Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Parker
On the slim chance that someone hasn't seen this movie I won't discuss the ending in detail, but it probably rules out this course of action if you were the PM and considering what to do! "How dare you sir!" :P
Well, we live in a more cynical, apathetic age now. We've already had illegal wars and there's been no comeback for the main instigators Bush and Blair, (who is making millions on the global lecture circuit). The NSA are spying on all electronic communications but no one seems bothered or prepared to do anything about it. I doubt many if any will be concerned about the people traffickers getting blown to bits by a drone strike or air strike... Some may even call it "justice" considering the thousands of migrants that have died.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
And, that chart does not show where the Calais migrants are from! It shows people from which countries are claiming asylum IN the UK.
Indeed, I would personally prefer that we ignore that chart too. But then we are just left with the quote:
Quote:
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.
Thanks for the links, but we don't have estimated figures of people in Calais. Not in any of the link you posted, nor the one I did. There may be some Nigerians and even some from Ghana (though that country never appeared in any of the links you provided), but whether they are significant enough to dismiss the entire group in Calais is another story.
What I have gathered from the links you have posted does not paint the picture of people who do not deserve sympathy in my book. It took extreme poverty (which the data backs) to push people to take the extreme measures of making a long, perilous journey in search of a better place. Seriously, you'd do the same. We'd all do the same their shoes.
Oh yeah, CNN also compiled a list of nationalities holed up in Calais: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/07/eu...amp/index.html
It is fair to assume the list isn't exhaustive, but it seems like people from Nigeria and Ghana are not significant enough in numbers to be included in the list.
I wouldn't fault you for lacking sympathy towards those people. It isn't something to applaud, but I'd think "well at least he is honest". But trying to somehow justify it to yourself by implying that those people have no reason to do what they are doing doesn't cut it. You don't take such risks for, excuse the expression "the LOL", or even a slight improvement to one's life.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Hand
Well, we live in a more cynical, apathetic age now. We've already had illegal wars and there's been no comeback for the main instigators Bush and Blair ....
You say "we've had" illegal wars like it's a certainty, and there's certainly no shortage of people asserting it, including some authoritative names, but fact is, not yet, we don't. No body with jurisdiction over that decision has YET so-ruled.
In the US, Congress approved the Iraq war. And court challenges to prevent it failed. In the UK, the government's legal advice was that it was legal, albeit that the AG issuing it appeared to have ... ummm ... found a convenient justification for reversing his opinion from just before. About the one body capable of actually issuing a definitive judgement on the legality, the ICJ, needs to have the case referred to it by the UNGA, who haven't done so. YET.
Maybe it'll happen. In my opinion, personally, there's certainly a case to answer, and nothing would put a smirk on my face more quickly that seeing that smug .... < grits teeth to avoid breaking rules> .... individual, Blair, in the dock.
But to date, no authoritative decision has been made on that legality, and in the world of pragmatic international relations, I somewhat doubt it ever will be. The notion of the world's premiere military superpower handing a past President over to the iCJ?? However many of us view it, I don't see it hapoening in reality. If nothing else, I doubt Russia would agree to it, for fear it might set a dangerlus precedent. While Putin might delight in seeing the US squirm, he'd be making a rod for his own back over, for example, Ukraine .... and others.
Realpolitik rools. ;)
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Hand
Well, we live in a more cynical, apathetic age now. We've already had illegal wars and there's been no comeback for the main instigators Bush and Blair, (who is making millions on the global lecture circuit). The NSA are spying on all electronic communications but no one seems bothered or prepared to anything about it. I doubt many if any will be concerned about the people traffickers getting blown to bits by a drone strike or air strike... Some may even call it "justice" considering the thousands of migrants that have died.
I thought Bush was selling neud potraits of himself in the bath now ?
he must be good if he command millions.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
I am not sure what plans about Libya the US and us had.
We just bombed it and then walked off. Meanwhile, there was a lot of effort put into rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TooNice
....
Just because one is affected by poverty in a different country doesn't mean we should just allow them into our country. The whole of East Europe already lives here. Do you want the whole of Africa to move in as well?
If these Calais migrants were really poor, how do you think they afforded the trafficking fee which they paid the human traffickers? How does one travel all the way from Afghanistan by air to Europe and then pay for travel across various countries to reach Calais?
These are all opportunists who know that they would be refused visas if they applied the regular way and thus they are trying their luck.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
The whole of East Europe already lives here.
Any sources for that, or shall I just make up massive sweeping stereotypes out the air as well?
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guy
Any sources for that, or shall I just make up massive sweeping stereotypes out the air as well?
I think you might as well fella, unfortunately facts seem to have virtually no place in this debate despite my best efforts and the same appears to be true of logic, empathy and compassion :(
I think it\'s time to sell my house to a bunch of Eastern European Range Rover owners and get of the UK while the getting\'s good.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knoxville
I think you might as well fella, unfortunately facts seem to have virtually no place in this debate despite my best efforts and the same appears to be true of logic, empathy and compassion :(
I think it's time to sell my house to a bunch of Eastern European Range Rover owners and get of the UK while the getting's good.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLE66qPXAAATgcL.jpg:large
Just hedging my bets.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
Just because one is affected by poverty in a different country doesn't mean we should just allow them into our country. The whole of East Europe already lives here.
Quote:
European immigrants, particularly, both from the new accession countries and the rest of the European Union, make the most substantial contributions. This is mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits.
From the Royal Economic Society clicky link
This may be of interest too:
Quote:
Unemployed Britons in Europe are drawing much more in benefits and allowances in the wealthier EU countries than their nationals are claiming in the UK
clicky
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
Just because one is affected by poverty in a different country doesn't mean we should just allow them into our country. The whole of East Europe already lives here. Do you want the whole of Africa to move in as well?
When you make unsupported polemic statements like that, which some of us believe are wrong, we're very unlikely to be brought round to your way of thinking. What then is the point? I imagine you find our failure to see your point of view frustrating.
Regarding Eastern Europeans, I notice you're a Londoner too. I'm from the north originally, which influences my view of how unrepresentative London really is in many things (e.g. house prices and jobs). However we can use it as a point of discussion because there's some nice data, and it's true that many immigrants, legal or not, settle in the south-east at least initially.
London nationality statistics - http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/po...3-36517ae16627
About 80% of the London is considered of British nationality (not necessarily ethnicity). Poland, the 3rd highest nationality, became a full EU member in 2004. So they've had over 10 years to "flood" over here but haven't even managed to make it to 3% of the population. I guess they're just lazy, even with all those free benefits we have on offer to entice them! :) Romanians and Lithuanians are 10th are 14th.
Do I want the whole of Africa too? No, because we can't take 1.2B people. Of course that's not what you meant, because it's an absurd argument. I would however accept some immigrants from Africa fleeing civil war, terrorism and a collapsed government - especially places like Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
If these Calais migrants were really poor, how do you think they afforded the trafficking fee which they paid the human traffickers? How does one travel all the way from Afghanistan by air to Europe and then pay for travel across various countries to reach Calais?
These are all opportunists who know that they would be refused visas if they applied the regular way and thus they are trying their luck.
Ah, I see. You think they're not genuine asylum seekers, and it sounds like you think they're after "easy money".
I have to go on a tangent to make a point on terminology. This isn't trafficking (mostly). That term really refers to modern-day slavery where people are literally bought and sold as products, held against their will or trapped in indentured servitude. It's thoroughly evil and affects counties rich and poor, including the USA, UK, and other western European countries. I have a friend who teaches about this subject at Harvard, so it's something I've heard a bit about.
What we're discussing, I think, is human smuggling where people are willingly paying to be smuggled into Europe and then they're free to go where they want. You're right that they're not the worlds poorest, with no property or savings and living from hand to mouth. Those people are more likely to end up as slaves.
The cost of being trafficked into Europe seems to be $2000-6000. So if you're a doctor, teacher, farmer that owns land, engineer etc what you do is sell everything you have including your house, perhaps at a heavily discounted price to the people offering to smuggling you. Then you have nothing but a promise that you'll get to Italy, Greece etc. Maybe you live, maybe you die. Why would you do this? You'd have to be mad or desperate to just "try your luck" like this. The sad thing is that taking this risk looks like a rational choice versus staying in many parts of Africa.
Calling them "opportunists" makes them sound like they're taking advantage of us, whereas they're actually being exploited by the smugglers.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knoxville
I think you might as well fella, unfortunately facts seem to have virtually no place in this debate despite my best efforts and the same appears to be true of logic, empathy and compassion :(
I'd much rather have neighbours that've come over from Eastern Europe than some I've had the pleasure of living next to and with previously.
The only people that put the streets round here to shame are white British. Make of that what you will...
As with everything there are exceptions, but I've had nothing but positive experiences on each occasion.
The current neighbours are a lovely bunch. Polish, haven't not worked a day since coming over (10 years or so I believe) keep the house and garden spotless, regularly take my bins from outside the house and back to where they normally live if they're back before me, mow the tiny bit of grass I've still got outside as I don't own a mower and have offered on multiple occasions to act as a safe place for parcels.
Before that, I've worked with Romanian labourers and same story. Not a bad word to say.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
The working age population in Africa is expected to rise by 450million in the next 15 years and by the same amount if not more in the following 15 years. Even assuming all the African nations sort out their politics, corruption and economies (not likely) in that period there will still be plenty of disenfranchised people who will seek a life elsewhere. So if we think migration is an issue now, it will be significantly worse then. Plus there is the significant risk of climate change having a massive impact on Africa, displacing large numbers of people due to lack of water etc. Add to that the fact that even the current EU population isn't sustainable in the long term, then it's pretty clear we are facing a serious issue.
So basically we sort this out now or end up with a bigger mess later. Though to be honest we'll probably end up with things being fubar anyway. Thus that means sorting out why people want to come here and how that happens;
1. Black market economy - you can still work here even "illegally" so we have to consider what actions can be taken to eliminate this possibility, even if that is ID cards etc.
2. Asylum - fiddling with the rules is just a band-aid; we have to grasp the nettle and basically say no asylum full stop*, then it's just a matter of dealing with the "refoulement" principle
3. Smugglers - this is the tough one as apart from military / police action in a foreign state our options are limited, at best we can probably tow them back but that assumes you find all the ships
* There is no provision under international law which states that a country has to grant asylum
Now you notice I left one thing out i.e. sorting out the countries these people came from. That is a whole different discussion as the problems / solutions depend on the individual country. Plus to be honest sticking our oar in while likely make things worse in a lot of cases. About the only thing I can think of which would be universally useful is improving the education of women. However, even that has it's issues in terms of a proportion of these societies...
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guy
Any sources for that, or shall I just make up massive sweeping stereotypes out the air as well?
You do realize that when I say things like that I don't mean it literally or what can be backed by stats. What I mean is that there are so many here that it feels like people from that part of the world have vacated and moved here.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
You do realize that when I say things like that I don't mean it literally or what can be backed by stats. What I mean is that there are so many here that it feels like people from that part of the world have vacated and moved here.
I think I have myself a new sig, and I don't even need to paraphrase.
Re: Illegal Entry @ Channel Tunnel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
Just because one is affected by poverty in a different country doesn't mean we should just allow them into our country. The whole of East Europe already lives here. Do you want the whole of Africa to move in as well?
Can we afford to take "the whole Africa", even figuratively speaking? No, of course not. Nor do we need to. Not everyone who is making their way to Europe is making their way to the UK. But had that been your point in your first place, I wouldn't have challenged it.
The issue I have, how you are making excuses for yourself. You couldn't stop at "We can't realistically take them all in", or "It isn't my problem, so I have no sympathy for them". You had to apply some generalisation with negative implications across the entire group of very different background, and those generalisations aren't even based on fact, or only very vaguely loosely so, and you fill the rest up with your imagination. It is almost like by making them sound like scum of the earth, you do not have to worry for what happens to them.
Also, I have had no issues with East Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
How does one travel all the way from Afghanistan by air to Europe and then pay for travel across various countries to reach Calais?
You are conveniently forgetting the people travelling on overcrowded boats where capsizing is a real possibility. I won't make any sweep generalisation as those people may well be from different background. Based on the story you posted, some of them make a pretty long journey finding work along the way. Some may indeed have some savings. Other may have borrowed money from relatives or other less than reputable source. Regardless, many have taken huge risks for that journey and you simply don't do that for a chance of a slight improvement in one's quality of life.