General Chat

But how do the French accept illegal immigrants in the first place yet alone allow/watch them in flimsy boats come to uk. In my opinion they should go/be sent back to France.

as i understand it eu no longer accept returns
the eu should be tracing back the routes used and slamming the traffickers in jail
the problem is only going to get worse as climate change and wars force people from their homes
saying that we are a small island and can only accept some, eg the alleged 20000 will eventually become 40000 as they breed and the exhisting population will continue to breed, where will people live, concrete over our countryside, oh dear more flooding
this is a global crisis and should be treated as such

We should not accept them, trouble is our government whichever one is in doesn't have the balls to send them back.
We have to jump through hoops just to holiday abroad so they shouldn't get into the UK, they have no passports or proper if any paperwork, how is that acceptable!

If I pass my problem over to you to deal with then I have no problem to deal with myself.

Refugee status was created under the United Nations founding charter of 1948 primarily as a response to the holocaust. As such it is a part of international law. The only requirement on the refugee is that he/she is in fear of his life. That said economic migration is def. not a reason for somebody to claim refugee status.

Some politicians claim that refugees should remain in what they call "first safe country" but that is iincorrect and is largely derived from a now defunct EU agreement.

The "wicked people smugglers" are simply fulfilling an opportunity in the same way as drug dealers. As with drug dealers in order to get anywhere with the problem the authorities have to do something about the root causes not something that Priti Patel accepts.

Right now a great many of the "refugees" are from Kurdistan. After the breakup of Iraq the Kurds established a prosperous free state in northern Iraq and were instrumental in the defeat of ISIS as allies of the US.

Since the departure of the US the Kurds have found themselves at the mercy of their age old enemies, the Turks, who cross the border with impunity. Not surprisingly those that can are trying to escape.

The British are making loadsamoney out of selling weaponry to the Turks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/10/hundreds-of-british-kurds-protest-at-arms-fair-over-sales-to-turkey

It is wildly unlikely that the French will give any kind of police or military access to the UK. Under French ( and most EU ) law the refugees have not broken any French laws by leaving in a boat.

However should they wish to stay in France refugees must register. From that point on they are (at least in theory) able to work and receive benefits. Most refugees, esp to Germany, do just that. However some ethnic groups eg Kurds have strong family ties in the UK and speak English not French. Moreover treatment by the French govt of refugees from outside of the francophone area is poor to the point of being dangerous, registered or not.

Johnson's govt will get absolutely nowhere with its current approach while doubling down with the Borders bill will just exacerbate the situation.

As to space ... Since brexit nearly 2 million EU citizens , most with EUSS status, have left the country. One of the outcomes has been a severe shortage of labour in many industries including hi-tech , finance and the NHS as well as others more commonly listed.

:-|

Not all are from Kurdistan though and if our benefit system was less generous and there was no NHS I doubt some would be as determined to bother to cross whatever countries are inbetween where they could stay, plus cross The Channel to get here. It must be an enormous cost in rescuing them, housing, providing benefits, health care and teaching with all the different languages. For decades they have continued to send money abroad to their families, which doesn't help the british economy at all, when they could be spending it here and help our businesses. I don't blame them for trying to get here, we would all do the same, but this is a small island and overpopulation is beginning to ruin it for all of us as Maddie says.

Wherever they have come from there are probably two types.

Those that have sold their souls to the traffickers and those with enough money to pay those same traffickers.

I'm afraid to say, having survived on it, that our benefit system is not at all generous!
If you don't believe me, just ask Charlie Elphicke ex Tory, who has just been released from jail for sexual assault, During his time as an MP, he voted 5 times against any rise in benefit, and is now whingeing about being on Universal credit, claiming he is 'ong term unemployed'. Well, that doesn't sound like he's looking for work - anyone else would be sanctioned!
True, he owes £35,000 in costs - but they're costs he incurred, trying to prove his 3 victims were wrong.

Besides which, refugees/asylum seekers don't get benefit.
The irony is, Pritti Patel's father was an economic migrant, but it appears that is alright.

Many want to come here, because they speak English.
Costs would be lowered if they were allowed out of the camps they're kept in, to work.

Refugees/Asylum seekers are around one quarter of a percent (0.26%) of the UK’s total population.

Migration has always happened - how many can claim Huguenot heritage?
Your ancestors were immigrants, fleeing, like these people, from persecution.
Why was it any different then?

Even closer to home - What about the Irish, Scots, Welsh? They're all from foreign countries. True, all but Southern Ireland are currently in the United Kingdom, but they weren't always. I never hear the Government or population moaning about them 'coming over here'.
When the 'Windrush' generation came over, they were coming from a peaceful British colony - they weren't escaping war or persecution, in fact they were invited over here.. They could speak English, came over to jobs - were even Christian - yet still, aspects of Government and the British population didn't like it.
Still, they, and their descendants are being persecuted by the Government - sent back to a land they don't know.

Has anyone found a common link to the 'uacceptable' aspect of certain immigration?
It's the colour of their skin.

Yet, your ancestry may not be as white as you think.

My grandad's best mate Stan was black. Stan's father was black -from Barbados, his mother was also black - from Southampton. I traced her family back at least 5 generations - all in the UK.
Stan married a white woman - Hilda, in the 1920's.
They had a son, Bob - who was white.
Bob had a son and daughter - both white
They had children - all white.
Bob's children and grandchildren are proud of their black heritage.
Some families try to literally whitewash the colour from their ancestry.

The NHS is not free for non residents including British passport holders.

Not quite true:

www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/refugees-overseas-visitors-and-vulnerable-migrants/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-patient-health-toolkit/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-entitlement-to-nhs-care

My computer still won't copy links properly so 'google': can asylum seekers get nhs care

I'd also like to point out, they're NOT illegal immigrants, they're refugees.
Like the Jews were in WWII.

Is this the link Names?

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/refugees-overseas-visitors-and-vulnerable-migrants/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-patient-health-toolkit/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-entitlement-to-nhs-care

I'd also like to add this one:

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/projects/helping-refugee-health-professionals-to-join-the-nhs/

We could also do with some HGV drivers and agricultural workers.
Anyone remember ' Auf Wiedersehen, Pet ' - where 'Brits' invaded Germany to fill job vacancies? No war - nothing - jst went over there. Weirdly, most came back. I'm sure a lot of refugees will probably go back when their country isn't being destroyed.

Thanks Maggie. The in-house technical expert is never available when I am trying to post a link. :-|

I believe that it might be against some international law, but if all illegal immigrants/asylum seekers were able to be securely detained until asylum was granted or they returned to their home country then the attraction of coming here would be reduced.

Firstly I apologise for saying they are illegal immigrants, as has been said they are not, so I say respectfully surely they could have been taken on in France having got there safely rather than risk life and limb getting across the channel in flimsy boats.
Just my thoughts really.

I believe that many already complain about where they are temporarily housed, so secure detention could cause even bigger problems.

Here are some actual facts:

https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/

The French foreign minister Gérald Darmanin has, told the English in so many words to get on their bike and reform the "slave labour market" entrenched in the UK. It very well to "take control of the border" but there is always the awkward bunch on the other side.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/29/channel-crossings-are-an-english-issue-says-french-minister

Cross the Border
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94QL14ZKuA

But they are in France first, me in my nativity or stupidity think the French should take them on as they are already there. :-(

There are no simple fixes. Indeed as wars, poor and corrupt governance, climate change put increasing pressue on "safe" countries the problem can only get worse. A lot worse. By leaving the EU the UK has deprived itself of any realistic chance of "taking back control" of the border esp at Calais.

All you need to know.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20211125/opinion-france-protects-uk-from-migrant-crisis-a-fact-britain-will-never-accept/

Maybe we should take time to consider what it is like for the locals living on the northern French north coast. When I lived and worked in the English ports areas both sides had areas of deprivation.. It must be so much worse now.