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

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.