[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is this a news item, where's the source?

It's "serious debate" nothing says it has to be a news story fgs.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

It's "serious debate" nothing says it has to be a news story fgs.

Those pics had to be from somewhere...I wondered if it was a news article is all :/

[Crimson Dynamo]

look at point 2

[Cherie]

That's okay though because he was due to be deported

[Denver]

they all look dodgy

[Johnnyuk123]

I've seen quite a few stories like this online recently. They all have the latest mobile phones. I wish i had a phone like that.

Q: Where are all the girls?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

I've seen quite a few stories like this online recently. They all have the latest mobile phones. I wish i had a phone like that.

yes I saw a pic today and one had an iphone 6!

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...t-asylum-boats



Australian success story

[Wizard.]

And when these men are put into schools and have sex with young girls then what will the Home Office do? I am a proud Conservative, but Amber Rudd is not up to the job.

[Crimson Dynamo]

terrorists lie too to get into countries

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10...gee-conundrum/

Interesting article about this

"Just as I did when I visited the illegal shanty-town a couple of weeks ago and met a man from Afghanistan who said he was a boy.He said his name was Imran Sheerzad and I got talking to him because he was, as far as I could tell, the only one in there who spoke intelligible English. He said he was 16 but looked 25. He had been in the Jungle for four months where he had arrived via Turkey and the Balkans after a four-month journey. His family in Nangarhar Province on the Pakistan border had given him 8,000 euros to pay for his pilgrimage.

So I asked him if he was married and he said ‘yes’ and how old his wife was and he said ’18’ and if they had a child to which he said ‘yes’ who is, he told me, a one-year-old boy. And did he have a passport that he could show me? No, he had no passport, no documents at all. So he said.

Obviously, he was not a child but was he at least a refugee? ‘I am not really refugee, no,’ he conceded. Afghanis do not have automatic refugee status. ‘But I need help,’ he added. Why was he – why was everyone in the Jungle – so dead keen on Britain? What was wrong with France? ‘The facilities,’ he explained. He was unable or unwilling to elaborate.

Yet in the year to September 2015, two-thirds of child asylum seekers in Britain whose age was disputed by officials – according to latest Home Office figures – were found to be adults."

[Ammi]

...an interesting article 'why do the "migrants" in Calais want to come to the UK?'....


https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-...ome-to-the-uk/

Agents were found to play a key role in the final destination:

"Some agents simply facilitated travel to a destination chosen by the asylum seeker. Other agents directed asylum seekers to particular countries without giving them any choice. Yet other agents offered asylum seekers a priced ‘menu’ of destinations from which the asylum seeker could then choose".

For those that did have an element of choice about their destination, there were a range of factors*that influenced that choice:

"These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.
There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."




Attitudes towards work for those questioned seemed to be complex. Back in 2002 the media and Home Office were obsessed with the idea that bogus asylum seekers wanted to claim benefits. These days, after our collective experience of EU migration, most of us now surely recognise that the desire to work is likely to be a more significant*motivation for migration.
The research*found that most of those questioned believed they would be*allowed to work, wanted to work and thought they would have to work:

"Many of the respondents had worked in the country of origin (and acquired skills and had careers there), and wanted to do so again when they arrived in the country where they claimed asylum. Finding a job was important because it enabled people to rebuild their lives after what had often been traumatic and disruptive experiences. It helped refugees to regain their self-respect and confidence, and to focus upon the future…"


This being the real world, there is no easy answer to the question “why?” Work, friends, family, language, historical links to the UK and, ironically, the UK’s reputation for fairness, tolerance and welcome all play their role.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...an interesting article 'why do the "migrants" in Calais want to come to the UK?'....


https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-...ome-to-the-uk/

Agents were found to play a key role in the final destination:

"Some agents simply facilitated travel to a destination chosen by the asylum seeker. Other agents directed asylum seekers to particular countries without giving them any choice. Yet other agents offered asylum seekers a priced ‘menu’ of destinations from which the asylum seeker could then choose".

For those that did have an element of choice about their destination, there were a range of factors*that influenced that choice:

"These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.
There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."




Attitudes towards work for those questioned seemed to be complex. Back in 2002 the media and Home Office were obsessed with the idea that bogus asylum seekers wanted to claim benefits. These days, after our collective experience of EU migration, most of us now surely recognise that the desire to work is likely to be a more significant*motivation for migration.
The research*found that most of those questioned believed they would be*allowed to work, wanted to work and thought they would have to work:

"Many of the respondents had worked in the country of origin (and acquired skills and had careers there), and wanted to do so again when they arrived in the country where they claimed asylum. Finding a job was important because it enabled people to rebuild their lives after what had often been traumatic and disruptive experiences. It helped refugees to regain their self-respect and confidence, and to focus upon the future…"


This being the real world, there is no easy answer to the question “why?” Work, friends, family, language, historical links to the UK and, ironically, the UK’s reputation for fairness, tolerance and welcome all play their role.

written by a lawer who makes a healthy living from providing legal work on immigration?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

written by a lawer who makes a healthy living from providing legal work on immigration?

I think you can be a bit cynical, there are obviously those who want to come to UK because they perceive a better life here economically and not because they have been displaced by war but in fairness that is only the case some of the time. Definitely not a of the time.

[Ammi]

...who ever wrote it though, the responses had no agenda other than striving and struggling for a better quality of life and the risks taken to try to find that...I guess that we can either look at those young men who are seeking for employment and and to offer the skills that they may have and see how much we can accommodate...?..or we can just slam the door in faces in the assumption that most mean harm to us...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...an interesting article 'why do the "migrants" in Calais want to come to the UK?'....


https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-...ome-to-the-uk/

Agents were found to play a key role in the final destination:

"Some agents simply facilitated travel to a destination chosen by the asylum seeker. Other agents directed asylum seekers to particular countries without giving them any choice. Yet other agents offered asylum seekers a priced ‘menu’ of destinations from which the asylum seeker could then choose".

For those that did have an element of choice about their destination, there were a range of factors*that influenced that choice:

"These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.
There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."




Attitudes towards work for those questioned seemed to be complex. Back in 2002 the media and Home Office were obsessed with the idea that bogus asylum seekers wanted to claim benefits. These days, after our collective experience of EU migration, most of us now surely recognise that the desire to work is likely to be a more significant*motivation for migration.
The research*found that most of those questioned believed they would be*allowed to work, wanted to work and thought they would have to work:

"Many of the respondents had worked in the country of origin (and acquired skills and had careers there), and wanted to do so again when they arrived in the country where they claimed asylum. Finding a job was important because it enabled people to rebuild their lives after what had often been traumatic and disruptive experiences. It helped refugees to regain their self-respect and confidence, and to focus upon the future…"


This being the real world, there is no easy answer to the question “why?” Work, friends, family, language, historical links to the UK and, ironically, the UK’s reputation for fairness, tolerance and welcome all play their role.

Very interesting post Ammi, thanks for sharing the article.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yet in the year to September 2015, two-thirds of child asylum seekers in Britain whose age was disputed by officials – according to latest Home Office figures – were found to be adults."

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No one is using it as anything other than illustrative but did you note that in 2015 66% lied about their age

You just cannot take what they say as true

Two thirds of those whose age was disputed were lying, I'd presume that those who weren't disputed were clearly children, and I think it was approx 1 in 5 that were disputed? (not sure on that exactly but it's around that figure) so it would be somewhere around 15% that were lying. That's still a high percentage of course (although it becomes much smaller if you start discussing 'all migrants' not just 'child migrants'), but I thought I'd point it out anyway to highlight the fact that depending on the source, you just cannot take what they say as true

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Two thirds of those whose age was disputed were lying, I'd presume that those who weren't disputed were clearly children, and I think it was approx 1 in 5 that were disputed? (not sure on that exactly but it's around that figure) so it would be somewhere around 15% that were lying. That's still a high percentage of course (although it becomes much smaller if you start discussing 'all migrants' not just 'child migrants'), but I thought I'd point it out anyway to highlight the fact that depending on the source, you just cannot take what they say as true

it only takes one liar to kill hundreds or rape a child

We must be very, very careful

[Withano]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

it only takes one liar to kill hundreds or rape a child

We must be very, very careful

Urgh

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Withano

Urgh

agreed, its a horrific thought

[user104658]

My question is... who WOULDN'T be seeking the best life for themselves and for their family? I know that's separate to the actual practicalities of it - obviously there is a limit to what is feasible - but still... the accusations that fly around seem to suggest that people seeking access to the country are somehow "immoral" for seeking it, which is, of course, nonsense. If this country was to crumble tomorrow, you can bet your arse that I would be trying to get myself and my family not only to the first safe place, but to somewhere that we could actually build a life. And there's not a lot I wouldn't be willing to "lie about" to make that happen .

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My question is... who WOULDN'T be seeking the best life for themselves and for their family? I know that's separate to the actual practicalities of it - obviously there is a limit to what is feasible - but still... the accusations that fly around seem to suggest that people seeking access to the country are somehow "immoral" for seeking it, which is, of course, nonsense. If this country was to crumble tomorrow, you can bet your arse that I would be trying to get myself and my family not only to the first safe place, but to somewhere that we could actually build a life. And there's not a lot I wouldn't be willing to "lie about" to make that happen .

...yeah but the media fights so much against that even being assessed, how we can accommodate/how many and what can we offer in employment etc in favour of scaremongering and just keep them all out..let's not even consider balance of those who only seek refuge...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My question is... who WOULDN'T be seeking the best life for themselves and for their family? I know that's separate to the actual practicalities of it - obviously there is a limit to what is feasible - but still... the accusations that fly around seem to suggest that people seeking access to the country are somehow "immoral" for seeking it, which is, of course, nonsense. If this country was to crumble tomorrow, you can bet your arse that I would be trying to get myself and my family not only to the first safe place, but to somewhere that we could actually build a life. And there's not a lot I wouldn't be willing to "lie about" to make that happen .

Thats great TS and you would expect ant decent country to have rules and strict guidlines about who they let in?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My question is... who WOULDN'T be seeking the best life for themselves and for their family? I know that's separate to the actual practicalities of it - obviously there is a limit to what is feasible - but still... the accusations that fly around seem to suggest that people seeking access to the country are somehow "immoral" for seeking it, which is, of course, nonsense. If this country was to crumble tomorrow, you can bet your arse that I would
be trying to get myself and my family not only to the first safe place, but to somewhere that we could actually build a life. And there's not a lot I wouldn't be willing to "lie about" to make that happen .

And do you think you and your family and your economic well being should take precedence over families fleeing war and persecution? Genuine refugees are the losers here because it seems they are bring shoved to the back of the queue because of young men In the main lying about their age

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My question is... who WOULDN'T be seeking the best life for themselves and for their family? I know that's separate to the actual practicalities of it - obviously there is a limit to what is feasible - but still... the accusations that fly around seem to suggest that people seeking access to the country are somehow "immoral" for seeking it, which is, of course, nonsense. If this country was to crumble tomorrow, you can bet your arse that I would be trying to get myself and my family not only to the first safe place, but to somewhere that we could actually build a life. And there's not a lot I wouldn't be willing to "lie about" to make that happen .

Also as a serious reply to this thread

this this this

Yes I did a bit of a double take when I saw some of the pictures, some are quite clearly over 17. But they are still people. I can't blame them for lying though it does make me a bit 'what about the real kids' at the same time :S