Calais mayor 'disgusted' by UK policy on refugees

[Rowson]

Full article at The Guardian: Calais mayor 'disgusted' by UK policy on refugees | World news | The Guardian

The mayor of Calais has told British MPs that she is disgusted that the UK has not offered to take refugees from her town, and demanded economic aid from Westminster.

Natacha Bouchart told parliament’s home affairs select committee that David Cameron had shown contempt for the people of Calais after he said an offer of asylum for 20,000 refugees would not extend to those people who had already arrived in Europe.

“I am disgusted by that. Understand the position we’ve been in for the last 15 years. If he doesn’t take refugees from Calais, that is proof that he is contemptuous of the population in Calais,” she said.

Nearly all of the migrants gathered in her town wanted to go to the UK, Bouchart said. “They demonstrate every day outside the town hall. Every day myself and my deputies say to them … if you want to stay in France you must claim asylum,” she said.

“Less than 10% want to stay in France. All the others want to come to England and we are going round and round in a circle. Even if we opened up 50,000 places in France they would not claim asylum in France.”​

France is a welfare state, though, or so I'm told. I guess the Blest Isle offers just that bit more? How could a refugee not be content with a coastal stay in France? Culture, cuisine, we're talking about the French?

She claimed that people were attracted to Britain by the “ease of life”, citing the benefits system and access to jobs in the unofficial economy.

“Migrants say that when they get to England they can easily find work here. They can find accommodation and have some kind of benefits every day,” she said.

[. . .]

After MPs pointed to claims that benefits for asylum seekers were more generous in France and the black market easier to access and more lucrative, Bouchart said she was simply repeating what those living rough in Calais had told her.​

Grist to the mill. France might be marshaling people on across the Dover Strait, I don't know, but this is surely a curiosity, is it not? I thought the whole discussion was about 'safety' and such?

Sure, some refugees might not want to live in Serbia or in and around the Dinaric Alps, that's understandable. Hungary? Not tolerant (i.e. generous) enough. Austria? Maybe they're not fans of Viennese architecture, I guess. Ah, Germany, yes this is it! This is safety.

France, curiously, is not enough. And that is a mystery indeed.

She also demanded “economic aid” from the British government. She said: “I am looking for about €50m [£36m] from national authorities and European authorities.”​

If there's one thing you can depend on the French for, it's their ability to never be there when you need to depend on them.

 

[joG]

Full article at The Guardian: Calais mayor 'disgusted' by UK policy on refugees | World news | The Guardian

The mayor of Calais has told British MPs that she is disgusted that the UK has not offered to take refugees from her town, and demanded economic aid from Westminster.

Natacha Bouchart told parliament’s home affairs select committee that David Cameron had shown contempt for the people of Calais after he said an offer of asylum for 20,000 refugees would not extend to those people who had already arrived in Europe.

“I am disgusted by that. Understand the position we’ve been in for the last 15 years. If he doesn’t take refugees from Calais, that is proof that he is contemptuous of the population in Calais,” she said.

Nearly all of the migrants gathered in her town wanted to go to the UK, Bouchart said. “They demonstrate every day outside the town hall. Every day myself and my deputies say to them … if you want to stay in France you must claim asylum,” she said.

“Less than 10% want to stay in France. All the others want to come to England and we are going round and round in a circle. Even if we opened up 50,000 places in France they would not claim asylum in France.”​

France is a welfare state, though, or so I'm told. I guess the Blest Isle offers just that bit more? How could a refugee not be content with a coastal stay in France? Culture, cuisine, we're talking about the French?

She claimed that people were attracted to Britain by the “ease of life”, citing the benefits system and access to jobs in the unofficial economy.

“Migrants say that when they get to England they can easily find work here. They can find accommodation and have some kind of benefits every day,” she said.

[. . .]

After MPs pointed to claims that benefits for asylum seekers were more generous in France and the black market easier to access and more lucrative, Bouchart said she was simply repeating what those living rough in Calais had told her.​

Grist to the mill. France might be marshaling people on across the Dover Strait, I don't know, but this is surely a curiosity, is it not? I thought the whole discussion was about 'safety' and such?

Sure, some refugees might not want to live in Serbia or in and around the Dinaric Alps, that's understandable. Hungary? Not tolerant (i.e. generous) enough. Austria? Maybe they're not fans of Viennese architecture, I guess. Ah, Germany, yes this is it! This is safety.

France, curiously, is not enough. And that is a mystery indeed.

She also demanded “economic aid” from the British government. She said: “I am looking for about €50m [£36m] from national authorities and European authorities.”​

If there's one thing you can depend on the French for, it's their ability to never be there when you need to depend on them.

Because GB won't take her problem off her hands? Goodness. What a sneeky trick!

 

[reinoe]

Lulz. So the Frenchies are whining about how the refugees are overburdening the infrastructure and forcing the French people to demand additional money from foreign governments.



And to cap it off, Syrian terrorists are hiding among the refugees.

 

[tecoyah]

Beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Cephus]

Nobody is obligated to help out others if they don't want to, especially if doing so goes against their own national vested interests. Maybe instead of running away, the Syrians ought to stand up and take their country back. But nah, why work yourself when you can get someone else to do the dirty work?

 

[Olive]

Nobody is obligated to help out others if they don't want to, especially if doing so goes against their own national vested interests. Maybe instead of running away, the Syrians ought to stand up and take their country back. But nah, why work yourself when you can get someone else to do the dirty work?

I reckon you have years of experience being a civilian stuck in a civil war with no good sides while half your family is killed and your neighborhood gets barrel bombed.

 

[Cephus]

I reckon you have years of experience being a civilian stuck in a civil war with no good sides while half your family is killed and your neighborhood gets barrel bombed.

Revolutions happen all the time. Americans revolted against British rule. We didn't go running away, begging someone else to hide us. Men (and it would have been women today as well) left their families, took up arms and fought for what they believed in. They knew that death was preferable to being slaves. Too bad there are so many people worldwide who don't have that fighting spirit to stand up to their oppressors.

 

[Olive]

Revolutions happen all the time. Americans revolted against British rule. We didn't go running away, begging someone else to hide us. Men (and it would have been women today as well) left their families, took up arms and fought for what they believed in. They knew that death was preferable to being slaves. Too bad there are so many people worldwide who don't have that fighting spirit to stand up to their oppressors.

It's just a whole lot of blablabla considering the fact you are not a Syrian civilian and you cannot relate to their suffering. It's a very nice historical anecdote you gave there from centuries ago.

By the way, tens of thousands of Syrians are fighting for one side or the other. But not everybody likes getting killed especially if all the options suck.

Sorry but I cannot take war trumping seriously on a forum, we cannot possibly conclude what we would do in their case. Have enough bombs fall around you while you have nothing to fight back with and judge again.

 

[Shadowless]

The west shouldn't take any refugees until the gulf nations do. If the refugees don't want to live in a secular society, the west is no place for them. If refugees are willing/capable of living in a secular society, and the gulf states have taken most, then we in the west can take some.

 

[Olive]

The west shouldn't take any refugees until the gulf nations do. If the refugees don't want to live in a secular society, the west is no place for them. If refugees are willing/capable of living in a secular society, and the gulf states have taken most, then we in the west can take some.

That makes no sense, should we be assholes because the Gulf states are assholes? No good can come from that logic.

 

[Shadowless]

That makes no sense, should we be assholes because the Gulf states are assholes? No good can come from that logic.

It may seem like we are being assholes, but why should we take refugees when their neighbors won't? They have a better chance of assimilating into that culture than into Europe's or the USA's.

 

[Olive]

It may seem like we are being assholes, but why should we take refugees when their neighbors won't? They have a better chance of assimilating into that culture than into Europe's or the USA's.

Yes
1234567890

 

[Soho gator]

Full article at The Guardian: Calais mayor 'disgusted' by UK policy on refugees | World news | The Guardian

The mayor of Calais has told British MPs that she is disgusted that the UK has not offered to take refugees from her town, and demanded economic aid from Westminster.

Natacha Bouchart told parliament’s home affairs select committee that David Cameron had shown contempt for the people of Calais after he said an offer of asylum for 20,000 refugees would not extend to those people who had already arrived in Europe.

“I am disgusted by that. Understand the position we’ve been in for the last 15 years. If he doesn’t take refugees from Calais, that is proof that he is contemptuous of the population in Calais,” she said.

Nearly all of the migrants gathered in her town wanted to go to the UK, Bouchart said. “They demonstrate every day outside the town hall. Every day myself and my deputies say to them … if you want to stay in France you must claim asylum,” she said.

“Less than 10% want to stay in France. All the others want to come to England and we are going round and round in a circle. Even if we opened up 50,000 places in France they would not claim asylum in France.”​

France is a welfare state, though, or so I'm told. I guess the Blest Isle offers just that bit more? How could a refugee not be content with a coastal stay in France? Culture, cuisine, we're talking about the French?

She claimed that people were attracted to Britain by the “ease of life”, citing the benefits system and access to jobs in the unofficial economy.

“Migrants say that when they get to England they can easily find work here. They can find accommodation and have some kind of benefits every day,” she said.

[. . .]

After MPs pointed to claims that benefits for asylum seekers were more generous in France and the black market easier to access and more lucrative, Bouchart said she was simply repeating what those living rough in Calais had told her.​

Grist to the mill. France might be marshaling people on across the Dover Strait, I don't know, but this is surely a curiosity, is it not? I thought the whole discussion was about 'safety' and such?

Sure, some refugees might not want to live in Serbia or in and around the Dinaric Alps, that's understandable. Hungary? Not tolerant (i.e. generous) enough. Austria? Maybe they're not fans of Viennese architecture, I guess. Ah, Germany, yes this is it! This is safety.

France, curiously, is not enough. And that is a mystery indeed.

She also demanded “economic aid” from the British government. She said: “I am looking for about €50m [£36m] from national authorities and European authorities.”​

If there's one thing you can depend on the French for, it's their ability to never be there when you need to depend on them.

Historians laugh at this comment. Without the support of the French we might not exist as the United States of America.

 

[Shadowless]

Yes
1234567890

What?

 

[Soho gator]

It may seem like we are being assholes, but why should we take refugees when their neighbors won't? They have a better chance of assimilating into that culture than into Europe's or the USA's.

Because as GOP'rs like to point out we're an exceptional country?

LOL

 

[Cephus]

It's just a whole lot of blablabla considering the fact you are not a Syrian civilian and you cannot relate to their suffering. It's a very nice historical anecdote you gave there from centuries ago.

By the way, tens of thousands of Syrians are fighting for one side or the other. But not everybody likes getting killed especially if all the options suck.

Sorry but I cannot take war trumping seriously on a forum, we cannot possibly conclude what we would do in their case. Have enough bombs fall around you while you have nothing to fight back with and judge again.

Yup, some are fighting, lots are running. If they really care about what happens to their nation, they need to be on the front lines, or at the very least, behind the lines working hard to support the troops. Instead, they're saying "sayonara" and running for the hills. Then they expect other people with other problems on their plates to drop everything and take them in and feed and clothe them and they cry if they don't.

That's utter BS.

 

[Shadowless]

Because as GOP'rs like to point out we're an exceptional country?

LOL

LOL right, exceptional dammit!!!!!!!! :lol:

 

[Manc Skipper]

It may seem like we are being assholes, but why should we take refugees when their neighbors won't? They have a better chance of assimilating into that culture than into Europe's or the USA's.

Their neighbours have done. Turkey has taken 1.9milion, Jordan took 1.2 million, Lebanon 1.1 million. (With a population of less than 5million to start with.) Israel has taken none. The Gulf States are not their neighbours, but they have been contributing massive amounts of humanitarian aid.

 

[Shadowless]

Their neighbours have done. Turkey has taken 1.9milion, Jordan took 1.2 million, Lebanon 1.1 million. (With a population of less than 5million to start with.) Israel has taken none. The Gulf States are not their neighbours, but they have been contributing massive amounts of humanitarian aid.

The gulf states are the richest countries in that region. Lebanon has taken equivalent of 1/4 their population, so why hasn't Saudi Arabia taken ANY? The aid will do nothing, if they really wanted to help, they would use their power and leverage to take refugees. They lean on the west far too much, then criticize us whenever they see fit.

 

[reinoe]

The west shouldn't take any refugees until the gulf nations do. If the refugees don't want to live in a secular society, the west is no place for them. If refugees are willing/capable of living in a secular society, and the gulf states have taken most, then we in the west can take some.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Emirites are not taking any refugees because they know a lot of refugees are either trashy rabble or straight up terrorists. I think they know a lot more about the character of these refugees than we do.

 

[Soho gator]

Their neighbours have done. Turkey has taken 1.9milion, Jordan took 1.2 million, Lebanon 1.1 million. (With a population of less than 5million to start with.) Israel has taken none. The Gulf States are not their neighbours, but they have been contributing massive amounts of humanitarian aid.

Jesus H Christ. Those Israeli's are an evil lot..........

 

[Cephus]

Because as GOP'rs like to point out we're an exceptional country?

LOL

We're an exceptional country because we don't just take anyone, or at least that's the way it used to be. We used to take the best and brightest and that made us better. Why has nobody figured that out before?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Where would NASA be without those Nazi rocket scientists, that kind of thing?

 

[Shadowless]

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Emirites are not taking any refugees because they know a lot of refugees are either trashy rabble or straight up terrorists. I think they know a lot more about the character of these refugees than we do.

Be that as it may, we shouldn't take any until they do. Even then, they need to deal with the bulk of the problem.

 

[Higgins86]

Calais has a mayor???:lamo