France empties the Calais Jungle

G-MAN2004 said:
This. Plus if they are genuine refugees then they should settle wherever they can that is safe. Boggles the mind when they risk their lives to make it to a country on the other side of Europe, rather than stay in any of the nice countries they'd need to pass through. Not to mention having to cross the channel...

If you've escaped a war zone but then continue to put your family's lives in danger by attempting to travel all the way to the UK, then you're a greedy idiot and we already have too many of them over here.
Click to expand...

Most do, which is why Greece is struggling under the weight of refugees (and one of the reasons Merkel made her speech). It's also one of the reasons the EU want a refugee program that makes refugee distribution more even throughout the EU, rather than Merkels unofficial one.

Unfortunately countries like the U.K., that take virtually none, are against that and would (seemingly) rather the poorest countries in Europe struggle to look after them instead.
 
I watched an interview with one of these 'asylum' seekers on Sky News the other day.

The guy refused to show his face, spoke with a bit of an English accent and said he was fleeing Afghanistan because of the conflict. He also said he'd left his Mother and sibling over there! He wanted to come to the UK because "all his friends are over there".

I'm all for accepting people in true need but unfortunately some are taking us for complete and utter mugs.
 
Last edited:
terley said:
As soon as you walk through a safe country as an asylum seeker, and don't claim asylum... You become a migrant.

Countries between Syria/Iraq and great britain:

Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Bosnia & herzgovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands.
Click to expand...

The directive requires allowing anyone returned to a “safe third country” to request refugee status. But any Syrian, Iraqi, or Afghan returned to Turkey would not be allowed to request refugee status there because Turkey excludes non-Europeans from qualifying for refugee status. The directive also requires the safe third country to respect the principle of nonrefoulement, the prohibition on the forced return of refugees. That principle not only forbids governments from deporting refugees to places where their lives or freedom would be threatened but also from rejecting asylum seekers at their borders who would face such threats. At the very time the EU was announcing its migration control deal, Turkey had closed its border to tens of thousands of Syrians fleeing bombs and bullets in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, a massive and egregious flouting of this norm of customary international law.

The directive says a “first country of asylum” is a country where the applicant has already been recognized as a refugee or “otherwise enjoys sufficient protection.” Since Turkey does not recognize non-Europeans as refugees, the only remaining question is whether it provides de facto refugees sufficient protection. But is “sufficient protection” an adequate international standard, even if EU law says it is? Not according to UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, which said in its comments on the Procedures Directive that, “The wording ‘sufficient protection’…does not represent an adequate safeguard when determining whether an asylum seeker may be returned to the first country of asylum.”
Click to expand...

So first safe country is Greece for most. But considering the refugee camps are overflowing and the Greeks don't have the money or infrastructure to cope with the major influx it becomes more complicated.

As I said before, that's one of the reasons Merkel said Germany would take in people if TBH could get to there.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/22/turkey-safe-refugees

Unfortunately it's a lot more complex than the express, sun and DM like to make out...
 
Amp34 said:
Most do, which is why Greece is struggling under the weight of refugees (and one of the reasons Merkel made her speech). It's also one of the reasons the EU want a refugee program that makes refugee distribution more even throughout the EU, rather than Merkels unofficial one.

Unfortunately countries like the U.K., that take virtually none, are against that and would (seemingly) rather the poorest countries in Europe struggle to look after them instead.
Click to expand...

the country (England) is full. too many people living here already without rolling out the welcome mat for extra. France is 3 and a bit times larger than us geographically but has a lower population.....our population density is the highest in europe, it's a huge force behind brexit, if the eu had offered some sort of border control we would never have left.
 
Last edited:
sneakysnail said:
the country is full. too many people living here already without rolling out the welcome mat for extra. France is 3 and a bit times larger than us geographically but has a lower population.....our population density is the highest in europe, it's a huge force behind brexit, if the eu had offered some sort of border control we would never have left.
Click to expand...

I agree, the UK is overcrowded, but at the same time that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing and fulfilling our international obligations. An extra 30-50,000 people for example isn't going to make much of a difference.

It's also worth pointing out that this argument rarely comes up when this sort of thing is discussed. There are many other reasons above that one people spend their time arguing about instead.
 
platypus said:
This simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

If you take England as a single entity then yes it pretty much is, taking small principalities and city states out of the equation.

The UK as a whole isn't, but it's pretty much only superseded by the Low Countries.
 
HoneyBadger said:
I don't doubt migrants already here in the U.K pay into the system, but please don't imply that someone is going to go from living in a tent in France and then come to the UK and instantly start paying into the system
Click to expand...

Well the main hold-up to a migrant being able to immediately start pulling up vegetables (a quick example of positions we struggle to fill) is legislation preventing someone doing so legally. Immigrants arriving for reasons other than joining already resident family, i.e. most refugees, are very keen to work. There's nothing that makes a working day seem not so bad like losing your home and friends in a war.
 
sneakysnail said:
well if you count malta with it's 400,000 population it's not true.......
Click to expand...

Amp34 said:
If you take England as a single entity then yes it pretty much is, taking small principalities and city states out of the equation.

The UK as a whole isn't, but it's pretty much only superseded by the Low Countries.
Click to expand...
In terms of population density, of the "proper" countries, both Holland and Belgium are higher.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
We might have the room, but we don't have any spare capacity in housing, schools and hospitals.
Click to expand...

Again, for a few tens of thousands?

The reality is immigration and population growth is important for the current economic model. Young people hav to keep expanding to look after the old, and economic growth is easiest to achieve by population expansion. On the plus side immigration and population growth usually increases the amount of taxes, but then the government has to decide to spend it wisely.
 
platypus said:
In terms of population density, of the "proper" countries, both Holland and Belgium are higher.
Click to expand...

Last I checked the Low Countries were holland and Belgium? :p

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Taking out the Vatican, San Marino etc. You have Malta, Netherlands and Belgium with higher population densities. When you consider the UK stats are skewed a bit by Scotland, which outside a few small areas (Glasgow Edinburgh belt being one) is basically empty and questionably habitable it becomes more interesting. Hence the point about taking England as a seperate entity (where about 90% of the population live). England has a 2013 population density of 413km2 which is higher than both the Netherlands and Belgium. So that makes England the most heavily populated larger country in Europe (removing the principalities, city states and small islands as previously mentioned).

No matter how you calculate it, the point is the UK is very heavily populated and is one of the most heavily populated countries in Europe and the world.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
An extra 30-50,000 people for example isn't going to make much of a difference.
Click to expand...

No, an extra 40k people adding to an already strained NHS is nothing :rolleyes:

Magically build an extra 40K homes :rolleyes:

Or are you suggesting that we just give them a nice safe field to live in and say ' we've done our bit ' ?

It all cost money, where does it come from ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom