Exactly my point.
This is the optimistic view.
The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.
You have not answered my question or taken my advice. Do some research if you care to find out.
Until / unless the UK allows people to apply for asylum without arriving on our shores, this amounts to saying we shouldn't take any refugees. They will inevitably pass through a safe country to get here.
Oh its definitely both.
Right so going back to the original point
In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone
Under the Geneva Convention asylum seekers are not obligated to seek asylum in the first "safe" nation they arrive in, they have the choice.
yes and they are choosing to leave this "safe" country and risk their childrens wellbeing - which is exactly the point i was making against the statement
so you agree with me they are making a choice in leaving a safe country that they feel is worth endangering their childs life
To leave one country is one thing, and choose a new country is another thing.
Exactly. Distraction in the sense this is not a new issue, but a permanent issue.
Wait for the Talking Heads to come on TV to explain why this is false. And then when it's proven to be right how it isn't a big deal. And then when it's proven to be a big deal how it's the best we could've hoped for. Then Boris will say something funny and we'll all forget about it.
Because it would clearly be politically untenable.
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I'm guessing the next few years are going to similar to post 2008 but just comically stupid. We've got a glimpse of the BBC new production model of chasing migrants on a inflatable boat(All that's missing is the classic Attenborough voice over)What a truly great period of human history to live through!
If you look at the figures, Germany and France accept 4 to 5 times more asylum seekers than the UK. It is only close to 5% of total asylum requests in Europe that are for residence in the UK.
how does any of that relate to the point that somebody said people ONLY put their kids on boats if the sea is safetr than the land
Meanwhile welcome to "oven ready" no deal Brexit. He can have private schools but an economy and jobs market that has shrunk by 25%.
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.
Thank you for that link, learnt a lot reading that.
This is probably a wider trend (or maybe just in richer countries with a history of class-stratification), but a decent chunk of the British economy hinges on the fact that we (irrespective of our wealth) like to spend our spare time 'renting' the experience of being catered to or entertained by paid staff. Going to the cinema or a restaurant is the closest thing a lot of people have to a hobby. My pop-psychology take is that it's a mix of escapism and aspiration, basically role-playing at being old-timey aristocrats by temporarily enjoying the luxuries we associate with that lifestyle.
"The Tories in England had long imagined that they were enthusiastic about the monarchy, the church and beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent.”
This spineless government bows to the racist whims of Farage.
so neither of your own links suggest france is a warzone / an unsafe country
Damn you really got me there. Yeah I guess you cornered me into admitting that *checks notes* France is not a war zone
So when the article says that the living conditions in France are rated as “inhumane” that doesn’t file under unsafe for them? Or because they’re refugees do they not have the right to live in liveable conditions?
It's certainly distracting the right wing press from the government's other failings right now.
Why does it matter if they're economic migrants (which is a charged and ridiculous term)? Or if they absolutely have to make the journey rather than thinking it's their best chance in life for them and their kids? What argument exactly are you trying to support?
Yes... though you know refugee status is only granted at the end of an asylum application right... so these people are not by definition refugees yet
Have they made an asylum application with the french authorities?
I’m not supporting any argument other than a desire to remove some of the more emotive language from the discussion when it comes to shouting people down with talk of how all these people are fleeing conflict. Personally I want immigrants and refugees to be allowed into the UK in much higher numbers that they currently are, but immigration conversations need to be calm and rational and to include actual facts and data, not turn into an endless back and forth between the people who use disgusting language like ‘invasion’ and the people who consider any discussion about numbers or local capabilities to mean someone’s a heartless Tory prick.
