Calais migrant trouble
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
legaleagle  30 Jul 15 9.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) I am glad "the fool" has made "the idiot" laugh The majority in Calais,as I stated,are not asylum seekers.However, no doubt to your mind all are one and the same being Johnny non-European foreigner. Welfare benefits are "better" in France and Germany than in the UK.But again don't let that stand in the way of your tunnel-visioned prejudices.In any event,economic migrants (not asylum seekers) are attracted to the UK as a place to make something of themselves,ie perceived economic oportunities to work, not to claim benefits.Coupled with the global use of English and people wishing to go somewhere where a language they have some knowledge of is spoken. Turning to the minority of those in Calais seeking asylum and taking your "logic" that they head towards the UK solely becausde the benefits-claiming potential is best,in terms of reality as opposed to prejudice,its worth looking at the most recent statistics for 2014 for people seeking asylum within Europe....France over 64,000,Germany over 203,000,Sweden over 80,000,Italy over 65,000,Hungary over 42,000, and the UK behind all of those at over 31,000. Where in my post above am I "supporting" illegal entry? But,again, don't let your tunnel visioned prejudices stand in the way of that... Incidentally,your examples of Romania and Bulgaria are silly anyway,given their geographical location,so most unlikely to be a logical "first safe country" a person seeking asylum would come to. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jul 2015 9.14am)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 30 Jul 2015 9.04am
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) I am glad "the fool" has made "the idiot" laugh The majority in Calais,as I stated,are not asylum seekers.However, no doubt to your mind all are one and the same being Johnny non-European foreigner. Welfare benefits are "better" in France and Germany than in the UK.But again don't let that stand in the way of your tunnel-visioned prejudices.In any event,economic migrants (not asylum seekers) are attracted to the UK as a place to make something of themselves,ie perceived economic oportunities to work, not to claim benefits.Coupled with the global use of English and people wishing to go somewhere where a language they have some knowledge of is spoken. Turning to the minority of those in Calais seeking asylum and taking your "logic" that they head towards the UK solely becausde the benefits-claiming potential is best,in terms of reality as opposed to prejudice,its worth looking at the most recent statistics for 2014 for people seeking asylum within Europe....France over 64,000,Germany over 203,000,Sweden over 80,000,Italy over 65,000,Hungary over 42,000, and the UK behind all of those at over 31,000. Where in my post above am I "supporting" illegal entry? But,again, don't let your tunnel visioned prejudices stand in the way of that... Incidentally,your examples of Romania and Bulgaria are silly anyway,given their geographical location,so most unlikely to be a logical "first safe country" a person seeking asylum would come to. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jul 2015 9.14am) At least you accept that the majority are not in fact asylum seekers at all (although you go on to describe them as "seeking asylum"
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 30 Jul 15 12.49pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jul 15 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 1.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jul 15 1.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?
UK immigration and migration is largely by people who are legally allowed to work in the UK under the EU legislation (rightly or wrongly). In terms of non-EU migration the UK is fairly strict in terms of how you can become a citizen you need; Then you need to be resident in the UK for at least five years, and pass a citizenship examination. The only exceptions to this are by marriage, asylum or Home Office sanction. Also its worth noting that if your asylum application takes five years or long to process and reach a decision, you can apply for citizenship. The UK really could do with actually investing properly in this area. My wife is a naturalized citizen (South African)., its nowhere near as easy as the Daily Mail makes out. Although the Citizenship test is something of a formality.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 1.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?
UK immigration and migration is largely by people who are legally allowed to work in the UK under the EU legislation (rightly or wrongly). In terms of non-EU migration the UK is fairly strict in terms of how you can become a citizen you need; Then you need to be resident in the UK for at least five years, and pass a citizenship examination. The only exceptions to this are by marriage, asylum or Home Office sanction. Also its worth noting that if your asylum application takes five years or long to process and reach a decision, you can apply for citizenship. The UK really could do with actually investing properly in this area. My wife is a naturalized citizen (South African)., its nowhere near as easy as the Daily Mail makes out. Although the Citizenship test is something of a formality. Wife! I always assumed you were gay!
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jul 15 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jul 15 1.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?
UK immigration and migration is largely by people who are legally allowed to work in the UK under the EU legislation (rightly or wrongly). In terms of non-EU migration the UK is fairly strict in terms of how you can become a citizen you need; Then you need to be resident in the UK for at least five years, and pass a citizenship examination. The only exceptions to this are by marriage, asylum or Home Office sanction. Also its worth noting that if your asylum application takes five years or long to process and reach a decision, you can apply for citizenship. The UK really could do with actually investing properly in this area. My wife is a naturalized citizen (South African)., its nowhere near as easy as the Daily Mail makes out. Although the Citizenship test is something of a formality. Wife! I always assumed you were gay! Problem with assumptions etc. I'm in favor of gay equality, same as I believe that all citizens of a society should have the same rights in law
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 1.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.28pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?
UK immigration and migration is largely by people who are legally allowed to work in the UK under the EU legislation (rightly or wrongly). In terms of non-EU migration the UK is fairly strict in terms of how you can become a citizen you need; Then you need to be resident in the UK for at least five years, and pass a citizenship examination. The only exceptions to this are by marriage, asylum or Home Office sanction. Also its worth noting that if your asylum application takes five years or long to process and reach a decision, you can apply for citizenship. The UK really could do with actually investing properly in this area. My wife is a naturalized citizen (South African)., its nowhere near as easy as the Daily Mail makes out. Although the Citizenship test is something of a formality. Wife! I always assumed you were gay! Problem with assumptions etc. I'm in favor of gay equality, same as I believe that all citizens of a society should have the same rights in law Sorry, I thought it was more or less compulsory for someone with your views to be gay.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 1.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector. Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 30 Jul 15 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector. Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans. More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.