Horrible what’s happening in the channel but the BBC just interviewed someone who was from Iraq. The woman said there is no money and no houses in Iraq so that’s why she will cross the water. I guess the other 7 countries she passed through have neither also… now stop calling them refugees please BBC… this one and others you interview confirm it’s for financial gain not safety…. one lefty tree hugging British aid worker says we should all be proud so many want to come to our country over others…. Yea right. We have a system for genuine asylum seekers… a system I support.
I have no problem with genuine asylum seekers coming to this country. The events and deaths this week are a tragedy. Having said that I am yet to be convinced that those coming across the sea in boats etc are genuine asylum seekers as opposed to economic migrants trying to bypass the system, flawed as it is. I find it amazing how many asylum seekers are young males as opposed to a truer mix of the genders and ages. I wouldn’t ask France I would simply take every single one back and deposit them on a French beach after confiscating the boat and giving them a leaflet headed “How to apply for permission to enter the UK, the correct way”. This method and those using it just makes it more difficult for the genuine migrants and the genuine asylum seekers. For that amongst many reasons I wouldn’t allow any one entering this country by that route to stay.
Another bloke getting interviews on a French beach saying he has no other option than to go over in a boat to the UK. Erm… maybe stay where you are and claim asylum? Or don’t walk through 6 other safe western countries….
Most of them in Calais are illegal economic migrants. Most are fighting aged men too. we need to do a deal with a commonwealth state.. maybe Australia and ship them all to an outpost in the middle of desert there. That would deter them. None of the freeloaders really get sent back because they throw away their passports. Where’s the disincentive? The key is to stop them wanting to come to the UK and I really can’t think of a way to make that happen.
"The below shows the asylum decisions for the top 10 countries in terms of initial decisions made. A positive decision means a decision to grant refugee status, humanitarian protection, or a subsidiary protection status. Country Decisions % Refugee % Positive % Rejected Germany 128,590 29.4 48.6 51.4 Spain 124,795 3.5 40.9 59.1 France 86,330 13.8 22.2 77.8 Greece 62,190 42.4 55.3 44.7 Italy 40,795 11.2 28.4 71.6 Sweden 17,215 16.4 25.7 74.3 Belgium 16,360 28.9 34.9 65.1 UK 14,365 40.0 45.7 54.3 Netherlands 13,580 36.6 63.5 36.5 Switzerland 11,275 46.1 90.3 9.7" "In terms of the number of asylum seekers per 1000 population in 2020 the UK is below the average for Europe." "If the number of applications is looked at in relation to each country’s GDP, again the UK is well below the average across Europe" Looks like plenty do stop in other countries Chippy. Don't let the numbers get in the way of a good story though! Source for above: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/resources/asylum-in-europe-may-2021/
Well other than the fact that the International law allows a person seeking refuge to stop at the first safe country. So by my reckoning, Unless there is a garlic purge, in which case they should **** off to Spain, none should enter the UK.
Because we are an island with finite resources which are over stretched and under resourced already eg the NHS, schools etc. Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel’s back?
Italy, Spain, France, Germany are all separate countries with finite resources with similar or lower GDP. So if they are OK to take them why aren't we? Being an island makes no difference, everyone has to trade to make up for shortfalls in their own production. Admittedly this is more expensive after Brexit for us than for any other EU country but that's our fault
I’ve already indicated that I have no problem allowing genuine asylum seekers in. Also no problem with allowing in genuine migrants going through proper channels and procedures. My issue is those coming in illegally and who aren’t genuine asylum seekers but rather are economic migrants trying to bypass the correct process. Why should they be allowed to stay? If I as an individual tried to get into France without passport and proper papers then France would simply send me straight back. Why shouldn’t that happen to those crossing the Channel but in reverse?
This is what the asylum seeker process is for. A better use of the government's time and resources would be to invest in that process so that the backlog of asylum seekers can be assessed and decisions made. If we work through the people in the camps at Calais then there will be less incentive for people to risk the channel crossing