And under the UNHCR you have the right to ask for that at the first country you arrive in... But It seems that all these refugees wander across Europe to get HERE !!!
By and large refugees do stay in the country they first tip up in.
this would seem a bit unfair on France, Spain and Italy who are often the first port of entry for refugees to EU.
not many make it all the way to Iceland.
Well those figures have us and France about even and Spain and Italy much further down the list so not that unfair on them obviously.
Given the geographical size of the UK though Peter, do you really think it's a good thing that it is 15th on that list?
Especially when you compare the ratio to the native poplation which in the (vast ) USA is three times what it is here?
People who talk about us being near to saturation have nothing to base that on. We're probably also much more able to take them on financially than most other countries. Of course, whether we want to is a matter for debate and I admit to coming from a more tolerant side of the argument than most seem to be on here. What makes me mad is people being against it without knowing the facts and, in fact, peddling a lot of untruths that have become accepted as fact.
Yes, Scream, but mere observation is not scientific fact. If London IS busier, and I don't know that it is any more than you do, then it could be for any number of reasons that aren't to do with asylum seekers and/or immigration from outside our borders. One sad truth is that the UK has become far more London-centric, so lots of people come from other parts of the UK to work and live here. If I'm right on that, that's a failing of public policy in a completely different sphere.
Peter, don't insult my intelligence - London is more overcrowded and it's very obvious.
There has been a large influx of people from eastern Europe. Most of them are here perfectly legally and paying taxes. There are others, from there and other parts of the world who are working in the black economy or, worse, not working or claiming benefits and living under canal bridges - that isn't good for us or for them.
These people are real, they are my neighbours - I'm not imagining them!
But the point is that, legal or not, the infrastucture can't cope - short of forcing people to relocate to the highlands of Scotland, the only other option is to have a much stricter immigration policy for those outside Europe.
I agree that to an extent there is a failing of public policy but it's naive (or disingenuous) to try and deny that immigration has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Point two is that it can be easy to sit in your little village in Wales and complain about "Daily Mail attitudes" but when you are living among the worst hit areas then it can be much different. You have to look at how it affects the people of Dover and Margate and not just your own little white liberal town.
thats the governments fault...... soif my little whits village is in one of the highest unemployment areas of the country.where wages are the lowest compared to national averages.........where the average school leaver is coming out with the worst exam results and where the levels of illness and early death are amongst the highest and where benefit claiments are amongst the highest in the country.........
so you wonder why immigrants aren't flooding to the area in droves.........if they were just after benefits I'm sure they would...........but they want jobs and we ain't got none.........so if the governemnet invested and brought these little villages up tpo the same level as the south of England for wealth then i'm sure we would get more imigrants visiting than we do............
we do have lots of water and rain though........shame we still have the second highest water rates in the country for something we have in abundance........that must be fair
Difficult to read any of that. Something about you don't care if high immigration affect other parts of the country because it rains a lot where you are?
Comments
By those figures the UK is already well up the list for refugees per head of population so that's not really an argument for taking more.
Well those figures have us and France about even and Spain and Italy much further down the list so not that unfair on them obviously.
Also if France, Italy and Spain are taking in less despite more likely to be the first port of call we have to ask why?
People who talk about us being near to saturation have nothing to base that on. We're probably also much more able to take them on financially than most other countries. Of course, whether we want to is a matter for debate and I admit to coming from a more tolerant side of the argument than most seem to be on here. What makes me mad is people being against it without knowing the facts and, in fact, peddling a lot of untruths that have become accepted as fact.
But it gives the lie to the idea that we take barrel-loads more than other countries. We clearly don't.
Yes they do - I have given an example, based on my own experience of living in London, in my earlier post.
Depending on where you live in the UK you don't necessarily see it at first hand - I do.
Yes, Scream, but mere observation is not scientific fact. If London IS busier, and I don't know that it is any more than you do, then it could be for any number of reasons that aren't to do with asylum seekers and/or immigration from outside our borders. One sad truth is that the UK has become far more London-centric, so lots of people come from other parts of the UK to work and live here. If I'm right on that, that's a failing of public policy in a completely different sphere.
Peter, don't insult my intelligence - London is more overcrowded and it's very obvious.
There has been a large influx of people from eastern Europe. Most of them are here perfectly legally and paying taxes. There are others, from there and other parts of the world who are working in the black economy or, worse, not working or claiming benefits and living under canal bridges - that isn't good for us or for them.
These people are real, they are my neighbours - I'm not imagining them!
But the point is that, legal or not, the infrastucture can't cope - short of forcing people to relocate to the highlands of Scotland, the only other option is to have a much stricter immigration policy for those outside Europe.
I agree that to an extent there is a failing of public policy but it's naive (or disingenuous) to try and deny that immigration has absolutely nothing to do with it.
NLR said
Point two is that it can be easy to sit in your little village in Wales and complain about "Daily Mail attitudes" but when you are living among the worst hit areas then it can be much different. You have to look at how it affects the people of Dover and Margate and not just your own little white liberal town.
thats the governments fault...... soif my little whits village is in one of the highest unemployment areas of the country.where wages are the lowest compared to national averages.........where the average school leaver is coming out with the worst exam results and where the levels of illness and early death are amongst the highest and where benefit claiments are amongst the highest in the country.........
so you wonder why immigrants aren't flooding to the area in droves.........if they were just after benefits I'm sure they would...........but they want jobs and we ain't got none.........so if the governemnet invested and brought these little villages up tpo the same level as the south of England for wealth then i'm sure we would get more imigrants visiting than we do............
we do have lots of water and rain though........shame we still have the second highest water rates in the country for something we have in abundance........that must be fair
Difficult to read any of that. Something about you don't care if high immigration affect other parts of the country because it rains a lot where you are?
thats about the gist of it