A bit misleading though, that’s accepted migrants, not how many are in the country. On that measure we would probably be at the bottom again, but Italy would be way up as they have loads of people in camps and roaming the countryside. Just heard on the radio that, of all of the migrants arriving in Europe, 3% want to claim asylum in the U.K., usually for language and family connection reasons. Five times as many want to stay in France.
Fair. Our net migration is pretty low. Our existing population is old as **** and getting older. We desperately need a young, healthy workforce for the future despite all the wE aRe FuLl rhetoric.
I like this new tactic of encouraging the water companies to pump sewage into the channel as a deterrent though. Nice one Priti.
We always had the right to send them back after (i think 3 months). We never chose to track them or indeed use this facility but hey that must be Frances fault.
Why do they want to comehere I ask myself and illegally too. 1. If they claim asylum they wont get it...they cannot bring proof with them as they travel with bare minimum, and everything is taken off them, stolen or lost on journey. And we have one of the worst record for giving asylum anyway...they wont get it 2. Apparently I read this morning...our job market is much easier for an illegal immigrant to get into without papers. We have a known under current of illegal workers, because we can no longer get cheaper EU nationals, so the powers that be employ illegals A perfect storm
We have one of the densest populations in the world, particularly in the SE of England/London. Most immigrants don't want to live in the Highlands of Scotland. We need skilled migrants at times eg NHS. These are available worldwide. In an increasingly automated world, we don't need millions of unskilled immigrants, and we need to be aware in relation to those we take, of the occasional bad apple that can bomb kids at a pop concert or mothers at a maternity hospital, or stab a group of gay people or a member of Parliament.
I believe there's a 5 year prison max for employing illegals. Don't know how strictly it is enforced.
We aren’t one of the most densely populated countries and London is nowhere near the most densely populated cities in the world so I don’t know where you’ve got that from. We need people. People generally want to better themselves and get skilled if they aren’t already. Harder to attract them if you constantly paint foreigners as the boogieman as our great drive to attract the “brightest and best” falling flat on its arse suggests.
We're the most densely populated large country in Europe. I don't particularly want to be compared to Third World countries like India where the quality of life is utter ****. The number of EU citizens that have applied for settled status here after Brexit far exceeded expectations. Mostly, foreigners are welcomed, particularly now they come by invitation. I set out for you in my last post why immigrants from some parts of the world can be viewed with suspicion as they may have a boogieman among them. As I say, we've already had several to great loss of life.
I don't believe it is much, we don't have the police force to enforce it. And most of it is done on hand to hand dealing. If they are not really exploited, a blind eye is passed over it
I'm sure I must be missing something, but isn't the problem of refugees attempting to cross the Channel down to the fact that they have to have their feet on British soil before they can claim asylum? Why not set up an asylum processing centre in Northern France, paid for by the British government, and allow applications to be made there?
I think the argument is that if you did that it would be a magnet for even more refugees to make the trip. I think we do ‘process’ some Syrian refugees in the camps in Turkey and perhaps Jordan, or at least that was the Cameron promise, might have lapsed now.
Well yes, our government actively likes the fact that people can't get here without risking their lives, so why make claiming asylum elsewhere easier?