Refugees Channel crossing

rick_chasey

Chris Bass wrote:

as an intersting aside - if there was free movement of people across the whole world, how long do you think it would take before all countries became roughly equal? ?

Would never happen.

There's free movement within the EU, and there's plainly no equality there.

There's free movement within the states, the UK, and again, there's obvious inequality.

Labour is sticky for the most part.

lettingthedaysgoby

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

bradsbeard

Chris Bass wrote:

as an intersting aside - if there was free movement of people across the whole world, how long do you think it would take before all countries became roughly equal? there would be chaos for a very long time but eventually all countries should become pretty similar, in theory at least.

initially there would be a rush of people to the "best" countries - these would then become saturated and people would leave to go to the new "best" countries, until these became saturated and so on until the difference between the best and worst would gradually narrow until all countries became very similar in terms of quality of life. Or maybe it would continue to be chaos until we all killed each other?

Chaos would ensue.

Problem to only get worse as climate change really bites.

Surely a line has to be drawn sometime?

dabber

In the context of "Refugees Channel crossing" the word refugees is no longer applicable. Having come from France they are now immigrants.

haydenm

Dabber wrote:

In the context of "Refugees Channel crossing" the word refugees is no longer applicable. Having come from France they are now immigrants.

Rather depends how you look at it. They are refugees if they are seeking refuge, until us or anyone else gives them a hearing

dabber

HaydenM wrote:

Dabber wrote:

In the context of "Refugees Channel crossing" the word refugees is no longer applicable. Having come from France they are now immigrants.

Rather depends how you look at it. They are refugees if they are seeking refuge, until us or anyone else gives them a hearing

In my view they found safe refuge in France but it's not somewhere they want to live. So now they want to come to the UK because that's somewhere they would prefer to live. In my book that's immigration.

rick_chasey

Dabber wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Dabber wrote:

In the context of "Refugees Channel crossing" the word refugees is no longer applicable. Having come from France they are now immigrants.

Rather depends how you look at it. They are refugees if they are seeking refuge, until us or anyone else gives them a hearing

In my view they found safe refuge in France but it's not somewhere they want to live. So now they want to come to the UK because that's somewhere they would prefer to live. In my book that's immigration.

Are you familiar with the rate of refugees being refused entry in France and sent back to where they have fled from, compared to the UK?

If not, I don't really know if you are in a position to make any claim like that.

The level of NIMBYism in debates like this is breathtaking.

Then again I grew up good friends with a guy who was a baby when his parents fled Rwanda from the village, so perhaps that has coloured my view.

haydenm

If they come here and they aren't granted refuge then they are sent back, I don't see what the problem is with making sure they don't die in the sea

john80

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

You re-visit any vox pops clips from 2017, 2015 or 2010 and all they bang on about is benefit scroungers and too many hand outs.

You go to any public consultation meeting where someone or some firm wants to build a sh!tload of houses and watch every person nearby object because it impacts their house price.

tangled_metal

You need to separate international norms for claiming asylum from the individual fleeing persecution. Just because safe politicians and diplomats decided international etiquette is to claim asylum at the first safe country doesn't mean any person ignoring that to get to where they feel safer or is a better place for them to claim asylum isn't still a refugee.

The agreed norms weren't agreed by people fleeing from persecution. The refugee status really only applies to those fleeing persecution. Where they claim it doesn't change that status. It's just imposed formalities. Personally I question whether those formalities are even just.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

You re-visit any vox pops clips from 2017, 2015 or 2010 and all they bang on about is benefit scroungers and too many hand outs.

You go to any public consultation meeting where someone or some firm wants to build a sh!tload of houses and watch every person nearby object because it impacts their house price.

The summary of your post is; UK votes for a decade of austerity, John blames immigrants.

tangled_metal

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

Have we ever had adequate housing under any government? Serious question.

AIUI Wii aftermath saw rapid house building. Not all was adequate. 60s concrete blocks which developed cancer and got blocker knocked down. 80s Tory council house sell off never got replaced. Indeed even labour party governments never solved housing issues afaics.

Pross

Dabber wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Dabber wrote:

In the context of "Refugees Channel crossing" the word refugees is no longer applicable. Having come from France they are now immigrants.

Rather depends how you look at it. They are refugees if they are seeking refuge, until us or anyone else gives them a hearing

In my view they found safe refuge in France but it's not somewhere they want to live. So now they want to come to the UK because that's somewhere they would prefer to live. In my book that's immigration.

So effectively you are saying the UK wouldn't take any refugees as our location in comparison to countries people are leaving would mean there is zero chance that anyone would come here directly. Contrary to popular myth it is not a requirement that a refugee has to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. Also, have they found safe refuge if they are leaving in a camp outside Calais that can be bulldozed at any moment and where crime and violence is often rife?

hopkinb

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

^^^
This. Stick a few pence on income tax, reassess public spending priorities and there would be adequate housing, health care and other social care.

Everything is stretched to breaking point because of years of underinvestment, not because of in increase in population.

No votes in tax increases and a change in spending priorities though.

lettingthedaysgoby

john80 wrote:

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

Maybe ask yourself why that is, given that we are seemingly able to spend billions on arms, subsidies to the banks, brexit bullshit and all the rest.

Magic money tree indeed.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

You re-visit any vox pops clips from 2017, 2015 or 2010 and all they bang on about is benefit scroungers and too many hand outs.

You go to any public consultation meeting where someone or some firm wants to build a sh!tload of houses and watch every person nearby object because it impacts their house price.

Take a step back and have a look at how many houses were built under the last Labour government and maybe take your tribal/tin foil hat off for a second.

https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/

The dip in 2008 could have been something to do with the financial crisis which I am guessing in your mind was a Tory thing as well or have the Tories been in power since 1996 in your world?

So whilst social care has reduced by around 6% since the financial crash I am not sure what any government of the day would have been able to do given the circumstances of this time unless you make the assumption that taking less in tax than what you spend is a superb long term strategy for a country.

https://fullfact.org/health/where-does- ... cial-care/

Big Theresa tried to get home owners to give up some of their equity to pay for their care and it got branded a dementia tax by Labour when on the face of it, it could have been a perfectly sensible Labour policy and been generally beneficial to their members. That was the last bit of sensible policy I saw in the UK political sphere but hey ho.

john80

hopkinb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

^^^
This. Stick a few pence on income tax, reassess public spending priorities and there would be adequate housing, health care and other social care.

Everything is stretched to breaking point because of years of underinvestment, not because of in increase in population.

No votes in tax increases and a change in spending priorities though.

You might need to rip up current planning laws on top of some notional tax rise to achieve anything productive. You happy with that?

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

You re-visit any vox pops clips from 2017, 2015 or 2010 and all they bang on about is benefit scroungers and too many hand outs.

You go to any public consultation meeting where someone or some firm wants to build a sh!tload of houses and watch every person nearby object because it impacts their house price.

Take a step back and have a look at how many houses were built under the last Labour government and maybe take your tribal/tin foil hat off for a second.

https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/

The dip in 2008 could have been something to do with the financial crisis which I am guessing in your mind was a Tory thing as well or have the Tories been in power since 1996 in your world?

So whilst social care has reduced by around 6% since the financial crash I am not sure what any government of the day would have been able to do given the circumstances of this time unless you make the assumption that taking less in tax than what you spend is a superb long term strategy for a country.

https://fullfact.org/health/where-does- ... cial-care/

Big Theresa tried to get home owners to give up some of their equity to pay for their care and it got branded a dementia tax by Labour when on the face of it, it could have been a perfectly sensible Labour policy and been generally beneficial to their members. That was the last bit of sensible policy I saw in the UK political sphere but hey ho.

Sure, but what does this have to do with a discussion on refugees, hmm?

Pross

john80 wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

^^^
This. Stick a few pence on income tax, reassess public spending priorities and there would be adequate housing, health care and other social care.

Everything is stretched to breaking point because of years of underinvestment, not because of in increase in population.

No votes in tax increases and a change in spending priorities though.

You might need to rip up current planning laws on top of some notional tax rise to achieve anything productive. You happy with that?

Planning laws are not the issue, the biggest problem in getting sites approved is the public input and Councillors who ignore policy and their own officers' recommendations to keep their electorate happy. Ironically the big developments that have planning conditions and S106 contributions to either directly provide or fund improvements to infrastructure and facilities end up being far more difficult to get through the process for this reason than the small infill plots that provide minimal benefit to the available housing stock, no affordable housing provision and no infrastructure improvements.

I keep meaning to make a FOI request to various Councils to find out how much it costs them losing appeals where the Planning Committee has refused applications against Officer recommendations. Nationwide it must be in the tens of millions each year.

hopkinb

john80 wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

^^^
This. Stick a few pence on income tax, reassess public spending priorities and there would be adequate housing, health care and other social care.

Everything is stretched to breaking point because of years of underinvestment, not because of in increase in population.

No votes in tax increases and a change in spending priorities though.

You might need to rip up current planning laws on top of some notional tax rise to achieve anything productive. You happy with that?

Plenty brownfield sites. Plenty empty properties. Plenty nimbys who obstruct perfectly legal developments and get councillors to stop said development. Planning laws need updating. If the government can't adequately house deserving Brits, let alone forrins, which was your original point, then I'm sure you'll be in favour of a solution being found, just as long as it's not in your back yard eh?

Not sure how planning laws impact health and social care.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

The idea we’re “full” is bullshit.
The idea we “can’t afford to help” is bullshit.
The idea that they’re “someone else’s problem” is bullshit.
The idea that refugees/immigration is a “problem” is bullshit.

If your reaction to seeing people who are so desperate for a better life that they’re prepared to risk both their own and their children’s lives is anything other than “we need to help them in any way we can”, please, do the world a favour and jump of a cliff.

Given we cannot build adequate housing and social care for our current population I am not entirely sure how you plan to roll this out.

That's 'cos the UK voted Tory and they don't *want* to build adequate housing or pay for social care. They are political decisions, not issues of population.

You re-visit any vox pops clips from 2017, 2015 or 2010 and all they bang on about is benefit scroungers and too many hand outs.

You go to any public consultation meeting where someone or some firm wants to build a sh!tload of houses and watch every person nearby object because it impacts their house price.

Take a step back and have a look at how many houses were built under the last Labour government and maybe take your tribal/tin foil hat off for a second.

https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/

The dip in 2008 could have been something to do with the financial crisis which I am guessing in your mind was a Tory thing as well or have the Tories been in power since 1996 in your world?

So whilst social care has reduced by around 6% since the financial crash I am not sure what any government of the day would have been able to do given the circumstances of this time unless you make the assumption that taking less in tax than what you spend is a superb long term strategy for a country.

https://fullfact.org/health/where-does- ... cial-care/

Big Theresa tried to get home owners to give up some of their equity to pay for their care and it got branded a dementia tax by Labour when on the face of it, it could have been a perfectly sensible Labour policy and been generally beneficial to their members. That was the last bit of sensible policy I saw in the UK political sphere but hey ho.

Regardless of which party was in power, RC is right in that the fall in housebuilding since the late '60s has been a choice (directly or indirectly) rather than because we 'couldn't'.

rick_chasey

"Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

hopkinb

Rick Chasey wrote:

"Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

bradsbeard

hopkinb wrote:

Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

"Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

That isn't right. The stated reason for austerity is the idea that we couldn't continue after the GFC the way we were before. Not any implied causation.

kingstongraham

Has this issue really increased massively lately, or is its prominence being coincidental with Brexit o'clock not just happening by chance?

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

"Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

That isn't right. The stated reason for austerity is the idea that we couldn't continue after the GFC the way we were before. Not any implied causation.

The quip is a comment on where and who bore the brunt of austerity.

haydenm

bradsbeard wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

That sounds pretty tough for your son, hope he gets the support he needs.

My mum was a teaching assistant for 15 years and she would say that she needed more resources to to her job properly rather than fewer foreign students. As with everything, when resources are scarce the poorest and most vulnerable are hit the hardest.

It is fairly well established that immigration is a net positive contributor to the economy, why is there not more spending to help their children?

elbowloh

I'm sure the refugees coming across the channel don't give a shit if it's a Labour or Conservative government in power in the UK, nor what their policies are.

I think for most of them, they care about them not being bombed in their beds, about not being killed or imprisoned for what they say / think / or who they sleep with, about not dying from starvation or from a disease that has been eradicated here or could be treated for a couple of quid.

People might thing we cannot afford to house them, but for many of these migrants what we can give them, might just be a damn site better than what they can expect if they stayed at home.