Mecky Posted March 16, 2011 Author Share Posted March 16, 2011 I don't have the figures at hand but you would be surprised at the low number of asylum seekers that actually do speak a word of english by the time they arrive. It's even been proven on many occasions that some asylum seekers aren't genuine and have been 'trained' by traffickers to say specific phrases etc to try to beat the system. More likely to be smuggled than trafficked, although some are likely to be both smuggled and trafficked at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Illegal immigration, asylum and overstays are all a red herring in the immigration debate. Each of those represent a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of legal and legitimate net migration to the UK post 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 As for the asylum thing. It's my personal opinion that many asylum seekers pass through 'safe' countries in order to get here, especially through France. We should also hold the French government responsible for the financial burden for the 'clandestines' that attempt crossings via the channel ports. There is a massive camp known as "the jungle" full of these 'clandestines' on French soil, yet the French government refuse to deal with them. However, I do think agree that the camps that have been set up around Calais are the responsibility of the French government and the people in them should claim asylum there.I know for a fact that France is no 'safe' or soft-touch with clandestines/asylum-seekers, in fact vastly less so than the UK (the reason why immigrants go straight through to the UK: one of the, if not the, only EU Member States where ID papers are not compulsory). The French Gvt has repeatedly 'cleared' the Calais camps (and others). E.g. see here (Sangatte cleared, 2002). As for 'La Jungle', well... see here (camp cleared and destroyed, arrests made, 2009) This stems (and the problem is 'solved') in good part from the legal requirement to have identity papers (for nationals and immigrants). Makes it easy to determine status and eligibility to stay on-the-spot, and detain + 'charterize' when collared. No such system in the UK, so of course it becomes a problem once relevant persons fall 'off the grid': there is no grid to fall off from! A bit less of "thy neighbour's eye" and all that, and a bit more research next time if you please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Illegal immigration, asylum and overstays are all a red herring in the immigration debate. Each of those represent a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of legal and legitimate net migration to the UK post 1997. And do you expect the Tories to take action to reduce immigration now they're in power? Don't hold your breath, you might just die of asphyxiation. x Note to the mods - I'm not making a threat against that person. x x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowersfade Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 And do you expect the Tories to take action to reduce immigration now they're in power? Don't hold your breath, you might just die of asphyxiation. x Note to the mods - I'm not making a threat against that person. x x Love the disclaimer at the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Illegal immigration, asylum and overstays are all a red herring in the immigration debate. Each of those represent a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of legal and legitimate net migration to the UK post 1997.Yes but legal migrants due pay their dues whereas illegals work illegally therefore neither they or their employers pay their dues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Love the disclaimer at the bottom. Believe me, it's necessary x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 16, 2011 Author Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yes but legal migrants due pay their dues whereas illegals work illegally therefore neither they or their employers pay their dues. Legals do not always work legally. The truth is is that although you can officially cap the numbers of people migrating to the UK, it will probably reduce the numbers very slightly because people will just come illegally. It is far better to have people enter legally because that way you have more chance of keeping track of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 And do you expect the Tories to take action to reduce immigration now they're in power? Don't hold your breath, you might just die of asphyxiation. x Note to the mods - I'm not making a threat against that person. x x I don't know what they'll do but I hope they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I don't know what they'll do but I hope they do. A couple of points worth repeating: 1) Until we break free from the EU, there's little we can do to stop immigration from other European countries. 2) Capping EU immigration would have the effect of forcing businesses to pay a decent living wage to their employees if order to fill vacancies - and neither the Tories nor businesses want that. Happy to be corrected on both points x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.