They shouldn't get any further than the first safe country, which obviously ain't the UK!
slackAlice2 wrote:But like somebody pointed out recently if you applied that rule we'd end up with nobody and that ain't fair on the rest of Europe.
slackAlice2 wrote:The French could just allow free access to the port and then you'd have more chaos. Its not as though the numbers are massive 5-6 thousand; it shouldn't be hard to find them somewhere to go, dispersed across European countries.
slackAlice2 wrote: The problem being you'd have another 5 thousand there in no time; that's a tougher problem to solve.
slackAlice2 wrote: But these people are in most cases traumatised , escaping war zones and desperate poverty, it needs a humanitarian response. But on this problem Cameron has been slow and indecisive
SolentShrimp wrote:They shouldn't get any further than the first safe country, which obviously ain't the UK!
With everything else that could easily kick off big style, the UK is sleepwalking to becoming a ticking
time-bomb.
Keith wrote:I understand that, what I was explaining is that the language is one of the key reasons for getting to England.
Keith wrote:I was 'discussing' this with a Solent Dawes type the other day. They were saying how some migrants were being interviewed on TV saying how they want to get to England so they can "make money".
She said "why do they all want to come to England? Why? Because we're a soft touch".
I replied "you know how they were being interviewed on the TV, and they were speaking English? Do you think the fact that they speak English explains why they want to go to England rather than France or Italy?"
*silence*
"I hadn't thought of that".
shrimpnsave wrote:Language hasn't stopped any one to pastures new so thats an irrelevant comment!!
Keith wrote:shrimpnsave wrote:Language hasn't stopped any one to pastures new so thats an irrelevant comment!!
If you needed to flee the UK and you had a voice of a country where you speak the same language or a country where you don't, you seriously wouldn't prefer the country where you can speak the same language? If you have no choice, then you'll just go. But otherwise, it is VERY relevant.
The Lebanon seriously has a 'immigrant' problem. Relative to size, it would be the equivalent of the UK having 20,000,000 refugees. Now THAT is a problem.
shrimpnsave wrote:...are we a soft touch???
Keith wrote:shrimpnsave wrote:...are we a soft touch???
No
mrpotatohead wrote:we were not a soft touch in the 1930's when we were turning away jewish refugees,and sending them back to certain death.
Keith wrote:I understand that, what I was explaining is that the language is one of the key reasons for getting to England.
Adam told how he fled South Sudan, claiming his village was bombed by fighter jets. He was then held in a refugee camp in 2012.
After working in a restaurant in Chad he said he reached Libya but was held in jail for two months because he could not pay a release fee, and was then kept as a slave on a farm for six months until he ran away.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 182 guests