Why so many? And why choose a distant cloudy small island like ours? Ukraine (population >40 million) is a vast country of more than 200,000 sq miles,very little of which is under attack. England (population >50million) is only 50,000 sq miles. There must be tens of thousands of households in safe areas many miles away from the action, just as people in the West Country or East Anglia might shelter those within range of northern towns if the Scots invaded Northumberland. Could it be our stupidly generous 'welfare state'?
What an astonishingly mean spirited post.
Would you care to put some numbers on it?
Just as with any other war/famine refugee issue why should the UK be insulated from the consequences just because we're distant from the action?
I would say generously that perhaps the original remarks were perhaps posted in anger and let their feelings on the issue get the better of them.
I think many people have genuine concerns about societal and economic problems that letting in vast numbers of refugees (as well as other claiming to be that likely aren't) - especially on a permanent basis and when times here are already tough and getting worse- that rarely get listened to by those in positions of power.
What I am surprised about is how many people who normally speak of trying to stop conflicts are seemingly trying to prolong this one by supporting worldwide efforts to arm and provide military intel to the Ukrainians, which is leading to many tens of thousands of deaths of both civilians and Ukrainian military personnel, never mind the devastation of large tracts of that nation and their ability to feed itself and provide power, heat and water, especially in the context of the current military operations around the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe.
There is nothing at all generous about our welfare system - it needs no pejorative quote marks. How much do you think a couple get to live on for a month - ignoring money for their landlord?
If our benefits system isn't generous (and our economy worse than many continental nations, e.g. germany or France), why do so many economic migrants risk death by coming across from France on dinghies every day?
|
If our benefits system isn't generous (and our economy worse than many continental nations, e.g. germany or France), why do so many economic migrants risk death by coming across from France on dinghies every day?
The clue's in the name - they come here for work.
|
If our benefits system isn't generous (and our economy worse than many continental nations, e.g. germany or France), why do so many economic migrants risk death by coming across from France on dinghies every day?
The clue's in the name - they come here for work.
They have no right to just 'turn up' though. If they've gone via a legal route with a job offer, then fair enough, otherwise no. What galls me is how often those on the political left have repeatedly said how much better countries not run by those on the right are, and yet the vast majority of the economic migrants seem to want to go to ones like ours.
Odd, that. Could it be (as well as the amount of work and pay compared to their country of origin) the lack of border controls, willingness amongst the real people in charge of things (not the politicians) on the ground to not enforce laws for ideological reasons who look the other way when faced with illegals and the large societal problems that come with large, continued influxes of people from very different, far off lands/cultures?
|
They have no right to just 'turn up' though. If they've gone via a legal route with a job offer, then fair enough, otherwise no. What galls me is how often those on the political left have repeatedly said how much better countries not run by those on the right are, and yet the vast majority of the economic migrants seem to want to go to ones like ours.
Legal routes are pretty much a myth. The only current legal routes are for Afghans and even then they're hedged with caveats. Recent reports mention a female Afghan judge who'd sentenced Taliban offenders being refused.
The Refugee Council is a pressure group and has its take on the situation. However what its page says about safe routes is broadly accurate.
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-wi.../
|
|
|
|
|
And what would be your plans for accomodating the 5 million British "economic migrants" if they were forced to return to the UK?
|
|
Not particularly happy with this thread but we will see how it goes.
I have been lucky in life and have never needed to claim benefits but know people who have and still do. 'Generous' is certainly not a term I would use.
Anyone entering the UK illegally should of course be subject to the appropriate Laws but the Ukrainians do not fall into this group, these are people who need our help and we invited them. I am involved in the local support group in town, while I accept my experience may not be statistically robust, a good number came to the UK for cultural and language reasons and intend returning home when it is safe to do so.
|
Not particularly happy with this thread but we will see how it goes.
I have been lucky in life and have never needed to claim benefits but know people who have and still do. 'Generous' is certainly not a term I would use.
Anyone entering the UK illegally should of course be subject to the appropriate Laws but the Ukrainians do not fall into this group, these are people who need our help and we invited them. I am involved in the local support group in town, while I accept my experience may not be statistically robust, a good number came to the UK for cultural and language reasons and intend returning home when it is safe to do so.
Which I agree is what should be the case. I just believe we should be mindful of the numbers, perhaps paying more attention to ensuring only actual refugees are allowed in (and for a limited time as previously stated) rather than those who are certainly not just because certain activists say to not do so is some 'ist' reason.
Sadly much of the ordinary Ukrainian people (and seemingly a good number of naive [lower-ranked] Russian service personnel and the families) are paying a very high and continued price for world geopolitics (and some other rather murky agendas mixed in) that could easily have been resolve without large scale bloodshed or destruction of a country (or two) and the significant amount of natural resources it/they provide the globe.
|
|
|
|
And what would be your plans for accomodating the 5 million British "economic migrants" if they were forced to return to the UK?
Given the overwhelming majority of those people are legally living and working in a great number of countries or have been and (legally moved) are now retired, that is a moot point.
The people coming across are illegals who have no job to go to, who lie to the authorities about why they are coming and often who they are and their age, never mind having a proper vetting to determine whether they are a criminal or worse still, a terrorist.
Besides, the economic migrants from the UK who've gone abroad are likely economically secure and self-sufficient. Those coming from those nations I mentioned are certainly not.
Note that I distinguish between legal migrants, illegals and genuine refugees, who, for genuine reasons cannot be temporarily house near their country of origin and then go home, with assistance for rebuilding from global resources we contribute to via taxes and charity.
|
|
Most people in the UK illegally are overstaying their visa, rather than having entered illegally.
There are about 30,000 people arriving on small boats across the channel and 90% of those are refugees.
Migrants to the UK are net contributors - they pay more in tax than they take in public services. They are (or were anyway) a vital part of our workforce, particularly in construction and agriculture.
|
Most people in the UK illegally are overstaying their visa, rather than having entered illegally.
There are about 30,000 people arriving on small boats across the channel and 90% of those are refugees.
They may be 'deemed' refugees, but in many people's opinion, that designation is factually incorrect. I suspect its because they have no evidence either way that they are let in.
I would also note that there is strong evidence that these are people coming from an already safe country, France, which means they should be transported back there. A genuine refugee must apply as such at the first safe country, adn given they didn't just 'beam' into France, I'd say they are not here for the fish and chips or for 'safety' compared to other parts of Europe or elsewhere.
People who have overstayed their visa are also illegals and should treated as such. Again I would note that there is good reason to suspect foul play there to get a visa in order to stay permanently, often ending up in the 'black economy' via criminal games, whether in servitude or as criminals of their own vollition.
This apparently is not a small number of people either.
Migrants to the UK are net contributors - they pay more in tax than they take in public services. They are (or were anyway) a vital part of our workforce, particularly in construction and agriculture.
Given how much money is spent on them as they arrive and for the first few months/years, plus they often then bring dependents (including elderly members of teh family) across, that it far from being the case.
Their mere presence also depresses the wages of everyone else due to competition for jobs, which I know from personal experience in the Construction Industry. I know of many instances of such workers living in very poor conditions 'off the books' and working casually outside of the H&S regs. Even those who don't often still have to endure poor housing, e.g. two families to a house built for one. They may add to GDP, but not the per capita figure over their lifetime.
You call them vital, only because there is no incentive for indigenous workers, especially in low paying jobs or where they are trapped into welfare dependency.
|
I would also note that there is strong evidence that these are people coming from an already safe country, France, which means they should be transported back there. A genuine refugee must apply as such at the first safe country, adn given they didn't just 'beam' into France, I'd say they are not here for the fish and chips or for 'safety' compared to other parts of Europe or elsewhere.
So it is a shame that so many people decided this wasn't necessary when they decided to ditch the agreement?
|
|
|
|
|
If our benefits system isn't generous (and our economy worse than many continental nations, e.g. germany or France), why do so many economic migrants risk death by coming across from France on dinghies every day?
There are reports of an issue with Albanian criminals claiming to be trafficked as 'modern slaves'. I don't know whether that's true or a story got up by the previous Home Sec and her allies in the media (Daily Mail etc). If it's true then they should be quickly assessed and a return passage sorted.
The majority of those who come here via France are people with connections to the UK. Either they have direct family links or linked to established communities here; our former Empire has a long tail.
While their cases are examined - not a short process - they're accommodated in various places including former military estate and cheap hotels. Normally they'd be dispersed to surplus housing in the more run down corners of the UK and managed for HMG by various contractors. However the combination of Covid and the sclerotic assessment process for deciding if they have valid claims to refugee status means that system is logjammed.
Wherever they're sent they've no access to the mainstream benefits system until/unless they're given asylum and leave to remain. They get Asylum Support of around £40/week per person for living expenses - about half the rate in mainstream benefits. They're not allowed to work.
There are too many myths.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 09/09/2022 at 14:35
|
If our benefits system isn't generous (and our economy worse than many continental nations, e.g. germany or France), why do so many economic migrants risk death by coming across from France on dinghies every day?
There are reports of an issue with Albanian criminals claiming to be trafficked as 'modern slaves'. I don't know whether that's true or a story got up by the previous Home Sec and her allies in the media (Daily Mail etc). If it's true then they should be quickly assessed and a return passage sorted.
The majority of those who come here via France are people with connections to the UK. Either they have direct family links or linked to established communities here; our former Empire has a long tail.
While their cases are examined - not a short process - they're accommodated in various places including former military estate and cheap hotels. Normally they'd be dispersed to surplus housing in the more run down corners of the UK and managed for HMG by various contractors. However the combination of Covid and the sclerotic assessment process for deciding if they have valid claims to refugee status means that system is logjammed.
Wherever they're sent they've no access to the mainstream benefits system until/unless they're given asylum and leave to remain. They get Asylum Support of around £40/week per person for living expenses - about half the rate in mainstream benefits. They're not allowed to work.
There are too many myths.
Including a vast number on your side of the political fence. If that last comment is correct, then perhaps you could answer Adam's comment about them being a net contributor.
I would also note that I've heard of reports recntly that said that the Albanian illegal and legal immigrant criminality situation is getting so bad that within a decade or so, the majority of people in prision will be of Albanian extraction.
The comment about having connections in the UK may as well be made from Day 2 of any arriving. It's like saying I have a Roman connection due the shape of my nose and thus deserve an Italian passport.
Odd also how 90% of the dinghy lot are men under the age of 35. That's why I don't believe for one minute the claim that most are genuine refugees. Where are their families, whom they should be protectinmg from harm? All in France? I think not.
Who gives them the boats or pays for them to travel all the way (including food and lodgings) all the way here? They don't - they pay vast amounts of money or sign away their freedom to people smugglers. It's why so many end up in criminality, as evidenced by the huge increase in the number of former 'refugees' ending up in the prison system.
|
Odd also how 90% of the dinghy lot are men under the age of 35. That's why I don't believe for one minute the claim that most are genuine refugees. Where are their families, whom they should be protectinmg from harm? All in France? I think not.
Would you expect a lot of older people being able to do something like that? It's younger males that can get here easiest and then settle here and then bring the family over when they are settles and earning.
|
|
|
|
|
"What I am surprised about is how many people who normally speak of trying to stop conflicts are seemingly trying to prolong this one by supporting worldwide efforts to arm and provide military intel to the Ukrainians..."
Consider the likely scenario if other countries were not giving support. Ukraine might have been over-run by now, or at least seriously weakened. Would that be desirable? It would suggest to Russia that it could act with impunity in contravention of international law and might result in its invasion of other countries.
"That many major Western nations are seemingly deliberately trying to prolong the (proxy) war in order to try and force Putin from office by naively thinking they can bankrupt Russia before they are doesn't seem like a well-thoughout-out plan to me."
I see no evidence that anyone would want to prolong the conflict, nor do I believe the west is trying to force Putin out of office. Economic sanctions are an obvious device to weaken a state which seems hell-bent on trying to destroy another.
What I don't like about these criticisms is that they ignore the fact that Russia is the aggressor.
I understand something of the history of the region. I know that Russia collectively smarts with the memory of the loss of its influence within the USSR and its weakness since communism collapsed; it frets that lands on its western side are no longer its friends, as they were. I know the east of Ukraine is home to many Russians. I realise that Russians trace back the history of their state to prehistoric settlements on the site of Kyiv, which holds huge cultural significance for them. It is also true that there are some pretty extreme right-wing Ukrainians which give an excuse for the "Nazi" insult. All of this allows Russians to believe that Ukraine is in some way "really" Russian and should behave as such.
None of it justifies an all-out war under the pretence of a "special military operation" to "de-Nazify" the region, or whatever the current justification is.
|
|
Well - this seems to have sparked a vigorous debate! But my questions are only partially answered. Why was/is shelter not sought somewhere in the the vast expanse of the Ukraine away from military targets and out of reach of most artillery? Are the Ukraine authorities incapable of creating refugee camps or a system of hosting families? In the 2ndWW we arranged evacuation of children to safe areas.
And to those who think our benefits system is mean, don't forget our working infrastructure (potable water, power, sewage, education, health, roads, rail etc), much of which is lacking in many countries.
Edited by John F on 09/09/2022 at 21:05
|
|
Nowhere in Ukraine is 'safe'. The Russians will happily bomb it all and would, if they weren't somewhat incompetent, have invaded the lot. By moving from Ukraine to a neighbour, people enter NATO territory. Russia attacking that could well lead to a world war, so those are the places considered safe.
|
|
|
In the 2ndWW we arranged evacuation of children to safe areas.
Very different times - and Ukraine is a lot less safe than the UK would have been then. It's on a land border with Russia and aerial strikes are much more deadly than they were in WWII and more likey.
|
Very different times - and Ukraine is a lot less safe than the UK would have been then. It's on a land border with Russia and aerial strikes are much more deadly than they were in WWII and more likely.
That. Exactly.
Sure there are areas in Western Ukraine that are a lot safer than the east is now or Kyiv was in Feb/March. But Lviv has been hit several times. Ukraine has land borders with Russia and Belarus. Belarus is in lock step with Russia and has already hosted invasion forces.
Striking a site that the Russians believe is a threat isn't a WW2 equation of trying to hit a target from a vulnerable aircraft. They just have to programme the co-ordinates into a missile.
The facts though are that a significant number of those sheltering in the UK have gone back. Some temporarily but others for good.
|
|
|
|
And to those who think our benefits system is mean, don't forget our working infrastructure (potable water, power, sewage, education, health, roads, rail etc), much of which is lacking in many countries.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about the amount our generous benefits system allows an individual or couple to live on.
|
|
The Ukrainians in Germany are not treated the same as asylum seakers. They have an immediate right to social security payments and are entitled to work. I suggest that that is the proper way to help these people.
|
|
|
|
Are the Ukraine authorities incapable of creating refugee camps or a system of hosting families? In the 2ndWW we arranged evacuation of children to safe areas.
The Russians have already shown that their missiles can reach any part of Ukraine. I think their cynical approach would quite likely include targeting any 'safe areas' the Ukrainians might establish. They happily aim at apartment blocks for no sensible reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
