Why Can't We Deal With Shop Lifting?
News2 mins ago
Why Don't The Migrants In Calais/dunkirk Want To Apply To France?
40 Answers
Just watched the news about the new refugee camp being set up but most of them are refusing to move in case it is construed as claiming asylum in France. One chap interviewed said he would accept nothing less than England. Surely France is a lot better than wherever they came from, I don't understand.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The huge majority of immigrants who enter France stay there. We only get around 10 to 20% of them trying to get here.
If we had a land border with France we would not know how many were entering the UK as they would just cross the border unseen. It is just the camp at Calais is a very obvious and visible concentration of them.
For every 1 that wants to come to the UK there are 10 that want to go to Germany.
Sweden, much smaller than the UK, has 6 x as many immigrants. How would you feel if you lived there?
If we had a land border with France we would not know how many were entering the UK as they would just cross the border unseen. It is just the camp at Calais is a very obvious and visible concentration of them.
For every 1 that wants to come to the UK there are 10 that want to go to Germany.
Sweden, much smaller than the UK, has 6 x as many immigrants. How would you feel if you lived there?
“For every 1 that wants to come to the UK there are 10 that want to go to Germany”
Quite so, Eddie. And we saw what happened there on New Year’s Eve as a result of their influx. Germany is now turning back migrants entering from Austria.
“Sweden, much smaller than the UK, has 6 x as many immigrants. How would you feel if you lived there?”
I would be absolutely appalled at the recklessness of my government. The situation in Sweden has now developed into a crisis (as I think I detailed in an earlier question). Malmo is a vast transit camp; private property is being compulsorily requisitioned to accommodate the influx; the country faces a financial crisis because of the cost of it all. Sweden has now imposed border controls with Denmark.
There seems to be a body of opinion here in the UK that suggests that because other countries are far more badly affected by the migrant influx than we are that we should relax our controls to accommodate more incomers. This is a very strange stance which essentially suggests that all European nations should take its fair share of illegal immigrants. The UK, along with the Republic of Ireland, has the blessing of the English Channel separating it from the mayhem that is being played out on Mainland Europe. This, coupled with a rare moment of wisdom from the UK government on matters European when they opted out of Schengen gives the UK (and Ireland) a considerable advantage in dealing with this problem. There is no doubt that without these two (in particular the first) the UK would face a similar invasion of illegal migrants. To say that because it is worse elsewhere we should somehow be grateful is very strange indeed.
Mainland European countries cannot help their geography. But they can help the control they have over their borders (both internal and external). Dire warnings of the follies of Schengen were voiced before it was implemented. They were brushed aside and opponents called xenophobes, racists and worse. Mainland Europe is now reaping what it sowed when it abandoned its borders and allowed - and in many cases actively invited - all manner of waifs and strays to enter and plunder its wealthand wellbeing and jeopardise its stability. The UK should fiercely guard the advantages that it has by virtue of its geography and its occasionally wise politicians and it should not pander to calls to take a share of the misery that other European governments have foisted on their hapless populations.
Quite so, Eddie. And we saw what happened there on New Year’s Eve as a result of their influx. Germany is now turning back migrants entering from Austria.
“Sweden, much smaller than the UK, has 6 x as many immigrants. How would you feel if you lived there?”
I would be absolutely appalled at the recklessness of my government. The situation in Sweden has now developed into a crisis (as I think I detailed in an earlier question). Malmo is a vast transit camp; private property is being compulsorily requisitioned to accommodate the influx; the country faces a financial crisis because of the cost of it all. Sweden has now imposed border controls with Denmark.
There seems to be a body of opinion here in the UK that suggests that because other countries are far more badly affected by the migrant influx than we are that we should relax our controls to accommodate more incomers. This is a very strange stance which essentially suggests that all European nations should take its fair share of illegal immigrants. The UK, along with the Republic of Ireland, has the blessing of the English Channel separating it from the mayhem that is being played out on Mainland Europe. This, coupled with a rare moment of wisdom from the UK government on matters European when they opted out of Schengen gives the UK (and Ireland) a considerable advantage in dealing with this problem. There is no doubt that without these two (in particular the first) the UK would face a similar invasion of illegal migrants. To say that because it is worse elsewhere we should somehow be grateful is very strange indeed.
Mainland European countries cannot help their geography. But they can help the control they have over their borders (both internal and external). Dire warnings of the follies of Schengen were voiced before it was implemented. They were brushed aside and opponents called xenophobes, racists and worse. Mainland Europe is now reaping what it sowed when it abandoned its borders and allowed - and in many cases actively invited - all manner of waifs and strays to enter and plunder its wealthand wellbeing and jeopardise its stability. The UK should fiercely guard the advantages that it has by virtue of its geography and its occasionally wise politicians and it should not pander to calls to take a share of the misery that other European governments have foisted on their hapless populations.
I belonged to a site once which had the facility enabling users to make private posts to one another, while still remaining on the thread. It was really great, the site (a sort of Buddhist chat-room) had no advertising and relied on users for support, but lack of funds led to its demise. I suppose without any financial incentive it would have no advantage for AB administrators to instal such a system, would it?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.