[Closed] Whats the general view of the migrants on boats ?

[i]Yes, that's why people are risking death. Substantial benefits payments? The average UK asylum seeker gets £35 per week of which only £10 comes in cash. So you think people are spending thousands of pounds and abandoning everything they have, for £1820 a year[/i]

House (ok... flat in Rochdale!) Healthcare, substantial benefits and a safe environment (possibly not Rochdale then!)plus the ability to beg, borrow or steal....or perhaps even work for cash etc.

They are not abandoning much, I think.

Edit: I'm obviously talking about economic migrants not the terrified families forced from their homelands. You tend to see a certain type of person trying to hitch a ride to the UK from Calais.

[img] [/img]

Actually... now we're on to Rochdale, it looks like we are looking at [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/14/rochdale-councillors-son-arrested-after-being-held-near-syrian-border ]Two way traffic[/url] 😀

There but for the grace of God do I or my kids ever need to do this

Oh. Why is this god persecuting THEM, then?

You tend to see a certain type of person trying to hitch a ride to the UK from Calais.

Desperate ones, basically.

nickc- let's not muddy the waters with actual facts about what life these people end up leading. Rockape read in the Mail that there's billboards across north Africa paid for by Labour and the Lib Dems advertising how amazing our welfare system is and, presumably, he has heard that a friend of a friend's sister lives next door to someone who's an asylum seeker with 300 children claiming £400 a day from the government.

This is NONSENSE. People do not come here because they have heard about our welfare system (one of the signs of a civilised country), they come here because their own country has become unlivable.

Here's a few facts from [url= http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/ ]The Migration Observatory[/url], an independent research centre with no agenda-

- Asylum applications have reduced from 85,000 in 2002 to 25,000 in 2013.
- In 2013 only 36% of these were accepted.
- The UK receives roughly half the number of asylum seekers per 1,000 residents than the rest of the EU.
- Asylum seekers can't work until they have indefinite leave to remain after 5 years.
- No non-EU migrant can claim benefits for 5 years. The Observatory concludes "benefits alone are not realistic as the primary motivation for non-EU migrants to travel to the UK"
-As an aside, to counter the myth of EU Benefit Tourism, only 5% of EU migrants claim benefits.

So, I'm afraid the facts don't stack up in favour of your economic migrant arguments.

[i]So, I'm afraid the facts don't stack up in favour of your economic migrant arguments.[/i]

Yeah right, try and slur me if you like, but answer the question as to why there are thousands camped in Calais, when they are already in Europe.

Bloody immigrants, coming over here and taking our hard earned taxes...

[img] [/img]

Why don't they just appreciate the bombs we send their way?

I mean, don't they realize [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806709 ]how much military intervention costs anyway[/url]?

Depending on the size, scale and associated costs of the operation, the MoD has the ability to seek additional funding from the HM Treasury Reserve for the net additional costs to Defence."

But on Tuesday, Chancellor George Osborne confirmed to MPs that the cost would be fully met by the Treasury's reserve.

He said the MoD estimated the operation would cost tens rather than hundreds of millions.

answer the question as to why there are thousands camped in Calais, when they are already in Europe.

Only 1% of asylum seekers live in the UK. I answered your question a few posts ago- those that come here tend to do so because they have some links to the UK, like family. I would suggest you read up on the issue from reliable independent sources, not the press, and the facts, not prejudices based in myth, will win out.

Rockapes plan to use military force and aid until this blows over is misguided. It never will be over, climate change caused by western consumption will see to it that everywhere below sicily becomes econonically unviable.

We have three options.

A) Integrate billions of people slowly to more Northern or Southerly climates.

B) wait until the last minute and cause massive social upheaval.

C) Deny climate change, kill those who try to enter Europe and let hundreds of millions starve. whilst simultaneously excusing ourselves with Malthusian principles and Social Darwinism.

Given humanities track record we will choose the latter.

Tom.... you forgot option D.....

[img] [/img]

If we're going to spend all that money on them, it seems daft not to use them! It'll definitely stop people drowning. 😉

Rockape63 - Member

plus the ability to beg, borrow or steal

Say no more, that makes your position as clear as anything could

On the plus side, there's a Royal baby soon, who's up for chipping in to buy some pressies for the wee mite?

Aren't we lucky to have such proud British traditions as the Saxe Coburg Gothas and their extended family, on whose behalf taxes are collected.

[img] [/img]

- Asylum applications have reduced from 85,000 in 2002 to 25,000 in 2013.
- In 2013 only 36% of these were accepted.

And how many of the failed ones have been sent back?

While we're at it, we could do a fund raiser to cheer Beatrice up after Daddy was exposed for hanging out with that unsavoury Jeffrey Epstein chap... [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/its-the-company-you-keep-the-dukes-dangerous-liaisons-2235173.html ]what is it with Prince Andrew and dodgy types[/url]?

LIBYA

Tarek Kaituni: Convicted Libyan gun smuggler with whom Andrew enjoyed a four-day holiday in Tunisia in 2008 before visiting Colonel Gaddafi on a Foreign Office mission. The Duke stayed in a £480-a-night suite paid for by Kaituni, although he later reimbursed the cost.

And how many of the failed ones have been sent back?

Between 1997 and 2010 "The majority of failed asylum seekers were not removed – just 36 percent of those who were denied asylum were removed."

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.26

[i]Aren't we lucky to have such proud British traditions as the Saxe Coburg Gothas[/i]

without wishing to de-rail the thread, and to be really fair, the majority of folk in the picture aren't yer actual Saxe Coburg Gothas, and I'm not sure the Middletons are on the Civil List

ninfan- Around 40% of refusals are known to leave, the remainder it's unknown. Many will leave, but for the sake of argument let's keep it small at 50% in total leaving. That's still only an additional 8,000 people or so. That's hardly a lot. And they won't be able to claim benefits or anything else from the states.

Irc- be aware that Migration Watch have a bias and their stats will be skewed.

ninfan - Member

And how many of the failed ones have been sent back?

About 40000 per year that we know of. But UK departure control is poor so there could be more that leave.

(which unless I miss my mark means that less asylum seekers arrive each year than leave, so overall numbers will be falling. Quite surprised at that)

question as to why there are thousands camped in Calais, when they are already in Europe

Oh yes good. Very strong.

[img] ?1[/img]

without wishing to de-rail the thread, and to be really fair, the majority of folk in the picture aren't yer actual Saxe Coburg Gothas, and I'm not sure the Middletons are on the Civil List

Perhaps not... but who do Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs work for?

(And considering the words above the picture, where do babies come from?)

Perhaps not... but who do Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs work for?

JHJ, there's another thread for that. Please don't derail this one.

As an example (I appreciate the problem is larger than just Libya)...If Prince Andrew has been involved in Libya and the migrants are displaced by conflict in Libya (which was escalated by the intervention of the British Armed Forces, the Commander in Chief of whom is the Queen), I'm really not derailling it~ simply looking at the bigger picture (and comparing the fortunes of immigrants such as the Saxe Coburg Gothas).

However, the real problems of the migrants who's homelands have been disrupted by western imperialism remain... who should be overseeing and financing measures to bring them immediate safety and longer term stability?

whats the influence of the west on the countries the migrants are coming from.
the majority are not libyans.

Yeah right, try and slur me if you like, but answer the question as to why there are thousands camped in Calais, when they are already in Europe.

Familiar language and more familiar culture. English is a very common language around the world (most common second language?). French less so. German, Italian?

We have also traditionally welcomed immigrants and have a tradition of it from back in the day when we put our flags all over the globe. We already have ties with countries around the world because of this.

The entire question is impossibly difficult. See the thread about pride but most of us are hear through luck not effort. I'm not sure this gives us anymore rights to a comfortable life than someone born a few thousand miles away. Who is to say who is the most deserving.

However, equally, I can see that if we openened all borders of every country to anyone around the world we'd probbably decimate the population through war and famine.

The answer has to be to tackle the root cause of the problem which is the reason these people will make such a desparate journey and perhaps tackle the people who are profiting from their desparation.

whats the influence of the west on the countries the migrants are coming from.
the majority are not libyans.

Well - turning them into corrupt charity junkies from years of force-feeding them free cash, perhaps?

whats the influence of the west on the countries the migrants are coming from.
the majority are not libyans.

That's a very tricky one to answer...

not all influence is overt.

There has been a long history of covert operations, it would be foolish to imagine similar things were not still occurring under the supervision of MI6 and the CIA

...maybe they are being funded by someone or something to pay the cost of the boat fares.

Just like the cyber men !

Or the Mujahadeen, who later went on to become the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

More recently, when Jihadi John went to fight in Syria, he had a common enemy with the Western Allies in Assad.

Yes, that's why people are risking death. Substantial benefits payments? The average UK asylum seeker gets £35 per week of which only £10 comes in cash. So you think people are spending thousands of pounds and abandoning everything they have, for £1820 a year

I think that good ole Great Britain has royally ****ed up Africa in times gone past so we should tke responsibility and look after the folk who now need our help.

jambalaya - Member

All of that is much more attractive than the economic hardship they have left behind.

And yet earlier you were telling us about how much they're spending to get here.

If they get accepted then can work legally for much more than that.

Asylum seekers can't work.

asylum applicants are not permitted to take employment pending the
final determination of their claim

That is taken directly from the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction.

If you bothered to read nickc's link you'll know that asylum seekers can claim around £5 a day. £1825 a year. The homes they are put up in are not funded by local councils. Of course they are treated for free if they are sick, this is the 1st world.

As above, go and read up on what you are talking about rather than basing what you say on poorly founded prejudice.

Is this an example of 'Economic hardship' in Syria?

[img] [/img]

How about this in Somalia?

[img] [/img]

I think that good ole Great Britain has royally **** up Africa in times gone past so we should tke responsibility and look after the folk who now need our help.

Oh, so it's all our fault?

Have you considered addressing what was said rather than making up something they did not say ?

Yeah, not only that we are the main contributors to climate change which is going to destroy the apirations of a lot of developing nations.

It's about time the west took responsibility for it's history.

[i]Rockapes plan to use military force and aid until this blows over is misguided. It never will be over, climate change caused by western consumption will see to it that everywhere below sicily becomes econonically unviable.[/i]

That was a tongue in cheek reference to an earlier post 'until it blows over' btw. As you say, it will never end, but by creating a 'safe zone' over there, protected by UN forces at least those in peril and in fear of their lives, have somewhere to go until such time they can go somewhere else, be it here or back to their country.

[i]I think that good ole Great Britain has royally **** up Africa in times gone past so we should tke responsibility and look after the folk who now need our help[/i]

Yeah....Zimbabwe is a classic example! Oh wait.....!

[img] [/img]

Je Suis Refugee

[img] [/img]

I think that good ole Great Britain has royally **** up Africa in times gone past so we should tke responsibility and look after the folk who now need our help.

Pushing that logic even further, as we're all technically from Africa anyway in the very distant past maybe they should take reponsibility for sending Lucy et al to Europe in the first place?

Do we need to go so far back though?

According to General Wesley Clark, who had extensive access to the Pentagon

The plan is to take out 7 countries:

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran

[img] [/img]

munrobiker - Member

Asylum seekers can't work.

He meant if their application for asylum is accepted, I think

Great Britain has royally * up Africa

The Romans royally * up the known world so they are to blame ....

Do you like the idea of people drowning because they are desperate enough to risk their lives, often escaping wars that are not of their making?

[url= https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/dont-let-them-drown-mediterranean ]
There's a petition here to help[/url]

The Romans royally **** up the known world so they are to blame ....

A fine example of reductio ad absurdum.

The Romans aren't still ****ing up the world, the west is still in the process of doing so.

I know this is an obvious point but surely we need to look into the reasons why these people feel the need to leave the Countries of their birth and fix those so they don't have to make these dangerous and exploitative journeys.

Just sayin'........

That would partly include cutting back massively on carbon emissions, good luck getting the developed world to agree to that!

Well mikey74 if you were one of those people you would be sat in some crap town/village/tent with no money, little food, no schools or hospitals or prospects. There is huge government corruption, criminal gangs exploiting the population and a war is raging around you and your family.

What would you do?
Answers on a postcard please to mikey74.

You seem to suggest we ought to fix the problem for them which will come at a huge cost and more fighting?

I have no solution BTW I dont think there is one.

That would partly include cutting back massively on carbon emissions, good luck getting the developed world to agree to that!

Are you aware of the amount of carbon/energy legislation we have now?
ESOS, BREEAM, Code for sustainable homes, Part L, CRC, Green Deal, ETL, F-Gas, it goes on.
On top of various tax penalties for inefficient vehicles, subsidies for renewable energy schemes.
Then we have China, Brasil and India riding roughshod and making a mockery of what lots of nations are trying to achieve. Still making some CFC gases we banned 10 years ago!

Still not enough, most of it is pretty half arsed.

Then we have China, Brasil and India riding roughshod and making a mockery of what lots of nations are trying to achieve.

Most of it to supply western consumption. Ergo their pollution is partly our responsibility as well.

A report by the University College London Environment Institute (commissioned by Channel 4 for Dispatches Great Global Warming Swindle programme)[5] suggested that current government policies would achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases of between 12 and 17% by 2020, compared to an implied target of up to 30%. The report states that the over-riding block to achieving 30% is that nearly all the government's policies are voluntary.[6]

Such targets have also been criticised for ignoring the emissions embodied in imports, thereby attributing them to other - often developing - countries such as China.[7] One report showed that Britain's imports are responsible for more overseas emissions than those of any other European country, and should add an extra 4.3 tonnes CO
2 to the average 9.7 per capita.[8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_Kingdom#Criticism_of_targets

Keep trying to worm our way out of responsibility though. It reminds me of this show -

That would partly include cutting back massively on carbon emissions, good luck getting the developed world to agree to that!

That has nothing to do with it.

Well mikey74 if you were one of those people you would sat in some crap town/village/tent with no money, little food, no schools or hospitals or prospects. There is huge government corruption, criminal gangs exploiting the population and a war is raging around you and your family.

What would you do?
Answers on a postcard please to mikey74.

You seem to suggest we ought to fix the problem for them which will come at a huge cost and more fighting?

I think that is exactly what it will come to, however impractical that may be. My main point was that unless you correct the massive imbalance of quality of life (not necessarily related to wealth) throughout the world then these events will continue to take place.

That has nothing to do with it.

How does it have nothing to do with it, it's going to impact the prosperity of equatorial regions significantly.

ESOS, BREEAM, Code for sustainable homes, Part L, CRC, Green Deal, ETL, F-Gas, it goes on.

And they are, for the most part, completely misguided. The majority of current legislation tends to be geared towards more consumption, just making the technology more efficient. We should be focusing on less consumption of resources.

Do wars have regulations for emissions?

What effect do wars (and the weapons used) have on the environment?

An example:

The US Department of Defence is the country’s largest consumer of fossil fuels. Research from 2007 showed the military used 20.9bn litres of fuel each year. This results in similar CO2 emissions to a mid-sized European country such as Denmark.

And that’s before they go to war. The carbon footprint of a deployed modern army is typically enormous. One report suggested the US military, with its tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, used 190.8m litres of oil every month during the invasion of Iraq. An estimated two thirds of this fuel is used delivering more fuel to the vehicles at the battlefront.

More [url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/06/whats-the-environmental-impact-of-modern-war ]here[/url]

How many trees would you have to plant to offset dropping a bomb?

How does it have nothing to do with it, it's going to impact the prosperity of equatorial regions significantly.

I has nothing to do with it because these people aren't running away from power cuts, they are running away from civil wars, genocide, persecution etc.

I agree it will become an increasingly important factor in the future, but it's not the primary cause at the moment.

Still not enough, most of it is pretty half arsed.

Keep trying to worm our way out of responsibility though.

Whilst we're on the resources thing:

Historically, when new forms of energy are developed, we don't abandon the old forms, we just raise our level of consumption: It's that kind of trend that we need to reverse.

New forms of energy mikey?
I think I get you actually, and I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't look to generate more capacity, we should reduce what we use, and to be fair that is the intention of a lot of the schemes and regs (CRC, EPCs, ESOS etc etc).
It's a crying shame that the tories hijacked the CRC scheme, it could have had a positive impact rather than just another tax.

Regardless of regulation, during war, it all goes out of the window, or are the emissions of missiles and bombs closely monitored?

Exactly, wrecker.

The trouble with the legislation is that none of them cover usage, they just relate to the efficiency of technology.

Take a large building, for example: The embodied energy in the construction of that building is actually very small compared to the energy consumed in the use of the building. As far as I am aware, there is no legislation that deals with the use of energy once the building has been constructed,

Never mind missiles, fireworks are terrible!

Fireworks are less likely to cause people to leave their countries and make dangerous journeys in substandard boats though.

And people buy them voluntarily, rather than paying for them with taxes...

The trouble with the legislation is that none of them cover usage, they just relate to the efficiency of technology.

As far as I am aware, there is no legislation that deals with the use of energy once the building has been constructed,

Fireworks are less likely to cause people to leave their countries and make dangerous journeys in substandard boats though.

You're right though, probably enough thread derailment for now.

Asylum seekers can't work.

I suspect 99.99% don't know that prior to getting here. Listening to interviews with African migrants in the Sangette camp nr Calais, they have great aspirations once they get into the UK, working, training to be a doctor, running a shop. All dreams which keep them going.

We (the UK) do more than our fair share (and I'm not saying it's too much or enough), compared with almost anywhere. The americans don't do anywhere near enough, and although it has been repeatedly asked of BRICs, they point blank refuse to reduce their footprint. The Brazilians are still chopping down rainforest FFS!

I agree, but the Americans will get their comeuppance when the whole of Mexico swarms the border and the deep South becomes utterly desolate.

Yanks will be fleeing to Canada, which will be hilarious. I hope medicine advances enough so that I one day get to witness this on my death bed, I'll die an amused man.

It still doesn't exempt us from the moral responsibility as a Northern hemisphere nation (a fact that has already put us in a better economic condition even without global warming) in our duty to help people that our policies have roundly ****ed. Mikey says that it's not an issue now, it is, because we need to slowly migrate people further North so we don't end up with even more sudden asylum influxes in the future. It's simply either a coincidence/related fact that a lot of these countries also currently have massive issues with instability. We need to start identifying land with low population counts (Northern most parts of Canada, Scandanavia, Russia etc.....Scotland 😆 ) and start a resettlement program - camps...big **** off camps whereby we can start integrating them with western society.

The alternative is to either let them die, or move them here in an unplanned fashion that increases instability in the west and support for fascist parties.

At times like this it's always worth asking what Nige would do...
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/24/tony-abbott-hes-too-tough-on-immigration-for-me-says-nigel-farage
Not that keen on some of the turn back policies and the camps that go with them...

Yanks will be fleeing to Canada, which will be hilarious. I hope medicine advances enough so that I one day get to witness this on my death bed, I'll die an amused man.

It still doesn't exempt us from the moral responsibility as a Northern hemisphere nation (a fact that has already put us in a better economic condition even without global warming) in our duty to help people that our policies have roundly *. Mikey says that it's not an issue now, it is, because we need to slowly migrate people further North so we don't end up with even more sudden asylum influxes in the future. It's simply either a coincidence/related fact that a lot of these countries also currently have massive issues with instability. We need to start identifying land with low population counts (Northern most parts of Canada, Scandanavia, Russia etc.....Scotland ) and start a resettlement program - camps...big * off camps whereby we can start integrating them with western society.

The alternative is to either let them die, or move them here in an unplanned fashion that increases instability in the west and support for fascist parties.

I'm sorry but moving large portions of the Earth's population into a Northern hemisphere with an ever decreasing land-mass is not a viable option. The only real option is for developed nations to invest heavily in developing nations so they not only contribute less to the global ecological disaster, but also so they are better prepared to deal with the changes that are coming.

[i]I'm sorry but moving large portions of the Earth's population into a Northern hemisphere with an ever decreasing land-mass is not a viable option. The only real option is for developed nations to invest heavily in developing nations so they not only contribute less to the global ecological disaster, but also so they are better prepared to deal with the changes that are coming.[/i]

The one flaw in your argument is that the developed nations are up to their ears in debt and its getting worse....not better. So that rules out the only real option....

Arctic Cities.

The one flaw in your argument is that the developed nations are up to their ears in debt and its getting worse....not better. So that rules out the only real option....

It may be our only option. Anyway, I'm no expert on economics but I don't see the debt of developed countries curtailing their foreign investment that much. In fact, I would have thought that further investment could help with debt, especially if it reduces the demands on the economy at home (i.e. less immigration):

In the early 1950s, UK national debt was over 200% of GDP (in 2012, it is 63% of GDP). But, this level of debt didn’t burden the UK. It was a legacy of the Second World War and spending on the Welfare State and nationalising industries. It laid a foundation for three decades of economic prosperity.

The other factor, of course, is that birth rates tend to be inversely proportional to the prosperity of the country, so investing time and money in less developed countries should help curtail the population explosion in certain parts of the world, having beneficial effects all around.

footflaps - Member

Asylum seekers can't work.

I suspect 99.99% don't know that prior to getting here. Listening to interviews with African migrants in the Sangette camp nr Calais, [b]they have great aspirations once they get into the UK, working, training to be a doctor, running a shop. All dreams which keep them going. [/b]

... until they realise that the system is so bureaucratic there is no way they can be entrepreneurial to earn a living unless they bend the rules to cause massive backlash or simply keep on getting state help.

Aspiration is useless if the system is ruled by ZMs so when they realise the road is not paved with gold that is when the problem starts to smoulder beneath ...

So In conclusion. Europe is full of selfish patronising ill informed, heartless racist bastards and part time economists that wouldn't know poverty or a refugee if it slapped them the face. In the past we were the refugees. maybe time we returned the world we meddled with a favour.

We don't know how lucky we are.

Makes me feel sick.

[img] [/img]
Only 101 Years Ago

I'm obviously talking about economic migrants not the terrified families forced from their homelands. You tend to see a certain type of person trying to hitch a ride to the UK from Calais.

I mean, for example - the geezer with the scarf - is he an economic migrant or a refugee?

[img] [/img]