Migrants trying to get here from Calais

Status
Not open for further replies.
becs said:
My Dad noticed that and mentioned it when I was round earlier. We wondered if the young lads come over and stay to either send money back home to the family, or if it makes it's easier for the rest of the family to move here once one close relative is settled here.
Click to expand...
A bit of both, I suspect.

This is most definitely not just a UK issue though, everywhere you go in Europe now, they are facing the same challenges.
 


There is a piece in one of my Danish daily papers today about homosexual asylum seekers seeking asylum here from Uganda. In their home country, the piece says, it isn't the norm that anyone speaks of intimate issues but part of their asylum seeking process here when putting down homosexuality as the reason for fleeing persecution is being asked very private questions about their lives. The authorities here need to do that in order to make sure people aren't just putting invalid reasons down as it could open the flood gates, the paper quotes someone as saying. Now it has become an issue as they don't like to be asked these private questions and it made me think, how can they prove that they are homosexual ? How is that even workable around a desk at some asylum seeking office ? I don't get that at all. How do the UK border offices get around this ?
 
becs said:
I don't know the answer to that, but it would be a cracking job for you if they had to demonstrate :D
Click to expand...

:lol: Wouldn't be able to keep a straight face.

The article mentioned that the Czech Republic used to make male asylum seekers, who said they fled their home country because they are homosexual, watch straight porno movies with some sort of device attached to their genetals that measured possible blood flow. In order to find out if they were actually telling the truth or not. But an EU ruling last December put a stop to that. No idea what they do now, though. The article doesn't mention that. And their tests with straight movie watching strike me as having a fault or two anyway.

Imagine if you had to flee the UK because of your sexuality and at the asylum seeking office at the country you ended up at told you to prove you are straight. How would you get about doing that ? Same thing, surely.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Becs. I hope you are having a jolly good day.
 
alexander said:
:lol: Wouldn't be able to keep a straight face.

The article mentioned that the Czech Republic used to make male asylum seekers, who said they fled their home country because they are homosexual, watch straight porno movies with some sort of device attached to their genetals that measured possible blood flow. In order to find out if they were actually telling the truth or not. But an EU ruling last December put a stop to that. No idea what they do now, though. The article doesn't mention that. And their tests with straight movie watching strike me as having a fault or two anyway.

Imagine if you had to flee the UK because of your sexuality and at the asylum seeking office at the country you ended up at told you to prove you are straight. How would you get about doing that ? Same thing, surely.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Becs. I hope you are having a jolly good day.
Click to expand...

But they could just be getting a hard on from seeing the blokes arse rather than from the fact a pink slice is being absolutely pounded.
 
dangermows said:
But they could just be getting a hard on from seeing the blokes arse rather than from the fact a pink slice is being absolutely pounded.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Watching straight porno movies and getting an erection doesn't mean you aren't a gay fella. The same way as a straight lad getting an erection watching lesbian movies doesn't mean he is a lesbian. Imagine having fled your home country and all the stress and fear that would come with that, finally reaching a land of freedom and then be turned away for getting hard at the wrong time and place. Would be hardbreaking.
 
They get nothing extra here, than in other countries . They just hang off exhaust pipes, under lorries, to sneak in this country, for the better broadband than all the other other countries they have passed through to get here.
If you have fled a war torn country, and you feared for your life, there is nowt worse than ended up in a safe country with crap WI FI
 
Windypants said:
This might explain the situation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/calais-migrants-refugees_b_7909630.html
Click to expand...


The article is incorrect on at least one point which undermines its credibility. The article says:

Q.9: Isn' t the real reason that they know they'll get benefits as soon as they make it across the Channel?

A: No. According to the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact, most citizens of non-EU countries who come to live in the UK have no recourse to public funds in the initial years after they arrive, nor are asylum-seekers eligible for welfare benefits while their claims are pending.

This is incorrect. According to the https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get website:

You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.

You can’t choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support
You’ll be able to collect money from a local post office each week. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.

Your situation Weekly payment
Married couple or couple in civil partnership £72.52
Lone parent aged 18 or over £43.94
Single person aged 18 or over £36.95
Aged 16 to 18 £39.80
Aged under 16 £52.96

In addition Asylum Seekers get free utilities including council tax, along with free schooling for their kids and free NHS treatment
 
Spent the last couple of nights a couple of miles from Coquelles, had nee bosh whatsoever but there was a lot of helicopter action going on.
 
Hi Fossildog. You'll notice the word 'most' in there. This mitigates your assertion that it's wrong, to some degree, doesn't it?

I guess it comes down to how you define welfare benefits. The Govt defines welfare benefits as things like JSA, housing benefit, disability, and the like, which asylum seekers are not eligible for (they aren't - they get paid from the EU asylum pot, not the UK benefits pot). I think the UK claims about £15M a year to cover costs of asylum seekers. I think you're using pedantry to discredit a truer reflection of the position, which is that there are some desperate people who might make more of a contribution than quite a few of the feckless, workshy, Jeremy Kyle generation we have clogging up our country.
 
Windypants said:
Hi Fossildog. You'll notice the word 'most' in there. This mitigates your assertion that it's wrong, to some degree, doesn't it?

I guess it comes down to how you define welfare benefits. The Govt defines welfare benefits as things like JSA, housing benefit, disability, and the like, which asylum seekers are not eligible for (they aren't - they get paid from the EU asylum pot, not the UK benefits pot). I think the UK claims about £15M a year to cover costs of asylum seekers. I think you're using pedantry to discredit a truer reflection of the position, which is that there are some desperate people who might make more of a contribution than quite a few of the feckless, workshy, Jeremy Kyle generation we have clogging up our country.
Click to expand...
That has got to hurt. :lol::lol:
 
Windypants said:
Hi Fossildog. You'll notice the word 'most' in there. This mitigates your assertion that it's wrong, to some degree, doesn't it?

I guess it comes down to how you define welfare benefits. The Govt defines welfare benefits as things like JSA, housing benefit, disability, and the like, which asylum seekers are not eligible for (they aren't - they get paid from the EU asylum pot, not the UK benefits pot). I think the UK claims about £15M a year to cover costs of asylum seekers. I think you're using pedantry to discredit a truer reflection of the position, which is that there are some desperate people who might make more of a contribution than quite a few of the feckless, workshy, Jeremy Kyle generation we have clogging up our country.
Click to expand...

The article claims non EU people will have no recourse to public funds. Asylum seekers get direct access. to public funds weekly along with services paid for by the public funds.

I probably keep making the same point on here but when people are in the asylum process in the UK they are provided with:

  • Accommodation
  • Free utility bills
  • Free council tax
  • Cash payments made weekly
  • Free schooling
  • Free healthcare
When people falsely claim that asylum seekers have no recourse to public funds then it is almost suggesting the cost of keeping them is trivial, when the reality is somewhat different
 
alexander said:
:lol: Wouldn't be able to keep a straight face.

The article mentioned that the Czech Republic used to make male asylum seekers, who said they fled their home country because they are homosexual, watch straight porno movies with some sort of device attached to their genetals that measured possible blood flow. In order to find out if they were actually telling the truth or not. But an EU ruling last December put a stop to that. No idea what they do now, though. The article doesn't mention that. And their tests with straight movie watching strike me as having a fault or two anyway.

Imagine if you had to flee the UK because of your sexuality and at the asylum seeking office at the country you ended up at told you to prove you are straight. How would you get about doing that ? Same thing, surely.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Becs. I hope you are having a jolly good day.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if someone strapped some electric wires to my knacks the last thing I'd be thinking about was some big titled porn star on the tele
 
Windypants said:
Hi Fossildog. You'll notice the word 'most' in there. This mitigates your assertion that it's wrong, to some degree, doesn't it?

I guess it comes down to how you define welfare benefits. The Govt defines welfare benefits as things like JSA, housing benefit, disability, and the like, which asylum seekers are not eligible for (they aren't - they get paid from the EU asylum pot, not the UK benefits pot). I think the UK claims about £15M a year to cover costs of asylum seekers. I think you're using pedantry to discredit a truer reflection of the position, which is that there are some desperate people who might make more of a contribution than quite a few of the feckless, workshy, Jeremy Kyle generation we have clogging up our country.
Click to expand...

Also to add, in 2003/04 alone:

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/nation...ovision-of-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers/#

As a consequence, NASS paid out £439 million for accommodation in 2003-04. Numbers have since declined and NASS has recruited additional staff to improve how it conducts business.
Click to expand...

The latest figures suggest asylum seekers are around 25,000 now, so for accommodation alone, with no rent increases taken into accout, accomodation alone would be costing around £150m a year.

Are you claiming asylum seekers only cost the UK £15m a year which is paid for by a central EU fund? I would love to see a link for that. No doubt there is a fund that will contribute a small amount to the cost to the UK (a fund which the UK incidentally will be one of the biggest contributors) but the cost to the UK taxpayer of asylum seekers is way in excess of £15m a year.

sidneyeric said:
That has got to hurt. :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

What does? You have been continually wrong on this thread and have not backed up any of your claims. It is pretty clear with regards this subject you are ill informed and have a tabloid understanding of the problem.
 
Fossildog said:
Also to add, in 2003/04 alone:

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/nation...ovision-of-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers/#



The latest figures suggest asylum seekers are around 25,000 now, so for accommodation alone, with no rent increases taken into accout, accomodation alone would be costing around £150m a year.

Are you claiming asylum seekers only cost the UK £15m a year which is paid for by a central EU fund? I would love to see a link for that. No doubt there is a fund that will contribute a small amount to the cost to the UK (a fund which the UK incidentally will be one of the biggest contributors) but the cost to the UK taxpayer of asylum seekers is way in excess of £15m a year.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the cost is only £15M. I'm saying it doesn't come out of a welfare pot, it comes out of an asylum pot and we claim some of that from the EU. Even if it was welfare, there's some level of national responsibility to not be dicks. Taking our fair share of asylum seekers is about not being dicks.
 
Windypants said:
I'm not saying that the cost is only £15M. I'm saying it doesn't come out of a welfare pot, it comes out of an asylum pot and we claim some of that from the EU. Even if it was welfare, there's some level of national responsibility to not be dicks. Taking our fair share of asylum seekers is about not being dicks.
Click to expand...

That is purely semantics. The article is suggesting that asylum seekers do not receive benefits from the UK when in fact they receive fairly generous ones. If indeed some of this is paid from a central EU fund at £15m a year (no link?) then what is received is a fraction of what the UK spends. You also said the £15m received 'covers the cost' of asylum seekers so you were in fact suggesting that that amount was sufficient to offset any costs related to asylum seekers.

Nobody is suggesting the UK should not take its fair share of genuine asylum seekers, but the general public perception now is that those at Calais are not asylum seekers in the true sense, but are cherry picking what they want. The truly desperate would be happy with safety and France can provide this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top