see it that it's up to an immigration system (up to an immigration Judge if need be) and due diligence, to determine whether the "boat people" are real refugees or not. Not up to personal prejudice, like you or Longcol's ex-neighbours.

 

Giz a shout when the UK starts to take its fair share of EU-landed refugees, instead of ducking behind its moat. In the meantime, as a G7 economy with 12% of the EU28 population but only 4% of EU-landed refugees (and one of the least-generous asylum supporting systems), that holier-than-thou attitude is quite a look.

 

The whole world outside the UK knows that the UK doesn't like Johnny Foreigner by now. There's really no need to keep adding extra layers on, that's just wasted marketing dollars.

The UK  have already taken more than its fair share of EU landed  refugees because the UK are the third most densely populated current EU member if we exclude Malta. 

 

How about the ten least densely populated current EU members  taking all of the EU landed refugees?

Edited January 3, 2019 by Lockdoctor

[alchresearch 214]

Considering this update:

 

Two held over English Channel migrant crossings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46743040

 

 

and this article:

 

Why are Iranians crossing the Channel in dinghies?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-46296249

 

 

Its more likely that its criminal gangs looking for illegal cheap Labour than to "work in a supermarket".

 

[Funky_Gibbon 42]

Is this the thread for people who are easily triggered by Javid's little job application to be the next PM?

[Robin-H 11]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Quite a few reasons already given.  Perhaps they speak English and not French, perhaps they have friends or family already in the UK or for some reason believe that it's a welcoming destination.

How can anyone still believe this nonsense. 

Have you ever bothered to investigate the level of support someone claiming refugee status will get?  Or perhaps you imagine that illegal economic migrants who aren't claiming asylum can somehow get free housing and money?

Those may well be the reasons, but if so I think the risk of crossing has to have been exaggerated.

 

Surely it’s not worth the risk of dying just to get somewhere that speaks English as a first language (the vast majority of French can speak English) or where friends or family are, especially when there are other methods (which the vast majority of asylum seekers use). 

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

48 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

The UK  have already taken more than its fair share of EU landed  refugees because the UK are the third most densely populated current EU member if we exclude Malta. 

 

How about the ten least densely populated current EU members  taking all of the EU landed refugees?

How about you actually look at the numbers taken by different european countries and then reassess "fair share"?

[L00b 441]

46 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

The UK  have already taken more than its fair share of EU landed  refugees because the UK are the third most densely populated current EU member if we exclude Malta. 

 

How about the ten least densely populated current EU members  taking all of the EU landed refugees?

The UK is 6th most densely populates amongst EU states (NL & Belgium ahead, besides Malta), 11th amongst all European countries (European landmass).

 

The european part of Turkey has a density of 473 per sq.km, vs 272 in UK: Turkey hosts the most refugees in the world, at 3.4 millions.

 

Both NL and Belgium host more refugees per head of population, than the UK (NL figure, 4.8, well over twice the UK figure, 1.8).

 

All data readily checkable on Wiki pages or UNHCR tables, take your pick.

 

"More than its fair share", you say. With a straight face, no doubt.

 

How about some cop on, and a bit more honesty? You don't have to like having some hard truths presented to you. Doesn't make them any less true.

Edited January 3, 2019 by L00b