The Irony Thread

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?

Most likely yeah.

Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?

Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.

rick_chasey

I mean, there is the obvious point that if they are illegal then it should be a simple matter for the police - and not necessarily something that requires massive political grandstanding?

I mean, people bang on about how great the UK is, and broadly compared to the rest of the world it is, so this stuff will happen, especially when the water is still.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

I mean, people bang on about how great the UK is, and broadly compared to the rest of the world it is, so this stuff will happen, especially when the water is still.

Wait till they find out Richard (edited for useless censor) Whittington was in fact an ironic story. Bringing us nicely back to topic. 😉

darkhairedlord

rick_chasey said:

I mean, there is the obvious point that if they are illegal then it should be a simple matter for the police - and not necessarily something that requires massive political grandstanding?

I mean, people bang on about how great the UK is, and broadly compared to the rest of the world it is, so this stuff will happen, especially when the water is still.

Boris to cancel the Irish Bridge and build the channel wave-making machine?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?

Most likely yeah.

Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?

Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.

My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?

Most likely yeah.

Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?

Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.

My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.

They're only following the rules.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?

Most likely yeah.

Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?

Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.

My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.

Thems the rules the world signed up to.

Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.

What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.

This is obviously preposterous.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

surrey_commuter

A

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

I increasingly think that this country’s issues with immigration is with the poor, uneducated, rural immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India who join communities who have not integrated and are perceived to be a drain on society. This debate is not allowed so it is had by proxy with FoM and asylum seekers

veronese68

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Record numbers of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel now we've left the EU despite lack of border controls being one of the Brexiteer's cases for leaving.

We're still in effectively until the end of the year...transition period still going. Maybe migrants are making last ditch efforts before we can return them to France?

This was at the top of page 30, we are now well into page 33 with many people telling ßtevo he is wrong and we will have no legal right to return people to France, give it up people he will never admit he or his beloved Tories are wrong.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

A

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

I increasingly think that this country’s issues with immigration is with the poor, uneducated, rural immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India who join communities who have not integrated and are perceived to be a drain on society. This debate is not allowed so it is had by proxy with FoM and asylum seekers

I don't really know about the specific instance but yes, you are right, the discussion should really be about *how* to integrate and that is where the focus should be.

The benefits are obvious - let's focus on the drawbacks.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

A

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

I increasingly think that this country’s issues with immigration is with the poor, uneducated, rural immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India who join communities who have not integrated and are perceived to be a drain on society. This debate is not allowed so it is had by proxy with FoM and asylum seekers

I don't really know about the specific instance but yes, you are right, the discussion should really be about *how* to integrate and that is where the focus should be.

The benefits are obvious - let's focus on the drawbacks.

And would you make admission or staying conditional on integration

rjsterry

How on earth do you measure integration? It's such a nebulous concept.

rick_chasey

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

This is a genuine potential problem - we could get our own scummers back

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

This is a genuine potential problem - we could get our own scummers back

Honestly it’s the best way.

Absolutely critical.


2nd gen immigrant - always harder on our own 😉

But seriously if you want to live somewhere you must at the very least speak the language.

Else why spend time in tgat society?

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

Which language? The UK has more than one. Given many native speakers seem to struggle, should that really be the defining characteristic? Strikes me as a very poor proxy for real integration.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

Which language? The UK has more than one. Given many native speakers seem to struggle, should that really be the defining characteristic? Strikes me as a very poor proxy for real integration.

It’s not a proxy for integration but you sure as hell can’t integrate if you don’t speak it.

And in England English.

Scots can make up their own rules.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

This is a genuine potential problem - we could get our own scummers back

Honestly it’s the best way.

Absolutely critical.


2nd gen immigrant - always harder on our own 😉

But seriously if you want to live somewhere you must at the very least speak the language.

Else why spend time in tgat society?

There might be an interesting discussion about the difference between those who are fleeing their homeland with nothing but the clothes on their backs and those who can buy their way into a country with lots of sun, cheap wine, and CV19.

Though in both cases, at least a willingness to learn, in return for the right to remain, doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

rick_chasey

Honestly, language is the gateway to culture.

The old adage is true that you can't understand a culture unless you speak a langauge, and you can't really understand the language unless you know the culture.

Learning to speak languages massively helps with integration. It reduces hostility all round. It also helps reduce the challenges of ghettoisation within communities, which you would have to also work against.

blazing_saddles

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

Since you are crunching numbers.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²

The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.

I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

Since you are crunching numbers.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²

The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.

I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.

Plenty of nations have denser populations than the UK.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That already is the case for most visas (something I disagree with). For asylum seekers it doesn't matter, because the UK has no sanction for anyone who fails.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

Which language? The UK has more than one. Given many native speakers seem to struggle, should that really be the defining characteristic? Strikes me as a very poor proxy for real integration.

It’s not a proxy for integration but you sure as hell can’t integrate if you don’t speak it.

And in England English.

Scots can make up their own rules.

It's England and Wales. You'll notice the latter is bilingual.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Speaking the language I would make a requisite for having any stay longer than 2 years.

That'd catch out quite a lot of the UK expats in Spain...

Which language? The UK has more than one. Given many native speakers seem to struggle, should that really be the defining characteristic? Strikes me as a very poor proxy for real integration.

It’s not a proxy for integration but you sure as hell can’t integrate if you don’t speak it.

And in England English.

Scots can make up their own rules.

It's England and Wales. You'll notice the latter is bilingual.

Sure speak the official languages.

You wanna learn welsh? Go for it.

rjsterry

blazing_saddles said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

Since you are crunching numbers.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²

The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.

I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.

Err, not sure I've ever referenced population density in my comments on the Covid thread but anyway. Pretty obvious that asylum claims have minimal impact on population density as there are so few of them. Less than about 18,000 in a country of 67million or about 3% of annual immigration. Those crossing the Channel are less than this again. Asylum claimants are not allowed to work and have to live off about £5 a day allowance. Needless to say that doesn't allow for a luxurious lifestyle. As for land area we are fine. Outside the four main conurbations the UK is pretty empty.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.

Since you are crunching numbers.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²

The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.

I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.

Plenty of nations have denser populations than the UK.

Yeah, right, if you can call most of them them countries.

1 Monaco 18,369 1.98
2 Gibraltar (UK) 4,328 6.8
3 Vatican City 2,045 0.44
4 Malta 1,260 316
5 Guernsey (UK) 990 78
6 Jersey (UK) 774 116
7 San Marino 455 61
8 Netherlands 393 41,526
9 Belgium 337 30,510
10 United Kingdom 267 243,610

I see a lot of UKs in there.
Monaco 2nd in the world, Gibralter 5th.
4 in the top 10 in Europe.

pinno

blazing_saddles said:

I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.

On the one hand you could argue that a few thousand Cantonese would be economically independent quite quickly and boost the economy.
On the other, we currently have a housing crisis and strict rules and a load of nimbyism about building on green belt.

So yes, where do we fit even small numbers of migrants without putting enormous pressure on schools, the health service and housing even if they were financially solvent?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?

Most likely yeah.

Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?

Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.

My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.

Thems the rules the world signed up to.

Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.

What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.

This is obviously preposterous.

No idea where you get that from.

I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.

And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.