Migration crisis is putting the UK at grave risk.

[DodgyAgent]

Why? Are your colleagues gay?

One is

[NigelJK]

Because doing nothing probably means the end of freedom of movement for EU citizens and the EU itself within a year or two.

Really, promises promises.
What freedom of movement? Been to France recently? Bet they checked your passport both ways? Worked in Europe recently? Did you register there with the local police (as seems customary in Belgium and Germany)? Have you found out the hard way that if you are a UK company you cannot 'just trade'? I could go on (and on) but I'm sure you get the point.

[vetran]

I guess you're not a fan of the EU then? Because doing nothing probably means the end of freedom of movement for EU citizens and the EU itself within a year or two.

and that's a bad thing because?

[seanraaron]

Really, promises promises.
What freedom of movement? Been to France recently? Bet they checked your passport both ways? Worked in Europe recently? Did you register there with the local police (as seems customary in Belgium and Germany)? Have you found out the hard way that if you are a UK company you cannot 'just trade'? I could go on (and on) but I'm sure you get the point.

UK isn't in Schengen and countries in Schengen have recently been controlling borders, so yeah, I'd expect to be checked. That was kind of my point.

Re: solutions, I think some kind of federal border service and an agreed scheme for processing migrants beyond "country of entry is responsible" is in order. Using this scheme determine actual need of applicant and distribute those matching the criteria of asylum seeker around the EU members. This tends to mean EU members be open to re-housing people and doing their share to spread the load and not using fear of foreigners for election fodder. Doesn't seem like a tall order to me.

[vetran]

UK isn't in Schengen and countries in Schengen have recently been controlling borders, so yeah, I'd expect to be checked. That was kind of my point.

Re: solutions, I think some kind of federal border service and an agreed scheme for processing migrants beyond "country of entry is responsible" is in order. Using this scheme determine actual need of applicant and distribute those matching the criteria of asylum seeker around the EU members. This tends to mean EU members be open to re-housing people and doing their share to spread the load and not using fear of foreigners for election fodder. Doesn't seem like a tall order to me.

You still seem to think we should be accepting & processing them. I'm all for stopping them coming.

In the majority of cases it seems the asylum seekers are actually economic migrants. We cannot support the sheer quantity that would be expected. If we did our countries cohesion would be even closer to failing than it is now.

[meridian]

UK isn't in Schengen and countries in Schengen have recently been controlling borders, so yeah, I'd expect to be checked. That was kind of my point.

Re: solutions, I think some kind of federal border service and an agreed scheme for processing migrants beyond "country of entry is responsible" is in order. Using this scheme determine actual need of applicant and distribute those matching the criteria of asylum seeker around the EU members. This tends to mean EU members be open to re-housing people and doing their share to spread the load and not using fear of foreigners for election fodder. Doesn't seem like a tall order to me.

Nope, country of entry makes far more sense. Logically, the first country of entry will be the ones closest to the problem country, therefore making it a local/regional problem to deal with and resolve.

Neighbouring countries have a responsibility to help out the problem country before it becomes a refugee crisis, and not just sit on their hands until it all goes pear-shaped. If Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, etc had had crisis meetings and regional summits before things got out of hand then perhaps there would be less of a humanitarian crisis.

But no, they'll fight among themselves, blame the West for warmongering when we have to step in to stop their own leaders from gassing their own people because they won't stop them themselves but still moan that we aren't doing enough to take in their own people that are fleeing their tulipholes. And Africa's no different except that we're all colonists so again we are expected to step in to take all their poor but if we try to tell them how to run their countries properly then we're "racist".

Sod 'em all. Next time the Kaiser starts killing his own people, call the EU. Otherwise, let the Middle East sort itself out. They already get £1.1b of our money to help them.

[NotAllThere]

One is

In the interests of clarity do you mean you are, or that one of your colleagues is?

...In the majority of cases it seems the asylum seekers are actually economic migrants. ...

Not the case for the UK. UNHCR says for 2014, of the asylum seekers arriving in the UK The top three countries of origin are: Eritrea (3,568), Pakistan (2,302), and Syria (2,204),

People have fled Eritrea has introduced forced conscription and is beginning to compete with North Korea for lack of freedom and rights.

You may not be aware but there's a vicious civil war raging in Syria.

So that leaves Pakistan. Now, if all of those are economic migrants - by no means certain - then that's 40%. Which is a very long way from the "majority of cases".

[xoggoth]

People have fled Eritrea has introduced forced conscription and is beginning to compete with North Korea for lack of freedom and rights

Nobody is disputing that, many have a sound reason for leaving their own countries and I'd probably do the same in their shoes. But with 6bn people in the world and a significant proportion suffering from conflicts or repression it is not practical or reasonable that we should have a duty to take them at the expense of our own societies. I think the asylum rules, forged way back when nobody but the rich could travel long distances, needs review.

Desperate people may come with the best of intentions, they intend to work, make a contribution etc. etc. but that does not mean they will in practice. On Eritreans:

Reliance on social housing in this community is high; four in five live in social housing (80% compared to 38% on average in Lambeth ); over half in council accommodation (55%) and an additional quarter in accommodation managed by a housing association (25%).
Only half (52%) of respondents are employed or self-employed with one in six (16%) unemployed and available for work, and an equal proportion (16%) looking after the home. Unemployment in this community is higher in Southwark than in Lambeth, as only 36% of Southwark Eritreans are in employment compared to 58% in Lambeth. One in five needs assistance with speaking and understanding the English language (21%) and one in ten (10%) need help with literacy in their community language. Around one in fourteen respondents (7%) either have special care or support needs themselves, or have an adult member of their family who does.

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/defa...ean-report.doc

Unfortunately all this charity means less available for our own citizens, including ethnic minorities.


Not the only problem they do/will bring us either:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-immigrants-uk

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...7#.Vf3OCJtRF9A

[seanraaron]

I don't think anyone is forcing the government to cut benefits, so attempting to conflate the issue of asylum and the needs of the poor at home are disingenuous at best. Remember that Thatcher started the road to de-industrialisation that destroyed many of the communities in the North, but I doubt the average Tory voter has read "Dark Heart" or has a memory that long. Easier to blame the influx of brown-skinned people.

You want to stop the breakdown of social cohesion, end poverty. Migrants have nothing to do with it as they aren't causing poverty.

[tomtomagain]

, end poverty.

And how do you propose to do that?