Time for UK to toughen up on African immigration - we don't want them

[PeteEU]

Im sorry...but you are simply wrong. They were backed up because on the nights in question, a few illegals died while trying to illegally enter the UK. The thousand that stormed the gates were strapping themselves to the undercarriages of semi's.

The nights in question? sure. But what about all the months before that night? Or since? The problem at the UK France border has been going on for years. Every Eurostar train is stopped last I heard, and every single passenger (1000+) has to get off and have their papers checked (and bags).. IN FRANCE! before it is allowed into the UK. This takes hours because the UK has not put on enough people to deal with it.

And yet when the Spanish put up screening at the Gib border, then the Brits are all up in arms... ****ing hypocrites.

Look at yourself. You want to blame the UK for not allowing more immigrants?

They can do whatever they want, but dont come and complain about **** that they are at least partly to blame for.

You think the UK is somehow obligated to bring in more refugees than their country can handle?

Hey, if they were to just take those that they can handle then that would be fine! But they are not even doing that! 187 Syrian refugees in 2014. Come on!

Rather than work to fix the countries people are escaping from, you think the answer is to turn every country into an impoverished ****hole? Thats ****ing brilliant.

Err how exactly would you fix Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria? The UK was at least in part at fault for the situation there and dont even try to deny that..

He...hows about you accept 20-30 unemployed illegals into your private home and YOU be on the hook for their care. How is that going to work out...any better than a country being forced to take on 2 million?

You are mixing up illegals and refugees. I could care less about illegals, but refugees I care about. And it is refugees that the UK has not taken any where near their fair share off.

Now illegal migrants from places like Nigeria, Sengal, Pakistan and so on... kick them home. Problem here is agreements with said countries to do that. Had the EU had a unified rule-set with the full economic and political power behind it, then these illegals would be on the first place home once caught. But countries like the UK (not solely mind you) have for years refused to change the rules on illegal immigration into the EU, because that would mean that their oh so precious sovereignty would be at risk. And the UK cant piss off their old colonies after all, that is their future meal ticket according to the Conservatives... Commonwealth ahead of their European cousins!

 

[PeteEU]

Don't be silly again.

The Uk need only process persons with valid passports. That is all they must pay for. Or do you know of any passage in some treaty or other among the many treaties of Europe that says the countries share the costs? If you do, I would really be interested in it. The others should be seeking asylum in the country of entry to the EU. That was the deal as I heard Martin Schultz et alias say in as many words.

What the hell are you taking about? The UK has border installations in France. That has been a requirement for the Chunnel from the start. France should not have to pay for that! **** the UK, if they want to screen people entering the tunnel.. do it in the ****ing UK not in France! And if the UK wants the installations in France to deal with this, then they damn well have to pay for it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

That's correct , though unlikely as most of these Brits are retirees or tourists. It could easily just be a restriction on the right to work.

Many are dole scroungers.

 

[Rightwingguy]

the UK govt actually gives money to Spain to compensate for the high number of Brits using the Spanish health system
, so not sure about 'dole scroungers'

 

[VanceMack]

The nights in question? sure. But what about all the months before that night? Or since? The problem at the UK France border has been going on for years. Every Eurostar train is stopped last I heard, and every single passenger (1000+) has to get off and have their papers checked (and bags).. IN FRANCE! before it is allowed into the UK. This takes hours because the UK has not put on enough people to deal with it.

And yet when the Spanish put up screening at the Gib border, then the Brits are all up in arms... ****ing hypocrites.



They can do whatever they want, but dont come and complain about **** that they are at least partly to blame for.



Hey, if they were to just take those that they can handle then that would be fine! But they are not even doing that! 187 Syrian refugees in 2014. Come on!



Err how exactly would you fix Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria? The UK was at least in part at fault for the situation there and dont even try to deny that..



You are mixing up illegals and refugees. I could care less about illegals, but refugees I care about. And it is refugees that the UK has not taken any where near their fair share off.

Now illegal migrants from places like Nigeria, Sengal, Pakistan and so on... kick them home. Problem here is agreements with said countries to do that. Had the EU had a unified rule-set with the full economic and political power behind it, then these illegals would be on the first place home once caught. But countries like the UK (not solely mind you) have for years refused to change the rules on illegal immigration into the EU, because that would mean that their oh so precious sovereignty would be at risk. And the UK cant piss off their old colonies after all, that is their future meal ticket according to the Conservatives... Commonwealth ahead of their European cousins!

There is zero difference between refugees and illegals when it comes to a nations ability to support them. You could no more support an extra 20-30 refugees than you could illegals. The ridiculous distinction avoids the reality. Accepting too many illegals-or too many refugees-has a dire negative impact on your country.

As for fixing their countries of origins, there are lots of solutions, but that would take a real commitment, rather than a bunch of people believing they can govern with emotion and feelings (and mindless ideology) and solve a problem by just stuffing refugees and illegal immigrants in countries.

 

[Rightwingguy]

And yet when the Spanish put up screening at the Gib border, then the Brits are all up in arms... ****ing hypocrites.

apples and oranges completely, because Brits passing through the Gib border crossing are not illegals wishing to settle in Spain - totally different for the African mass attempting to force their way into UK

and why don't these refugees stay in their own country and fight, most are men, what are they, ******s or something? why the F should we take them in - how many is Denmark hosting?

 

[clownboy]

the UK govt actually gives money to Spain to compensate for the high number of Brits using the Spanish health system
, so not sure about 'dole scroungers'

That's the only way they (UK citizens) can find housing that doesn't involve living in third world conditions - live in another country.

 

[Rightwingguy]

that's correct , and for sure mass immigration puts up rent prices, yet these metro lib types with decent jobs never seem to have to worry about that...................and they say they are for the working man, what kind of joke is that!

 

[PeteEU]

apples and oranges completely, because Brits passing through the Gib border crossing are not illegals wishing to settle in Spain - totally different for the African mass attempting to force their way into UK

They are actually mostly Spanish and tourists, but it is not apples and oranges.. it is the exact same ****ing thing.

and why don't these refugees stay in their own country and fight, most are men, what are they, ******s or something?

Seriously.....dont exepect any more replies, because this and your open racism.... shows you dont grasp the real world and what is happening in it.

why the F should we take them in - how many is Denmark hosting?

Well if we look at Syrians.. far more. If we look at totals, the UK has us beat.. but not by much! If we look per capita.. well the UK should be ashamed.

Numbers are out there..

 

[Rightwingguy]

that's rich, so the UK takes in MORE than Denmark and you are whining about how awful the UK is, that's classic Nimbyism!

 

[Rightwingguy]

They are actually mostly Spanish and tourists, but it is not apples and oranges.. it is the exact same ****ing thing.

they are not trying to break down the fence between Spain and Gib, nor are they looking to get welfare or jobs, etc...how can you say it's the same?

Seriously.....dont exepect any more replies, because this and your open racism.... shows you dont grasp the real world and what is happening in it.

hardly racist to say one should defend their country

and as for UK 'should be ashamed' of not taking in more? that's hilarious, well , we should be ashamed of having taken in so many already

 

[PeteEU]

There is zero difference between refugees and illegals when it comes to a nations ability to support them.

There is a huge difference.

You could no more support an extra 20-30 refugees than you could illegals. The ridiculous distinction avoids the reality. Accepting too many illegals-or too many refugees-has a dire negative impact on your country.

As for fixing their countries of origins, there are lots of solutions, but that would take a real commitment, rather than a bunch of people believing they can govern with emotion and feelings (and mindless ideology) and solve a problem by just stuffing refugees and illegal immigrants in countries.

We have to accept refugees, but we dont have to accept illegals.

Yesterday I saw a news segment on one of the news channels from the Greek island of Kos. Here the war refugees were put up on a ship/liner. They got food and a bed to sleep on before being processed. Illegals however were living in a tent city with next to no support, because.. they were illegals! Now Greece does not have the money or political clout to deal with the illegals and send them packing back to whatever place they came from, so Greece is defacto forced to let them go due to the sheer numbers. Now had the funding been there and had there been an European wide agreement with the countries these people are coming from, then it could have been solved much faster and less painful.

Point is, refugees are here because of war or persecution. They are Syrians and Afghans..Libyians and such. Those we have to take in for a short period of time (hopefully).

But the economic migrants coming out of Nigeria, Sengal and across Africa, South America and such places.. **** em. They ARE legally different. How we treat economic migrants depends on national laws, and not international treaties.. where as refugees we have international treaties to go after.

The problem is of course, the economic migrants just ask for political asylum, and that takes time to process. There I would personally state that the EU should have a rule stating which countries you can come from where political persecution is an accepted asylum request. This list would be relatively short.

 

[VanceMack]

There is a huge difference.



We have to accept refugees, but we dont have to accept illegals.

Yesterday I saw a news segment on one of the news channels from the Greek island of Kos. Here the war refugees were put up on a ship/liner. They got food and a bed to sleep on before being processed. Illegals however were living in a tent city with next to no support, because.. they were illegals! Now Greece does not have the money or political clout to deal with the illegals and send them packing back to whatever place they came from, so Greece is defacto forced to let them go due to the sheer numbers. Now had the funding been there and had there been an European wide agreement with the countries these people are coming from, then it could have been solved much faster and less painful.

Point is, refugees are here because of war or persecution. They are Syrians and Afghans..Libyians and such. Those we have to take in for a short period of time (hopefully).

But the economic migrants coming out of Nigeria, Sengal and across Africa, South America and such places.. **** em. They ARE legally different. How we treat economic migrants depends on national laws, and not international treaties.. where as refugees we have international treaties to go after.

The problem is of course, the economic migrants just ask for political asylum, and that takes time to process. There I would personally state that the EU should have a rule stating which countries you can come from where political persecution is an accepted asylum request. This list would be relatively short.

There is zero difference in the inability to pay for them and provide for them and you have to be completely daft if you cant see that.

World leaders have to be able to use thought, reason, and actually make difficult decisions. They cant afford to make decisions based on their feelings or ideology. You have that luxury...and even YOU arent stupid enough to try to take on 20-30 illegals or refugees in your own home.

 

[Rightwingguy]

There is a huge difference.



We have to accept refugees, but we dont have to accept illegals.

have to? says who - no, let them sort their own **** out, why should we keep bailing out the Arabs and Africans?

 

[VanceMack]

Many are dole scroungers.

Wait...whats a 'dole scrounger'?

 

[Rightwingguy]

someone who claims welfare when they could easily be working , that kind of thing, or people who take the welfare money when they don't need it

 

[Chagos]

the UK govt actually gives money to Spain to compensate for the high number of Brits using the Spanish health system
, so not sure about 'dole scroungers'

Hahahaha.

You DO like to confuse issues, eh?

That's an agreement of mutuality that all (to my knowledge) European (EU) countries have on healthcare. Otherwise anyone changing country of residence would have to bear the health costs there themselves.

The UK is not GIVING anything, it's paying its obligations.

 

[American]

Ahh so you are one of those.. well that killed this thread fast....

Tell him how racist that is. Go on.

 

[Chagos]

.......................... There I would personally state that the EU should have a rule stating which countries you can come from where political persecution is an accepted asylum request. This list would be relatively short.

Germany (and some others) actually works on that principle but it still processes anyone who makes it to there. The problem is of course proper identification. People from Kosovo for instance (not persecution country) have become wise to the danger and just claim themselves as coming from somewhere else. Of course if they don't speak Arabic they blow it, but first of all they're inside.

 

[Chagos]

Tell him how racist that is. Go on.

He's maybe racist but he's certainly a xenophobe.

 

[Chagos]

That's correct , though unlikely as most of these Brits are retirees or tourists. It could easily just be a restriction on the right to work.

By EU law not permissible towards EU citizens.

 

[Rightwingguy]

Hahahaha.

You DO like to confuse issues, eh?

That's an agreement of mutuality that all (to my knowledge) European (EU) countries have on healthcare. Otherwise anyone changing country of residence would have to bear the health costs there themselves.

The UK is not GIVING anything, it's paying its obligations.

The UK gives EXTRA to Spain, on top of it's general obligations

 

[Chagos]

The UK gives EXTRA to Spain, on top of it's general obligations

BS.

Cite it with evidence.

 

[Rightwingguy]

By EU law not permissible towards EU citizens.

I suggest pulling out of the EU and will be voting that way in the referendum.

Time to end this liberal wet dream farce.

 

[Rightwingguy]

He's maybe racist but he's certainly a xenophobe.

Opposing mass-immigration is not xenophobic, otherwise why weren't you shouting this pre circa 2000, or to all the other countries of the world that have strict immigration policies