Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...

[Peter Parker]

Personally, I am on the same page as Peter Parker. On one hand, no we can't simply let everyone in, and no, strictly speaking it isn't necessarily our problem. So more fences and whatnot to make it harder to get in make sense. But in the long term we need to get involved in making their lives better as that has a mutual benefit.

I think you might have misunderstood me a bit. I don't worry much about illegal immigration in the UK. I believe estimates for the UK illegal population are anywhere from 100k to 1m total, with 600k being the highest end of the official estimate. At that high estimate it's just under 1% of the population (64m). Add 10 times the number of people currently in the Calais camp and it'll rise about 50k to 650k. Legal immigration is a net 200k-300k per year, with about 50% from the EU.

From those numbers, I think it just doesn't matter what is done in Calais. It's pure media hype - bread and circuses.

I am really worried about the long term global demographics. We're no longer in a world where events in, say, Africa are not our problem because people know exactly where Europe is and are willing to move across the globe even if there's a 25% chance of dying en route. Population is growing, the number of jobs available is shrinking, wages (for all but the 0.1%) and productivity are stagnating or even falling, and any excess profit simply feeds into the inequality of the super-rich. I think the days of a 5-day/40-hour a week regular job are on the way out, unless you're willing to compete with cheap labour from the 80+% of people who aren't in western Europe or North America.

Sorry to be all doom and gloom. On the plus side, it looks like we're about to live through the most interesting few decades of human history ever! I'm planning to get rich selling a pitchfork sharpening tool.

[TooNice]

I should say, as far as realistic options available to the policy maker (I don't consider shooting them as a viable option). The cost of making it harder to come in will need to be balanced with the cost of the population that manage to sneak in. Where we may differ, though not hugely, is the impact (cost) of illegal immigrants. It affect many level of society, not just economic, and perhaps not even linearly, so assessing the impact is however major or minor seems like a lot of guesswork to me.

And while I understand the motivation of those people and feel for them, I do think that aside from the burden on the established society, that it is unfair to those who had to jump through the hoops of getting applying a visa and got in legally.

Saying that, I don't really think that people with "skilled" job need to worry too much about illegals as far as job security is concerned.

[MrComputerSaint]

I think I'd let them in. Some of them might be a genius in a certain field, they might not know it but they could be a maths genius and go on to solve improbable equations or figure out space flight at massive speeds.

What would I do with thousands of extra people to begin with? put them to work in different local authorities, like cleaning graffiti and the streets. There are parts of Newcastle that could do with a very good tidy because residents don't care about leaving their bins out in the back lane and the wind knocking them over. I'm sure there are a lot of local authorities that have the same issue.

They'd be given accommodation, but it'd resemble army barracks and they'd be given 3 meals a day. After 6 months of this they'd be able to get their own job and make their own money.

[kalniel]

We have millions of foreigners from the European continent flooding our country. Most claim every benefit available to them and get free Council houses. The govt. has to pay rent for these houses and the money comes from the Treasury. Those that buy their properties ... well , how does one have £10k or more with them if they have recently arrived within a year or two ? The govt. has also been building new flats for them , again using it's own money.
Most of the men also work for cash only and do not pay taxes. And, every family sends money to their home country.
Then, there's costs where schools have become overcrowded, policing the increased no. of criminals, NHS, etc.

It's little surprise that our economy is doing so badly. And, things will get much worse.

Sounds like you're perhaps not a native, so some definitions to help:

million number
uk us /ˈmɪl.jən/ (plural million or millions)
A2 [C] the number 1,000,000: The city has a population of almost a/one million. She got eight million dollars for appearing in that film. His business is worth millions of euros.

European adjective
uk /ˌjʊə.rəˈpiː.ən/ us /ˌjʊr.ə-/
› belonging to or relating to Europe or its people: a European city European history
European noun [C]
uk /ˌjʊə.rəˈpiː.ən/ us /ˌjʊr.ə-/
› a person from Europe: a party of Europeans

most determiner, pronoun, adverb
uk /məʊst/ us /moʊst/
A2 the biggest number or amount of; more than anything or anyone else: What's the most you've ever won at cards? Which of you earns the most money? He wanted to do the most good he could with the $2,000, so he gave it to charity. The kids loved the fair, but they enjoyed the bumper cars most of all.A2 used to form the superlative of many adjectives and adverbs: Joanne is the most intelligent person I know. The department needs three more computers in order to work most effectively (= to work as effectively as possible).A2 almost all: I don't eat meat, but I like most types of fish. In this school, most of the children are from the Chinese community.› formal very: It was a most beautiful morning.› mainly US informal almost: You'll find her in the bar most every evening about six o'clock.

I would also check out the UK benefits system and economic analysis - evidence seems to be showing the immigrants have a net positive benefit to the economy.

[opel80uk]

Regardless of how one feels about the economic impact of immigrants, what has to have happened in someones life to lead them to the point where they advocate shooting down people in cold blood who, rightly or wrongly, are trying to get a better life for themselves? Why would anyone want to do that to someone who has not caused them or anyone else, as far as I can tell, any harm.

Humans, and their lack of humanity, never cease to amaze me.

[Knoxville]

We have millions of foreigners from the European continent flooding our country. Most claim every benefit available to them and get free Council houses.

So, like a lot of our native population then? As I established earlier there are more British citizens claiming these benefits than there are European or non-European migrants and by a very wide margin. I think it's also worth mentioning that they are legally allowed to live and work in this country. Illegal immigrants, such as the ones at the centre of this debate cannot claim these benefits.

The govt. has to pay rent for these houses and the money comes from the Treasury. Those that buy their properties ... well , how does one have £10k or more with them if they have recently arrived within a year or two? The govt. has also been building new flats for them , again using it's own money.

So the goverment pays to build all of these houses, then pays itself rent every month for all of them?

You know that less than half of the council housing in the UK is owned by housing associations, right? The lions share are still owned and managed by local authorities. They don't pay themselves rent, they simply manage the housing and pay for upkeep.

Housing associations DO charge rent, which is either paid by the tenant or partially paid by the tenant with the rest being paid on the tenants behalf by the government in the form of benefits. They are however regulated by the government and operate as non-profit organisations, any profit that is made goes into developing more public/social housing.

Really, what the government is doing is paying to build more public/social housing and paying for the upkeep of that housing. As far as I know that money comes from local authorites as well, not the treasury. Technically they are paying "rent" on something like 40% of the council housing in the country to housing associations but that money only ever goes back into upkeep or new housing developments. They aren't so much paying rent as they are spreading the burden and cost of managing the council housing in this country. Nearly a quarter of the UK's population live in council housing, which is no small number and no small task to manage... Immigrants make up less than ten percent of our population and not all of them live in council housing. Apparently they all drive Range Rovers and own their own homes.... So yet again, it seems that UK residents reliant upon hand outs are a bigger part of that perceived financial burden.

How does someone who has only been in the UK a year or two afford to buy their council house under the right to buy scheme? My gut instinct would be to say that they cannot. You have to have been living here for over five years to apply for citizenship and you probably can't buy your own council house out from under the government without at the very least being a British citizen (I'm happy to be proven wrong though if someone can find a credible source) making it a technical impossibility. How does someone who's only lived here five years afford to buy their own house? Most likely hard work, subsidies and better financial management than I'm capable of.

Most of the men also work for cash only and do not pay taxes. And, every family sends money to their home country.
Then, there's costs where schools have become overcrowded, policing the increased no. of criminals, NHS, etc.

It's little surprise that our economy is doing so badly. And, things will get much worse.

Even someone that works cash in hand pays taxes. They won't be paying income tax or national insurance but they are paying VAT, they're paying council tax, fuel duty tax etc.

That doesn't make it right, but nor is the sweeping generalisation that most men that come over here from the EU work cash in hand and as far as the costs to the NHS and education system go, I've already explained just how small that cost is in the grand scheme of things. Schools being overcrowded might just have something to do with the fact our population has grown 18% in the last ten years as a result of a rise in the birth rate while funding has been cut year on year. The same goes for our underfunded emergency services and armed forces. It's cut back after cut back put in place to try and preserve the bubble we're used to living in that's the real villain of the piece in that regard, not immigration.

Our economy is doing so badly because we have allowed so many aspects of it to go unregulated and adhered so strongly to Milton Friedmans school of economics that we lost all control over it. To simply blame immigrants doesn't provide a solution of any kind or shed any light on why we're actually in the mess we're in. It's a straw man, plain and simple, nothing more. Immigration was actually a key beneficiary to the rise of the US as an industrial power at the turn of the last century and in the recovery of the German economy after the fall of the Berlin wall. A recent study of immigration and the German economy has confirmed that even now immigrants bring in nearly £20 billion more than they cost the German government - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-economy.html

To allow ourselves to blame immigrants for the £1.56 trillion weight around our necks would be a very short sighted thing to do. Personally speaking, that it is such an acceptable way of thinking these days and that people are so blinkered by their assumptions and preconceptions is the biggest sign that things are indeed getting worse. If you ask me, we're the British equivalent of a beer hall putsch and a best seller away from some really nasty business if that kind of attitude continues to gain traction with society.

[TooNice]

Have you not been reading articles on BBC's site? They have had articles about the migrant journey, etc. Do you think they are all Chinese ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29074736

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees' representative in France, Philippe Leclerc, said most of the migrants in Calais were fleeing violence in countries such as Syria, Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan.

There is also a chart showing those seeking asylum. Nigeria barely made the top 10, and Ghana is nowhere to be seen.

[abaxas]

Put up a huge screen at Calais and show the shooting of 2-3 illegal immigrants.

Make sure it's life and as if by magic, problem solved.

[TooNice]

And create far more issues in exchange. Brilliant idea

[abaxas]

And create far more issues in exchange. Brilliant idea

It's time to make a stand. Come over under the rules and it's fine, don't expect us to offer you any human rights if you don't.

Learn that with rights come responsibilities. Flaunt them and we will not allow you any rights.

[directhex]

Learn that with rights come responsibilities. Flaunt them and we will not allow you any rights.

Then those aren't rights, they're government-granted privileges.

[opel80uk]

Put up a huge screen at Calais and show the shooting of 2-3 illegal immigrants.

Make sure it's life and as if by magic, problem solved.

I'm interested to know how, regarding your brilliantly devised plan, you came to the 2-3 number? Thousands of migrants are still crossing the med, despite hundreds dying, so despite your claims, magic doesnt appear to be working and I'm concerned that executing just 2-3 will not have the desired effect.

[The Hand]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29074736

There is also a chart showing those seeking asylum. Nigeria barely made the top 10, and Ghana is nowhere to be seen.

Well, seeking asylum is one thing and illegal immigration/economic migration is another. If there was a British consulate in Calais to process the asylum seekers, then in theory there should be no legitimate reason to go jumping in the back of lorries, trains and cars etc.

[abaxas]

My point is the rules are simple.

You apply for asylum in the country you enter.

If they wish to come here first, then fine.

[opel80uk]

My point is the rules are simple.

You apply for asylum in the country you enter.

If they wish to come here first, then fine.

Actually, international law states that anyone can claim asylum anywhere. What you are, I think, referring to is Dublin II, an agreement between countries that states asylum applications should be processed by the first country signed up to that agreement that the asylum seeker enters. As such, the rules are more for the procedural process for the countries rather than rules for the asylum seekers themselves, per se. As you appear to have misunderstood the rules, you may wish to hold fire on those televised executions for the time being.

[TooNice]

It's time to make a stand. Come over under the rules and it's fine, don't expect us to offer you any human rights if you don't.

Learn that with rights come responsibilities. Flaunt them and we will not allow you any rights.

Yes, of course, the first step to making a stand is to shoot people. Break the rules and lose your human rights. Caught shoplifting? Shoot them. Speeding? Shoot them. Digital piracy? Shoot them. That'll stop them from doing it. It might really do.

Justify as you like, but I don't buy it. We don't even have capital punishment for serial murderers and you think those people deserve less? Two wrong doesn't make a right, and between illegally getting into a country and killing someone for the crime of illegally entering the country, I'd say the later is far, far worse. Punishment must fit the crime and I don't see how this does. And you can pretty much expect serious repercussions. Expect mass protests, international condemnations and serious damage to our international reputation. No country with international credibility will reasonably side with such actions (though it would amuse countries we constantly preach about human rights - North Korea et al.). And each of those can have direct and indirect economic impact.

Making a stand by toughening our policies? Understandable. Jumping straight to execution? It is so unreasonable that I hope it is just a bit of trolling. Otherwise.. all I can think is "What the hell is wrong with people" (and some other stuff I probably can't type here).

Well, seeking asylum is one thing and illegal immigration/economic migration is another. If there was a British consulate in Calais to process the asylum seekers, then in theory there should be no legitimate reason to go jumping in the back of lorries, trains and cars etc.

OilSheikh justifies his apathy by saying that a lot of the people are from "wealthy" Nigeria and Ghana. I am thinking that if those countries are so great, there wouldn't be many trying to get out, and I trying to ascertain if his assumption has any truth in it. As it is, I am haven't seen a source that mentions there is a lot of Ghanaian in Calais and the only mention of Nigerian is that graph which I mentioned for completeness. I know there is a difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants (though there is likely some overlap).