What's your answer to this?

[cee-dee]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/calais-migrants-face-catastrophe-153936990.html#3RP7sMo

The situation can't go on?

Not only can the stowaway situation there not continue, the constant flow of people trying to get to Europe and/or Britain cannot continue either.

Those people should be told that there's nothing for them except a life in a refugee camp. They can't become a "normal" member of society in their target country because they can't speak the language and those that get here (legally or illegally) don't seem to want to bother to learn either. They can't do anything useful except work that's already over subscribed so their only work is going to be an exploited modern form of slavery.

They're looking for a short-cut to a way of life that's taken a couple of thousand years to achieve and they're many centuries behind.

It's high time they were "educated" about the facts of illegal immigration and shown what has happened to many who went before them and all efforts should be made to dissuade and/or prevent them starting out in the first place rather than dealing with them en route or at their destination.

[cee-dee]

Now we're probably going to get a load of illegals coming here as the French are on strike and loads of lorries are at a standstill at Calais with loads of illegals trying to get aboard them.

There's loadsa lorries stationary on this side of the channel so when (and if) the French strike ends, all the lorries will be on the move as quickly as they can and there won't be proper checking of the incoming lorries so there'll be more of this:-

http://news.sky.com/story/1506341/farmer-rounds-up-illegal-migrants-in-his-fields

[fallen-archie]

Will the French ever take responsibility given that these migrants are not legally able to stay in France either? And what about the governments of their Home countries. I would be happy to see help given but it must target the reasons they flee in the first place, Surely we are capable of doing something.

[cee-dee]

Those "migrants" have managed to travel thousands of miles and have survived somehow so how have they managed that for a start?

Really, they should be backtracked to each country they've travelled through and sent back from whence they came because very few of them could prove they were at risk in the country they started out in.

We're too soft and have been made so by "do-gooders".

[joe_bloggs*]

Far from being too soft,the article you posted from sky news states "Dozens of boats are launched from lawless Libya each week"

The French and UK governments spent billions bombing gaddafi's regime into dust on supposedly humanitarian grounds,we didn't have any where near that number fleeing Libya before our "humanitarian" bombs rained down

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/from-iraq-to-libya-and-syria-the-wars-that-come-back-tohaunt-us-...

[cee-dee]

Are those people "fleeing Libya" actually Libyans? No, they're not.

[fallen-archie]

What good is it to repeatedly point out that the toppling of Gadaffi is the reason for today's debacle. Why must people look upon a serious situation like this as an opportunity to say "I told you so" Smarty point to the left please. What about the UN? why are they not assisting Libya to adjust to it's first true opportunity to have a democratic society? Is it because of the political games that are played out daily by Governments, by Political parties and activists who do naff all to help those really suffering. That work is done largely by charities NGOs etc. What possible good can it serve for us to accommodate every economic migrant or anyone seeking to escape a viscious regime? what they need is the power of self determination and you don't get that simply by harping on about who was right and who was wrong Unless of course you have a better solution.

[suzieseaside]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Those "migrants" have managed to travel thousands of miles and have survived somehow so how have they managed that for a start?

Really, they should be backtracked to each country they've travelled through and sent back from whence they came because very few of them could prove they were at risk in the country they started out in.

We're too soft and have been made so by "do-gooders".

---

Since you are always demanding evidence from posters, I am curious to know where is your evidence for this (underlined) statement above?

It's not just economic migrants now, numbers have swelled from refugees from Africa and the Middle East desperate to escape from war, tyranny, torture and human rights abuses and feel they have no choice other than to risk dangerous sea crossings being sick, frightened and urinated on by their neighbours in crowded conditions, and with nothing but uncertainty ahead of them.

I don't know what proportion are fleeing out of fear and what proportion just hope for a better life and I would be interested to know.

Maybe it’s payback time for the West, for all the exploitation of those less fortunate and the destabilisation that we have created elsewhere in the past.

We are part of the problem. We wade in, yes perhaps justified for humanitarian reasons to depose dictators, but sometimes that’s a cover for vested interests like oil security. We have little thought or care for what happens after we have intervened.

I don’t know what the solution is and I do think it is terrible that the lorry drivers have to cope with that level of intimidation. I also appreciate that Britain and the rest of Europe are too crowded to cope with non-stop illegal immigration.

I suppose more needs to be done at the point of departure by stopping the Libyan criminal gangs / smugglers who exploit the refugees' desperation.  Not an easy task I'm sure

[suzieseaside]

Agree with Joe Bloggs who posted while I was writing my reply.

[suzieseaside]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What good is it to repeatedly point out that the toppling of Gadaffi is the reason for today's debacle. Why must people look upon a serious situation like this as an opportunity to say "I told you so" Smarty point to the left please. What about the UN? why are they not assisting Libya to adjust to it's first true opportunity to have a democratic society? Is it because of the political games that are played out daily by Governments, by Political parties and activists who do naff all to help those really suffering. That work is done largely by charities NGOs etc. What possible good can it serve for us to accommodate every economic migrant or anyone seeking to escape a viscious regime? what they need is the power of self determination and you don't get that simply by harping on about who was right and who was wrong Unless of course you have a better solution.

---

I agree with what you say, but a reminder that the West has caused part of the problem may not be such a bad thing to those who have little compassion for desperate refugees and lump all illegal immigrants together as being economic migrants who just want a cushy life over here. . 

[fallen-archie]

Reminders come along like London Buses, but so be it if someone out there has forgotten. I make no distinction between left or right in this respect, those who blindly follow a cause and never stop to think whether they themselves agree with it. It's like the Scots love affair with Sturgeon/Salmon they promise no Austerity! well whooppee whoo, there's a vote catcher especially in a part of the country where benefits play such a substantial part. We can blame everything on the past but we cannot find solutions for the future.

[******lynda******]

Scotland is off topic, but since you brought it up, half the scots did not vote SNP. There is a lot of anti SNP feeling and dislike for the fish people, and many of us feel it is more of a cult than a political party...selling delusions. So, please, don't lump us all together.

On topic, there is no easy answer. Every time we go in to 'sort' a regime, we make things worse. So how do we make things better for these people in their homelands? Handing over cash doesn't work...the ruling elite snaffle it. Sending in people to help with aid etc gets them killed. But we cannot absorb enormous populations at one go. How do we house them, when we have people here can't get homes. How do we feed them? The more we take in, the more will want to come over, because they will have to get a free ride, as there are not the jobs. Our economy is only starting to recover and the people are screaming poverty and hardship...will they want to pay more taxes for many thousands of hungry people? The money has to come from somewhere. It is not as if we grow a surplus...we have to import a lot of food for ourselves, so we would end up with having to import a lot more ...will the suppliers and transports be able to meet demands or will prices go up?

[joe_bloggs*]

 "The money has to come from somewhere. It is not as if we grow a surplus"

they soon found billions to waste on turning these countries into dust didn't they?

the world will never achieve full security until the povery in africa is solved through developenment and yes more finance,there is enough money and food in this world to go round and eradicate hunger forever 

Didn't a wise man once say: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

[fallen-archie]

Off topic first,

I love Scotland, I look forward to my trips and hold it in great affection. It is for that reason to name but a few that I am so critical of SNP and what they actually represent. I don't wish to tar all with the same brush and I know that many who have fallen into the clutches of the SNP have done so without really understanding the implications.

On Topic

If the UN could agree some basic human rights acceptable to left and right, Then it would be possible to prevent or intervene with full international support and that for once might pose a reasonal threat to potential demagogues whilst offering some protection to the innocent victims. 

[fallen-archie]

We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.

[******lynda******]

A wise man, indeed. There is enough money in the world, but the world does not pull together. Money sounds great, but the practicalities are not so simple, in war zones where the world is not welcome. Giving the people everything they want materially in their homelands counts for little if they won't live in peace and accept each other's differences. If their own leaders don't care. Nothing like constant warring among themselves to re create hardship. If one lot decides to destroy another lot, then how can a mass of assistance be sustainable?
Just asking. Obviously I don't have answers, but am trying to learn from history...hence my previous remarks about enforcing regime change etc

[******lynda******]

The UN can agree whatever human rights it wants, but if the residents of the countries involved don't accept them.....?

[fallen-archie]

True but the UN is not the organisation hoped for when formed if it were then regime change could be used as a last resort without the regime involved feeling it has a strong supporter ready to prop it up. We have to find a mechanism which prevents the kind of despots commonplace throughout so many poor countries.

[bookhunter2007]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What good is it to repeatedly point out that the toppling of Gadaffi is the reason for today's debacle. Why must people look upon a serious situation like this as an opportunity to say "I told you so"

---

I didn't read it like that.  Personally, I think it's more beneficial people have some sort of understanding or are "educated" as to why asylum is sought in the UK.  All throughout history from the Huguenots, the Jews, to those fleeing the fallout from the oil wars, people have sought asylum.  What is unhelpful is when the myth that benefit payments are generous, and is the main reason for seeking asylum - This is just not supported by evidence - something which the OP seems reluctant to produce.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5702/rcchance.pdf

If anything, there's a danger this myth becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I mean, it's hardly a deterrent for migrants to come here if it becomes widely circulated that if you move to the UK you can live the life of Riley on benefits?

[fallen-archie]

You misunderstand my point completely, I agree that education is necessary, fact rather than the fiction. I welcome overseas visitors to the UK just as I am grateful to be able to travel freely myself. The UK remains the destination of choice for many not to visit but to stay. Whether they are prepared, willing and able to work is a moot point. What is the true percentage of those gathered in Calais who are genuinely attempting to escape persecution, how many are being pursued by a secret service agent bent on killing them? How many seek simple things like running and drinkable water or a roof over their head.

You know that the question of benefits is an emotional topic especially for those living here who are dependent on them and they have a point, Statistics for the Somali community show that wherever they have sought refuge 80% never seek or gain employment and remain dependent upon the state. 

It is vastly cheaper to provide clean water to Africa than it is to wage war, so lets get the water sorted. North Africa is also doable tourism alone could and should pay major dividends so lets give them some stabilityand help yjem to have pride in there own achievements.

Those like your Zimbabwean friend has demonstrated his commitment here and should be allowed to stay, others likewise. Trouble is when Mugabe started his rule he was racist, attacked his own economy and his opponents, lost millions in export revenues while building himself a new Palace and persecuting black and white. Our government for once did nothing, The Loons of the Left accepted his appointment for purely political reasons ad one of these days when the stories are told we will once again be painted in a negative light.

Finally the BBC managed a quick interview with one asylum seeker in Calais, he was from Pakistan and was running away from the Taliban How mny left to follow him? 

[******lynda******]

A myth indeed, but value of money is relative and if those in far off lands believe the myth, and to them, if they hear the amounts, compared perhaps with their own expectations at home, it may indeed sound generous, along with accommodation, they may come over in expectation of a better life.
We hear reports of the high wages in Norway, not always understanding the high costs, or even realising that Norway has food banks, and think they must be living in some comparative Utopia...or so the fish people tell us. Perception is all.
I accept that there are different reasons for thinking they will have a better life in Europe, but equally, their expectations are often high...wishful thinking, perhaps.

A trickle can be helped easily...a flood is overwhelming. Are we assuming that thousands of disappointed people are just going to wait quietly till we can sort them out with homes etc. That could be a bit disingenuous.
I know we have more than we need. I see people complaining about austerity and I despair. We have an obesity problem...how does that equate with austerity. We waste tons and tons of food. Most of the complainers have more than we had when we were young, and certainly more than our parents. Tax thresholds have been raised. Interest rates and inflation are lower than I have ever seen. My husband paid 20% rates on his mortgage. My parents didn't own their own homes till they were 35 and 45, respectively. I was 46.
Yet now we say children should be able to get on the housing ladder as soon as they want to leave home.
Is there no end to the sense of entitlement? Is that the standard we are to fund in African countries to stop the flow of people?
Here, although there are people struggling, and they need more help, a lot seem to think that losing a foreign holiday is hardship.
*ducks*

Maybe some Brits should go to where these migrants come from and see what austerity and hardship really are.