Should the UK Turn Back Migrants? - TLDR News
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ธ.ค. 2021
- TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk/store
Two Books (£14.99): tldrnews.co.uk/product/two-bo...
British politicians are coming under increased pressure to solve the issue of migrants and refugees crossing the channel. However, their toolkit of options looks pretty abysmal, with four (pretty bad) solutions being seriously considered by the government. So in this video we run through the issue, the proposed solutions and why none of them are all that good.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Discord: / discord
Submit Your Topic Ideas: forms.gle/MWKppx9J5eKLAMPX6
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-sum...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
////////////////////////////////////////
1 - www.bbc.com/news/world-austra...
2 - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021...
3 - www.theguardian.com/australia...
4 - www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ef5bf...
5 - www.theguardian.com/australia...
6 - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021...
7 - www.latimes.com/archives/la-x...
8 - www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...
9 - commonslibrary.parliament.uk/...
10 - www.theguardian.com/politics/...
11 - www.gov.uk/government/statist...
12 - www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2...
13 - unherd.com/2021/11/the-calais...
14 - hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2...
15 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers...
16 - researchbriefings.files.parli...
17 - hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2...
18 - detentionaction.org.uk/get-in...
19 - hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2...
20 - migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...
21 - migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...
22 - migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...
23 - migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...
24 - hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2...
25 - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021...
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [SHORT FILM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MuT0d_cvJkc/mqdefault.jpg)
NOTE: At 3:20 I said "Asylum Island" rather than Ascension Island, it seems we got a bit too into typing 'asylum' when doing the script (although admittedly the island could have easily picked up the nickname if Patel's plan had gone ahead)
Also for those wondering, this video was finalised before the weekend, and thus before our new QA system for videos - Jack
Glad you've got a new QA system, you make good content but it seems like the majority of your videos have mistakes in recently
Lol dude. You need to proof listen to your videos.
Honestly just fix it and re-upload
LoL
NOT GOOD ENOUGH
They should change the asylum application to a single question: "Can you drive, or be willing to learn to drive, a lorry or forklift?"
If they answer yes Johnson would be the one smuggling them into the country
Imagine, standards!
Or a Bus, or Fire-truck....
No because it will still put pressure on housing
The current question is: are you a multi billionaire fleing from a corrupt despotic regime that you were once a powerful member of?
Genuine question. Why risk the crossing at all when you're already in a safe country? I know they may speak the language but SURELY they can learn another language? If I was in their shoes and I had a choice between claiming asylum in any EU country (where they will be safe) or making an incredibly dangerous crossing (IN WINTER!) that could cause my children to drown, I'd choose the safe option every time. It's utterly irresponsible to risk your families lives solely because it's a bit easier for them to adapt to the UK than another country.
And even if they have family in the UK, why not claim asylum elsewhere first, get a job, save some money, and only then send for your family or migrate regularly? It all just seems so irrational to me.
Having said that though, I definitely support the humanitarian visas option mentioned in this video.
Because europe has government ID's and the UK doesn't. It's harder to find illegals that way
France might be a safe country, but many of these people aren't lviing safe lives. Getting a job is very tough when you have no existing contacts, no proof of address and don't speak the language. You wouldn't even know where to start! How do you learn a language with no resources? And if you have small vulnerable children they're often spending these harsh winters in freezing cold camps, utterly penniless, trying to avoid the police. I know it seems like madness from this angle but ultimately these people have the same reasoning skills and interiority we do. They don't make these decisions lightly. The Today in Focus podcast episodes on immigration are really informative about the horrible choices these people are faced with if you're interested in learning more. They obviously lean quite left but do a good job of dispassionately presenting a the reality of refugees and asylum seekers imo.
@@backtothebooks9201 And how is any of that getting better if you illegaly migrate from France to UK?
@@HontounoShiramizu Generally these people don't come in 'illegally migrating', they come in as asylum seekers, which they are free to do in any country of their choosing. They hope to be granted asylum in a country where they might know people (or have a reasonable chance of finding a community), can speak the language, and therefore have some reasonable hope of building a life for themselves and their children.
@@backtothebooks9201 If you're crossing like the OP mentioned instead of applying via the legal method you are by definition migrating illegaly.
If they do know English they won't have any problem living in France where about 90% of the population knows the language.
If they already have a family there they can apply for family migration instead of illegal crossing and they can find a community in any other county as well.
3:20 "Asylum Island" Hahaha this is one of the best fuck ups yet TLDR.
well, the channel islands are close to france, so why not create a processing center there? shorter way over the water and still way closer to france than the UK
They might be onto something here 😂🤔
@@fusssel7178 But, but, that's a Tory tax haven!
the trouble with that is the way Australia did it was ridiculously expensive and horrific
@@nonegiven2830 Are there any more attempted boat crossings to Australia?
12:20 For context regarding Portugal: We don't receive migrants because no one applies. At the height of the migrant crisis, the Portuguese gov. had to request for 5000 migrants to move into Portugal (as a way to alleviate a declining population). Unfortunately, the number of migrants has not reached the 5000 target and many just choose to go to another wealthier European country. Funnily enough, that's exactly what Portuguese people do as well so yea, they don't have to live in Portugal for too long to absorb that part of Portuguese culture (AKA emigration) :')
You mean no one applies for asylum? Can't remember the specific news item I saw on it, but basically immigrants were using Portugal as a kind of stepping stone into Europe. I think you work for like 5-10 years on a Visa of some sort, but it was poor conditions and bad pay and employers were taking advantage of the immigrants. But yeah, at the end you'd become a citizen I think. The couple that the expose focused on were planning to emigrate to the UK I think.
@@ruekurei88 yes. So you can somewhat easily get a Portuguese passport (not citizenship, that's much more difficult). Many people from the former colonies do this. I've met a guy from goa when I worked in the UK and he proudly showed me how he got to the UK with his Portuguese passport! So yea, Portugal is a stepping stone into Europe. Most Brazilians get into Europe because of the close ties with Portugal.
Same happened in Latvia, they just left to Germany
@igor with what money? With what salaries? We're too poor to be able to do that. Hence the struggle for migrants. Even Germany's population is set to decrease if not counting the migrants....
@Tracchofyre Because stimulating the local population to reproduce is not easy (if it were, more of the developed world would be doing so and would likely never stop) but more importantly, that route takes about 20 years or so to produce the desired dividends. Meanwhile, accepting foreign immigrants into the workforce alleviates their problems instantly. Of course they'd pay more for an immediate solution to an immediately pressing problem.
The entire island should be lined with 50 cal machine guns lol.
Callibres aside, that didn't work for East Germany.
Whatever the answer, I think this whole situation won’t be solved until the U.K. and France’s relationship improves, which I don’t see happening until either Macron or Johnson’s governments are voted out for another which is more open to improving relations.
With the French political landscape expecting anyone more open to taking in more refugees then Macron is a fantasy. It's going to be Macron or worse.
"Macron or worse" absolutely agree with that. Johnson is the problem here, a liar can't be trusted to make deals, just loke the brexit deal he wants to renegotiate ffs. The one he agreed to.
Well the uk government never really changes and macron is very likely to win re-election.
@@barnaby4232 that's unfair to say I believe, there was many good things under the Tony Blair government, like devaluation, increased funding in health and education etc. However the war and the banking collapse ruined his legacy. But in fairness, the banking collapse was a financial global epidemic. Not 1 good thing has been achieved under the Johnson, May and even Cameron government, and I say that as someone who tends to fall to the centre right of the political spectrum.
@@CKW10001 I meant it in the sense that the conservatives nearly always win.
You appear to keep conflicting the words "migrant" with "asylum seeker" which should be kept as two very distinct entities, one seeking a better life in the country they are attempting to migrate to, and the other seeking protection from a country in which they are persecuted and are at risk of having their human rights violated.
The FIRST ONE is not our problem. The Second one we can deal with by setting up saftey camps inside their countries of origin.
@@ericjohnson7234 well, what happened to the UK military in Afghanistan? Why didn’t they build a safety camp there?
It kinda of depends on what you concider a violation of human rights. Is a livable wage a human right? Is a clean environment a human right? Many of the countries these mirgants are comming from have had to deal with polution from oil refineries/drilling installations ran by western corporation's. Besides that we do tend to move our trash there for them to sort it out, resulting in pollution of drinking water and soil.
Strictly anyone who moves to live in another country is a migrant, whatever the reason.
@@ericjohnson7234 Really. You think the UK building camps in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and fuck-knows how many other countries is the solution to those governments abusing the human rights of their citizens.
And I suppose you think those same governments will be *just fine* with us setting up camps to protect the people they're trying to persecute?
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, and I've heard of flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.
How about stop calling them "refugees" instead of economic migrants?
Or human beings? 🙄
Who cares what they are called.
They are human beings all the same and we all are supposed to have some dignity.
Here in the US many have tried to make life hell for people coming into the country illegally.
Problem is, the people just keep on coming no matter how bad you make it cause, yeah things are that bad in their own countries.
What we found works best is just helping the countries many of the people are coming from.
An treating them humanly works best.
France is a warzone don't you know?
@@thewingedhussar4188 France, Italy, Greece, and majority of europe is safe for them. They risk their lives to go from one safe country to another(in UK-France situation). They are economic migrants.
@@syfunodd So what? Is Greece or Italy to detain them or to send them back where they came from (which most of the time just does not work)? They can only grant asylum, if they apply for it. If they gain it, they can still move on. They did not teleport to France and clearly want to go to the UK. So it's the UK's "problem". Sure, every country on their way could try to stop them, but why bother? They will just try again and again. Just claiming it's not the UK's problem is just denying the reality, especially considering most of the countries those people are coming from were invaded/administrated by the UK in past.
One suggestion I heard was to allow asylum applications to be processed at UK embassies, possibly via the use of humanitarian visas. This would hopefully filter out rejections before they make the trip, rather than them hanging around in the UK with the risk of them going underground.
Really, I think the whole refugee system isn't really working as well as it should, on a global level. Decisions on "genuine fear" are subjective, and countries interpret them differently. There's also the thorny issue of repatriation, do you force refugees to return to their country after the danger, whatever it is, has passed? As it stands a lot of refugees never return to their country of origin. Often this is justified by arguing the danger is essentially permanent, and in some cases that is true, but when things have improved, however slightly, should we then think about sending people back?
Obviously the developed world does benefit from some migration from these countries, refugees or not, but I don't think it's sustainable if things continue as they are. Then you have to ask the very awkward and difficult questions, that often result in very passionate responses from the left and the right. Do we send more aid? Do we intervene militarily more often (though that often seems to make things worse)? One suggestion which understandably generated howls of controversy was for developed countries to buy or lease land and establish quasi city states in developing countries.
Theres a couple of problems with this, the first being the development of the most organised slum lands in the world. If they're not slum lands then they would have to have pretty much the same infrastructure, law and procedures as the donating countries, and in that case it might as well be those countries. 2nd, concentrating these people in one place just creates a target for the retribution that follows a lot of asylum seekers. No easy answers but from the UK's perspective, we really don't have many people arriving here in comparison to almost all other european nations.
@@matthewyabsley I think the idea would be to create a place with a superior standard of living to the surrounding country. Probably not as good as a middle class lifestyle in the developed world, but if you could at least have something that potential migrants would accept over the equivalent lifestyle they would have in the developed country.
The reasoning behind it is rather paternalistic, that the developed country would be able to create a more politically and economically stable nation, and that would create wealth and prosperity. It's probably not a scheme that would be profitable, at least not initially since they'd need to do the groundwork before attracting investors. The main goal is to keep migrants away, not make money. The city states would probably be sort of independent anyway, any money they make reinvested into the nation.
Regardless, it's almost certainly not going to happen because the optics are about as bad as you can get. It's pretty much colonialism 2.0.
@Ralphie
I think it's REALLY hard to send people back, after ~5+ years.
Usually, they'll have (more) kids by then. And those children have never known their 'home'-land.
Do we really want to send innocent kids to a country they've never seen, when they're learning our language as theirs?
Consequently, I think it would be best if we refocused our public discussions and policy goals to Integration instead of Immigration.
But it remains a tough discussion, even if we took the political venom out of it.
One the one hand, you'd want to minimize suffering and help innocent victims if you can. On the other hand, it's understandable that citizens complain when their tax money is being spent on foreigners.
@@MrNicoJac - I'm not sure it is understandable. Or at least struggle with it. For example, if we all agree that governments don't work on day to day budgets, today's economies work on decade long fiscal policies for all our lives, the same applies to immigrants, sure we might spend a small amount on immigrants ad they arrive, though over the same sorts of policy lengths most go on to work, paying taxes that more than cover anything we spent, as well as being s net contributor towards others like them. It is simply not true that our taxes pay for them, indeed the people that shout the loudest tend to be people who really aren't net contributors themselves. I think what I am trying to say is the public either don't have much time to really consider their position on the matter, or we didn't even take the time to teach a few sentences in our schools about how our finances work.
@@matthewyabsley
Yeah, I'm totally _stunned_ that 'progressive' politicians try to win with appealing to moral arguments, when clearly their 'conservative' opponents have different values or priorities.
(the quotation marks indicate that these are labels, and imperfect)
It would be _so_ much more effective if they reframed the discussion as "we're investing X in refugees today, and that will result in us gaining Y tomorrow."
Although it's more transactional and not-very-nice, it _would_ be much more persuasive to the anti-immigration wing of the political spectrum.
However, nowadays, the public discussion seems to have moved to protect "our" culture from "abroad."
So I'm not sure the economic argument would still hold much sway any more anyways
A possible simple solution, anyone who sneaks into the country gets their application rejected. If you don't take a route through a port of entry, it's rejected. Now, this would require port of entries to be available.
that would likely be against the UN treaty mentioned in the video
@@Frameton. This doesn't require turning them away at the border. It just means that their application would be rejected and they'd get deported. You have a right to apply for asylum, not get it.
But they get rejected at the port of entry anyway, so what choice do they have except try and sneak past?
@@envysart797 What choice do they have other than be criminal? I don't mean to be rude, but that's how I interpret that question. If they chose to commit a crime after they have been rejected through the legal routes, do you want them in your country?
@@Raigan_Avalon
What Envy meant, I think, is that it's VERY easy to put up bureaucratic road blocks.
As in, you said that a simple solution would be to require entering through a port of entry or have their application be rejected automatically. And that ports of entry should thus be made available.
Envy noted that, if those ports of entry are in fact not opened, or technically opened by practically inaccessible, then you leave people no choice.
You'd just force them to either break the law, or go back home and face the civil war/genocide/whatever is going on there.
I agree that your solution would be simple, and it sounds like it should work.
But I agree with Envy that it would be VERY easy to manipulate/corrupt/fuck up the bureaucratic implementation of it.
(and, especially because presidents/prime ministers usually have _very_ broad powers over the executive branch of the government, one 'mean' election result could cause _years_ of people being kept out with stupid arbitrary rules and hoops that essentially _force_ them to become 'criminals')
They are economic opportunists, not refugees.
What's so bad about staying in France?
here in UK they need people to do the jobs that they used to the Europeans! do you remember Brexit ?
@@LondonPower why are you conflating economic migrants with asylum seekers
@@LondonPower Yeah, I'm one of those Europeans still in the UK doing the work. :P
you got to speak French. Both France and Germany have fairly demanding language requirements for employment. The English language tends to be taught more internationally so it's likely an Iranian or Pakistan asylum seeker would have strong enough grasp of the language to secure work. Perhaps the UK could fund french language schools for asylum seekers to encourage them to stay in France :D
@@connla >perhaps the UK could fund some French language schools for asylum seekers
Or how about the French do that themselves? Why should britain be expected to do all of the heavy lifting while the people on the other side of the channel dump their stated responsibility? France under Macron has tried to increase european cooperation so why can't he get the rest of europe to help him?
12:15 the UK has the capacity? And where do we put them? We barely have enough housing for everyone who’s already here…
Seriously believe that? Do you have kids?
We've just lost 140k people in the past 18 months, plus thousands departed for fairer countries. I think not taking in 20k people that we wrote a law obliging ourselves to accept them in, based on a "lack of housing" is a little disingenuous.....
We have loads of housing, a lot of them are just being reserved for investment for the wealthy. There are vast, empty and moth ridden estates all standing among homeless people freezing on our streets. Germany's economy improved quite a lot with the system they have for educating and utilising asylum seekers for industries in which employees are in drastic need. While over here we are focused on dividing ourselves from both the EU and other migrants while we complain about not having enough lorry drivers.
@@basharbahlawan504 So true the wealthy strangle all the houses and landlords are the worst !!!
Then set them up in the building industry building council houses. The reason you don't have enough housing is because it suits the developers. If they built a million new homes more than they do now, housing prices would fall & they'd get less money.
@@skasteve6528 Exactly, it's not only that though. I work in an architecture firm and I can confirm that private clients lose money from building affordable accommodation as opposed to how much they make doing commercial or luxury housing projects. Some councils now have policies of building a percentage of affordable accommodation per a certain percentage of luxury accommodation. Alas, there are loopholes around it that often take place. As long as the private sector dominates housing, there will be a housing crisis.
Not having the resources or data quality is a feature, not a bug. Its cynical, but it would be rational to stop improving data quality. Without having any data to analyze, no one can ever claim a government's policies were wrong or catastrophic. So you can never prove a government decision was bad, only argue about it in parliament.
Asylum Island... lololololololol
Mate, you just woke up or something? Have a chocolate bar and recharge your mind mate.
@Tracchofyre Have you seen the mistake at 3:20? If so, then I have no idea why you would charge at me and “yelling” bad manners.
@Tracchofyre Sure... Then everything is resolved.
Why are you this far down the comment section mate?
as an Aussie I find it sad that we are the international standard for keeping migrants out whilst our government is simultaneously teaching us that we need to be more excepting of migrants
No, we are responsible for the worlds well being, we have to be responsible with our well being.
We build up our militaries and diplomatic channels, and outreach so we can make sure they get help to, but we CANNOT BE THE WORLDS DAYCARE!
It's even worse when you look into the abuse in the detention centres in pap new guinea
@@bilalmohammed1233 What abuse?
@@SuperIcekool there's some articles in the guardian about it. It's pretty horrendous
@@bilalmohammed1233 it's worse in the UK have a look at the UK detention centre death rates
If Priti Patel suggests it, its generally safe to assume its the immoral thing to do.
What happened to the vid they uploaded before this one?
Why doesn't France want the immigrants?
i know right? all that cultural enrichment and doctors they are missing out on!!?
Why are people seeking asylum in Britain France's concern? If Brits want to reject them, they should reject them, but it's not France's business. France deals with people seeking asylum in France.
@@octavianpopescu4776 Because illegal people traffickers are operating in France and their victims are drowning in French waters.
You're welcome.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda What about those NOT drowning who do make it to British waters?
@@octavianpopescu4776 Those who have funded illegal and dangerous people trafficking operations in France and thus continued deaths in French waters, you mean? Yes, what about them?
It's not just relative population - it's population density. UK population density is 3 times that of France. We are having a hard time housing our current population let alone housing more immigrants. I'm not seeing an easy answer.
While that is correct, Germany has a population density of 240 people per square km compared to the UK's 281, while Germany's asylum acceptance is on a whole other level, your argument kinda falls flat if you look at Germany...
It makes no sense to compare the average population density of entire countries, since the distribution of the population can never be even across the whole territory due to geographical and other constraints... Anyway, the UK is remarkably rural outside of Greater London and South East England (compared to similar population centres in Europe). The UK has the potential to house significantly more people without any negative impact on their quality of life or the environment, but your governments have basically no territorial development strategy. Just look at how little UK's railway network has evolved since WW1, apart from line closures. And it's the same for everything, the UK is frozen in the past.
Radim Badsi to be fair, the West Midlands and the North West + West Yorkshire are pretty urban
@@rikstan15 But Germany basically needs the asylum migrants because its population has only risen by c.0.2% p/a since 2010 vs the UKs which has risen by c.0.65% largely because of strong overall migration. Without the c.1-1.5m+ asylum seekers Germany basically wouldn't have grown at all since 2010 and would actually have a smaller population than its 2004 peak. On top of which the UK takes tax revenue of c. £11.5k per person while Germany takes tax revenue of c. £16k per person. Its hardly shocking that Germany both wants asylum seekers and can afford a good asylum system
@@joshuaalexander8866 Germany does not want asylum seekers. It also has a higher foreign born population than the UK. Even France has a more generous asylum seeker benefits than the UK.
The amount of asylum seekers the UK takes in is simply pathetic. Austria is on par, and Switzerland has 20% less, with a much smaller population, and much higher immigration per capita.
The UK can take in easily more asylum seekers. But they dont want to.
UK: leaves the EU to protect their border
leaving the EU makes protecting their border harder
...
UK: it's the EUs fault!
At least we can now blame our own politicians rather than a faceless bureaucrat who decide for us.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@Pete_Piper faceless?! bureaucrat? come one, at least look it up, the EU it's pretty transparent about it's inner workings, and people get to vote like they do in any other country.
Your argument is that of a child, just because you don't know how something works you agree with the first explanation given and stick with it regardless of evidence.
@@Pete_Piper The blame was always on UK Politicians. The only difference is they can't blame faceless EU Bureaucrats now (though some of them are still trying).
@UCUjk3m7C6lqFLiuyk9Ah2fA sure, out of spite... because that's what governments do...
Could you do a video on that new bill where ministers can ignore judicial rulings
... Could you send whatever comes from France to Saint Helena for the sake of the joke ?... Pleaaaase UK
That would actually be pretty funny because of Napolean
hang on, didn't you say that 59% of asylum claims were approved and then say only 9k of 36k were approved in 2020?
Firstly, he said 59% beetwen 2017 and 2019, and secondly a claim maid in 2017 and approved in 2019 would count in the numbers cited, whereas a claim made in 2020 that would be approved in 2022 would obviously not count, and thirdly 2020 was not a regular year and it is possible that public workers didn't work on these files during lockdown.
@@FoxTrotteur yes I know, the point I was making was that he used the 59% figure to argue that most of the claims were valid and then the 9/36 value to argue that the UK doesn't take as many as it should, this is either twisting data to make an argument or an oversight
@@grenade416 Maybe it's a question of comparison. Heshould have been clearer saying that the uk takes its share of migrants but that it still is less efficient that its neighbouring countries
Expect hypocrisy from this channel, using one figure to say one thing and another to say the opposite when it's convenient.
@@FoxTrotteur Yes I agree, that would have been a better way to present it
4.3 million a year.
How do I become a Migrant? I'll offer to go elsewhere if they send 2 million to my bank account.
That's $4.3m per person to pay for a literal concentration camp, so all the staff, infrastructure, transit, supplies etc., the detainees themselves dont see a penny.
The Australian government is so xenophobic that it would rather set its money on fire than let asylum seekers just come to Australia, which is safer, cheaper, and just more humane. How responsible of them!
@@MoonatikYT
Based.
@@MoonatikYT Oh I know on all counts. I'm an Australian, I have some clue as to how stupid our government is.
Doesn't help the Media's in bed with the Librals. News covered in 'Oh god the boats' up until they won the election, and then suddenly there were no boats. Apparently the Govt hit the ground running, knocking them out on day one.
The 39 died by being baked and suffocated. It was declared empty and had its fridge turned off. On a channel 4 news doc I watched I think they said it got into the mid 30’s inside the trailer.
Insanity... If people risk their lives, they should face the consequences. It's like we're talking about rats that can't think for themselves.
just ask yourself: do these migrants want to drive fuel trucks for a pittance?
It might be pittance for the average UK person. For these migrants, they would be so happy to get paid so well.
I think we are answering the wrong questions.
Why are we not working diplomatically and fiscally to remove the reasons people need to become refugees in the first place? (Although yes, we appear to be spectacularly bad at meddling in world affairs usually...)
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure after all...
What do you offer us? Nothing! Don't want you then
England "stop sending us refugees" World: "you racist". Meanwhile South Africa "Kick the boers out". World: "if you oppose that you are racist".
Australia’s “off shore processing” policy has turned into a complete joke and something the current govt constantly tries to sweep under the rug (although still refuses settle the 100-odd people).
It a money maker for their crony sponsors...
That's the point. They pretend they are being processed so they can always claim they are not comitting crimes against humanity.
The chinese have 20 million uighars lockdown for human organ harvesting.
Your priorities are askew
The off-shore processing is a legacy arrangement. The real policy is boat turn-backs. The Australians intercept incoming vessels, if they are unseaworthy the RAN has lifeboats fueled just enough to get the migrants back to Indonesia. These operations are kept secret. Is the UK willing to do that?
Drain the English channel so they can't float over
It's a joke, right? It's difficult to tell anymore.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j no that was one man, and it would make europe a desert and anywhere there is a desert uninhabitable.
Raise Doggerland!
Naughty
😉
@@04nbod I just want Britain to be British.
Is that so bad, why does it have to be Pakistani, or Nigerian or Saudi Arabian, or Bangladeshi, or anywhere else that isnt European. WHY CANT IT BE BRITAIN?
They have their countries, go live there. Jeez.
Oh is it racism? Well to fucking bad, Give me back MY Britain! Millions of us werent asked and we dont want em. Go find a free hand out some where else.
Just because the numbers are low when comparing with the rest of Europe, you've also got to factor in the fact that the UK, but more specifically England, is also a small country when it comes to land area compared to the rest of Europe. England is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe
Scotland basically empty though.
@@20storiesunder Yeah because no one wants to move there. I'd be in favour of moving all of these immigrants to scotland
@@VPhantom-rf3qo Scotland actually enjoys (or enjoyed now) quite a healthy amount of migration for its service work or educational sector. Scottish folk seem to be quite more content with migrants than England aswell.
@@20storiesunder UK refugees are housed in the poorest parts of the country and the UK has a massive housing shortage with high waiting lists. Filling all new housing with refugees is not a good idea of you want social stability. The UK must solve the housing crisis first of only for the sake of stability.
@@20storiesunder Scottish folk are more content with migration because still, there is very little compared to England in terms of percentage of population
I think Australia's approach is best: if you enter the country or attempt to enter the country illegally, you will never be allowed to settle. I've never truly understood why a migrant/refugee who arrives in France (a safe country) should be entitled to claim asylum in the United Kingdom; they are not being persecuted by the French are they?
The french are in on it. They actively encourage dangerous crossings by doing f all about it.
The problem is France don't want them in France that's why they build a camp by the channel tunnel so they can come across I mean there coastguard noticed 28 dinghy crossings in one day but only stopped 4 this is part of the problem
What about the dozens of Syrian asylum seekers in Lebanon, who’ve been approved for resettlement by the U.K. in 2018, yet have been left to die of hunger (literally) in Beirut since then, as reported by The Independent two days ago? I suppose they’re included in your figures of “accepted asylum seekers”.
The UK is absolutely shameful in its attitude towards refugees. Its takes a pitiful amount yet the population gets riled up over small numbers crossing the channel and act like they are worst hit.
The level of ignorance is so extreme too.
The amount of times I’ve seen people claim that asylum seekers shouldnt get benefits and housing etc. They clearly have zero clue on the laws since refugees cannot legally work, without benefits they’d be also left to starve in the UK.
Applications can take 2 years to process, how do these muppets expect them to support themselves.
We have an inept home office yet people blame the victims.
What about them? Invite them to live in your home and you pay.
@@i_got_worms7106 I pay with my taxes, I expect my government to help homeless and refugees with those taxes. When Boris lowers my taxes and takes people in himself I’ll consider your solution.
@@jonsmith5058 If everyone is willing to accept higher taxes, then a solution can be found. I'm not being insulting. I just think that without tax hikes, nothing will happen. I suspect this will not happen. We need to build houses, make infrastructure changes and increase service provisions (including NHS, training, education etc). People will not vote for higher taxes though, so it is forlorn hope.
@@jonsmith5058 I pay them also and I expect Boris to keep economic opportunists out. They can fix their own problems, we have more than enough of our own.
What happens to those who get the applications refused? Is it still not legal to 'remove them' (sorry bad description)
they can be sent home
So France and is doing to us what Belarus is doing to the EU
No. That would imply that France is actually shipping migrants to the UK's border. They're not.
Technically true but they give the migrants dinghys and the French navy escort them to UK waters.
Lol! If that's what France wanted to do, it would have simply rescinded the Le Touquet Treaty that introduced juxtaposed border checks (i.e. UK border checks in Calais...). Without it, migrants could simply take any ferry or train to the UK. France doesn't have any obligation to stop migrants from leaving France...
I'm ashamed of my government
Surrender your passport
@@corradomancini3271 but then how could I leave?
@@corradomancini3271 passports aren't compulsory in the UK.
@@giansideros - To travel abroad yes. That’s what I meant.
@@nathanaelsmith3553 go on a dingy to france, claim asylum status. Remember most migrants throw their passports in the water then claim asylum status and lie where their from
Why don’t we just stand by our existing commitments to asylum laws. Stop the nonsense of forcing people into risky crossings so that we can pretend they don’t exist. They should allowed to arrive in the UK and claim asylum through normal travel channels. We should then have an efficient means of reviewing cases and make decisions in a timely manner. Asylum seekers who meet the required criteria should be welcomed and supported
Au contraire! Make them ask for asylum in embassies and consulates (yes, they would need extra staff for that, I know)! This way they can travel via regular channels once accepted, but also round all of the illegal migrants up and ship them back (by military transport plane!) to make it clear that only those approved even get into the country!
@@dreamingflurry2729 so you’re advocating the UK govt break the law? Asylum can be claimed by the claimant at any point upon arrival in the country. It does not require pre-approval. Besides the numbers we are talking about are so small as to be immaterial to the flows of people to and from the UK. This subject only gets this attention because of the dangerous route currently being favored. Make it safe, make it regular, process applicants quickly and fairly and then let’s move on to actual problems
@@Daniboi971 There is a backlog because it is literally designed to stop people coming here.
@@endlesssabbatical9612 what is the UN gonna do invade the UK? you think every nation abides UN law no country abides these arbitrary laws.
"How to solve the UK's refugee crisis" implies that the UK has a refugee crisis and that it is of a scale worthy to call it a crisis. I disagree. In general, not specificly in this video, it is blown out of proportions to rile up people and distract them from real issues.
You're not from the UK, are you Princess?
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda But unlike you, the commenter is from the human race.
I don't disagree, we have a population growth crisis, the population is growing faster than the infrastructure required to support it, which is exclusively due to migration, asylum seekers are a relatively small part of that.
@@terryforsdyke306 As with all developed economies, the UK depends on immigration, without which it would function less well, and infrastructure maintenance and improvement suffer as a result. To change it would require turning the clock back decades if not centuries.
@@terryforsdyke306 We don't have a population growth crisis. Think it is about 0.6% in 2020 likely lower given the collapse in net immigration win 2021. We have, in fact, an issue with a labour shortage in many sectors and an ageing population. We need immigration. We do have issues with ageing infrastructure, some of this is because it is just very old, some of it is due to underinvestment (e.g. look at the issues with water treatment and gas storage neither of which are particularly related to population pressure rather regulatory issues). So, we also need infrastructure (curious thing about the anglo-sphere is its reluctance of invest in infrastructure...why might this be the case?)
Wasn't there an announcement on the plane patrolling the northern French coast?
This government announces on many things. That doesn't mean they will happen.
In relation to france and Germany taking on way more migrants. Both countries are significantly larger in landmass. Presumably housing stock is much larger. Quick Google search say 1.8 million vacant homes in Germany and a good plan to build build build.
The uk has shy of 300k empty houses and appalling house build plans. Whereby the population is now in the middle of a housing crisis. I know that empty homes isn't a measurement entirely of how many migrants we can take but i think its a fair point to raise about space to build houses and the availability for native populations to buy or rent.
Not against asylum seekers. Just found that a comparison of how many we take compared to Germany and France without context is a bit unfair
9:12 you say the migrants froze to death, but actually they suffocated
well that's so much better
Good
Ah, yes Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. You know, countries bordering the UK, as we know
Ah yes, the 1951 UN convention, which the UK signed which is mentioned in the video and states that a refugee just needs genuine fear to go back home.
Zero in it that they need to claim it when they first enter a country nor the first safe country, it can be at any time in any country.
Pay attention.
The first safe country / border thing was an EU specific thing called the Dublin Convention. The UK isnt part of it now, we are on UN rules so it doesnt matter where the refugees come from.
If they’d rather claim asylum in the UK rather than France its tough shit for us, thats perfectly legal and as per our international obligations we legally have to process their claim.
Most refugees go to bordering countries. We get a fraction of a fraction of the huddled masses that are forced to leave their home.
So is this rule about "claiming asylum in the first country a refugee arrives in" is an intra EU law only? And in international law without these sort of bloc international agreements refugees can claim asylum anywhere?
Exactly.
@@neodym5809
Wow I did not know that!....
@@anneeq008 You are not alone, lot of people don't know that either.
What about the channel islands? That could work
Whyyy can't rich muslim countries take in their fellow people
Problem is they won't do that so we'll have to from simply a humanitarian perspective
@@isaacthompson3600 I'm sure after seeing things unfold in Sweden and france anyone should think that
Not all of them, but there are loads of Muslim countries that take in refugees and not just a few refugees. The top two countries with the highest number of refugees per capita are Lebanon (19.5%) and Jordan (10.5%). Both Muslim. Turkey is top 4 with 5% and Sudan is 8th with 2.5% of their population being refugees. In comparison, the only two European nations in the top ten are Malta with 2.7% and Sweden with 2.6%.
They don't want them and because they have oil it's fine.
@@gartenzwerg44795 don't let facts get in the way of their racism
This was one of the most bias, starting with a solution and working backwards from it videos from TLDR News I have ever seen
It’s hard to make arguments in favour of human suffering
If a migrant dies whilst being forcibly (due to unwillingnesst) removed from an overloaded vessel as required by sea law are the rescuers to be blamed?
I have a suggestion. Get Drumpf over to charge you 100 billion for a wall and wall yourselves in.
This might come as a shock to TLDR, but the Torries are very weak in terms of actually controlling migration and fulfilling the promises they made to their constituents. That is why so many "asylum seekers" are accepted, not because they are genuine refugees.
Obviously. They've got to talk tough about migrants to get the racists fired-up, but if they actually *fix* the problem then the racists lose interest and the Tories would have to figure out another way to get them to vote Tory.
@@DaWrecka No, it's because they have no interest in actually protecting British borders in the first place.
They pretend to be patriotic, while in reality being almost as weak, and cowardly as Labour, and almost as hypocritical and insincere as the Liberals.
They have failed in conserving absolutely anything and have all but bended over to the far left on most social issues.
I am very surprised as to why lefties hate the Torries so much as they have done absolutely nothing to oppose them in any regard. If anything they are helping them to destroy the nation even quicker.
This video completely neglect the negative impact asylumseekers have on the country they seek refuge in. I.e. collogne new years eve
how is that even a question
Applying logic to political policies... brilliant.
Yes we should, with 0 tolerance
No tolerance for starving children from war-torn countries?
Someone explain to me where we would house these migrants as well those on housing waiting lists? I say this as someone who's home and community is planned for demolition and rebuilding in order to bring down the 7-8k waiting list my city of about 140k has. It would only shave the list by a couple of hundred whilst decimating a community and one of the few relatively affordable areas in the city.
That's an easy one, build more houses
@@petergoodwin7038 easy to say not do. We have green belts, skills shortages, resource shortages, expensive land. NIMBY's such as myself but then I don't see why my home should be demolished because Newport city homes can't look after theirs whilst leaving homes boarded up. Only to sell me a more expensive, smaller home than I have.
@@petergoodwin7038 our geography doesn’t help. We are not like France or Spain.
@@lefeuvivant I have a mortgage, so they would have the compulsorily purchase my home or make me a very good offer. You are right it isn't a UK only issue but isn't it interesting that as countries develop housing shortages they have become more anti immigrant? I believe once the housing is sorted we will be willing to accept more immigrants.
@@cameronwixcey9692 ok, its not necessarily easy to do but it is necessary so we will have to find a way, changing regulations will help to start with. It's not really a negotiable, we have to start building more houses.
With 1.1 million less workers in the UK since Brexit, extra workers would fill the gap in the labour market..
Yes because our country and people in the UK is struggling.
3:28 Get some sleep
The vast majority of 'migrants' are economic
And we have a labour shortage and ageing population. I see a solution here.
You can't compare rates of migrant acceptance purely on their own. Data is often presented this way without any attempt to normalise it between countries. Population size and land area are pretty important too. I'm not saying the UK shouldn't accept more migrants, only that the data provided is presented in a lazy way - potentially intentionally.
I felt so too. So I dumped everything into excel for the top 10 countries based on absolute number of grants. When taking population size and area into account, I found, roughly (my methods might not be completely statistacally sound, but I'm pretty confident they are correct), that the UK comes 9th only beating out France. The top 10 being reordered as such: Greece, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Austria, Italy, UK, France.
Ofcourse that still doesn't tell the whole story, but I feel it creates a better view.
At 4:50 you talk about it's costing Australia $4.3Million per migrant, per year, is this AUD? or USD? or some other D? I would assume AUD but i'm honestly not sure.
It's probably AUZ Dollars.
Think he would have said USA if it was.
I'd take it as auz.
Immigrants who are not economically independent should not receive any sorts of benefits and should pay for healthcare. British citizenship should also be harder to get unless that person has offered important skills to the UK like military, medical or scientific.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Those on benefits pay little or nothing for prescriptions. Those on benefits receive a significant reduction on dentists, and can be free for urgent care at NHS dentists.
If you have a residency in the UK you're entitled to most benefits.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j You just need to pay national insurance (which can be nothing, you just need to be on the system) and live in the UK.
UK: 25k migrants/year.
Germany: 1m migrants/year.
_"the French are not interested [in cooperating with turn backs]"_ - because Boris dissed Macron (the ONLY French PM candidate who was an ally)
If Macron loses the election, France will be more hostile/aggressive/open in it's responses.
I mean, that would be the case anyway. Macron is already pretty bad, and with French politics shifting further and further towards nationalism and far-right views, it was only to be expected that they would become increasingly uncooperative and aggressive. Even with the best will in the world, Britain is just not going to get along with France as it stands.
@@86pp73 Macron was the only PM trying to process asylum seekers on their side before sending them over. (for a fee - which we welshed on). Barnier (remember the sharp negotiator that screw us? - he's promises to be less cooperative) There's another far-right candidate who will definitely not do us any favours.
Boris called the only moderate PM a **** and made him look weak for the elections. The refugees will not stop. Because they speak english or have family here in the majority and won't be discouraged by deterrants.
@@rubbercable I am aware of these factors, but as you have said, everyone else is even further right of Macron, and with no left-wing to counteract it, French politics will be dragged deeper and deeper into extremism.
To repeat myself, it doesn't matter how good our government is, our French counterparts were always going to be increasingly nationalist, regardless of how hard Britain (or even the rest of Europe) tries. Macron was always going to be accused of being weak and anti-French by his political opponents, which he would always have to counter. This grandstanding over fishing rights is just one of the ways of doing that, and more will likely follow. Hopefully, it will all fade away after 2022, but if the worse options do come to power, then we are all in for a very unpleasant future.
@@rubbercable let them come and send them back on a airplane the reverse of lukeshenko and pay Iraq and Syria and Turkey to take them.
@@covfefe1787 The 1% is sucking the marrow from the corpse of Britain RN. Protected by scared, self-aggrandized, racist, short-sighted NIMBY voters.
The more you don't understand international law, the the more Tories will humiliate Britain. You can't send them to counties not classed as 'safe'.
Sending immigrants? Like Australia did? They ended up spend 7.4m per refugee.
Why do regular British tax paying people have to take care of foreigners from other continents that have nothing to do with them?
Well before brexit we didn't have to, we left that to other eu nations, but we actively voted to create this issue so now we have to deal with them
You can’t push them back to France but France can allow them to come here makes total bloody sense
So many empty houses, nobody uses them!
Ssh, dont bring up the empty houses! People might realise that the fearmongering about "refugees moving into YOUR house" is a total lie! Or worse, they might start to have some unauthorized thoughts about the housing market and economics!
What do you mean, those houses are to be traded on the international market! Far more profitable than putting paupers in them!
Eh? What do you mean we have a housing crisis?
Still no discourse about lifting up the sanctions that are suffocating these countries economies like Iran for example.
Probably because we're trying to discourage tyrannical dictatorships??
I wonder how much of this could be curtailed if we stopped giving money and weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia? Yemen must be kicking out thousands of refugees a month because of that horrific crusade SA insists on having.
@@Gary-bz1rf you mean the tyrannical government we helped instate ?
No.
No
It really pains me to say this but I think this should go for every country. You need to look after your own before you try play hero and save foreigners. My heart goes out to these people it truly does and I have no idea what I'd do in their situation but we need to look after our own people first thats just the way it is, Hundreds of thousands of people, our own people born and bred here are homeless but the government does nothing and basically insults them by putting the wellbeing of foreigners ahead of their own. I feel bad the asylum seekers I truly do but thats the way it has to be.
You can do both, we got the resources for it, only many at the top don't want to because that means less for them.
@@ishotgud3920 Doesnt seem like it when theres still so many issues in our own countries
when your own country is responsible, or partly responsible, for the situation leading people to escape-you are morally responsible for those people. UK has more responsibility than most countries due to its past actions.
@@torehaaland6921 I suppose so but still I think no matter how bad it is morally your own people come first. Thats the way it always should be in my eyes. Also when I was saying immigrants and stuff I was meaning more from Syria and stuff, I don't see how the UK has caused the Syrian Civil War unless we wanna go back 80 years to a maybe that sparked the beginning of it
@@blitzen435 I'm pretty sure it is the case. It is said that there is not enough to go around, but there's always more money (via contract allocation) for conservatives business contacts etc. Within my city, for the Christmas period, several very expensive looking decorations have been erected but just next to the massive Christmas tree there's a person sleeping in the freezing cold. It's definitely a question of priority not wealth, don't let those who are wealthy or would personally profit from conflict between those who are suffering from poverty here with those who are desperate "out there" - they manufacture things like "we are our own people, they aren't - they are outsiders etc.) but really they are just dividing two groups that should really be uniting to try and obtain a fair share of resources that are hoarded by those who have more than they could ever spend in a rational manner (that is not an offensive waste of wealth e.g. the 2.6 million pound new briefing room.) Just think how many people, either our "own" or those "abroad" which are categories I don't really believe in, could have had their lives saved with just a small percentage of that money.
It is in the best interests of those who are wealthy for you to see the welfare of people you see as your neighbors and country men threatened by people who are just as in need, rather than the actual source of why people don't have enough. Divide and conquer is an excellent, but particularly sinister tactic.
I don't know if I've got my point across very well, but there is a channel called second thought which I think does a great job of showing how economic uncertainty and hardship is used as a weapon to drive people who should be allies against each other.
This has been one of the greatest ironies of Brexit. How many people voted to leave on the false promises of harder border controls and stopping all the illegal immigration? And now here we are with higher numbers than ever before! EU must be laughing at us for sure.
I suspect that the powers-that-be in Europe are already aware of this and are merely waiting for all of Johnson and his Cronies' lies to catch up with them, hence the lack of harsh treatment towards the UK post-Brexit and the ignoring of France over this fishing nonsense. No need to punish your neighbours and start a feud with them because their entire political system was hijacked by a bunch of clowns, especially clowns with no idea how to run a country. Just wait it out and get a much better result for everyone.
Karma
@@user-op8fg3ny3j To say that people voted to leave simply due to disinformation and there weren't actual issues is naive, and a gross oversimplification
@@arbendit4348 Exactly right. One of the good things to come out of Brexit is that it's drawn back the curtain and revealed all the massive social issues in the UK. No more blaming it on Europe any more, problems have to be addressed.
@@86pp73 i continue to constantly see blaming of EU. UK will not address its issues for a long time. It is a country unable to rule itself.
Absolutely & im Canadian
Why not all of them?
Interesting question: Can you even make it less appealing to those fleeing the worse than miserable living conditions in their own country, considering that they take on these journeys despite the many reports of even more failed attempts (be it in the English Channel, through third (or non-EU) countries such as Belarus and the Balkans, or the even deadlier Mediterranean)? I would guess not.
Those people are desperate and would try it anyway, no matter how hard and unappealing we (as countries) tried to make it for them.
Those people are desperate and need our help. Those people are human beings just like we are. Or are we merely people of our respected country, the country we happened to be born and/or raised in that is? I would think not.
I personally find it absolutely disgusting that you used people dying as a way to segue into your own merchandise.
Grow up
Where you mentioned push backs were only allowed in to international waters, not directly to French waters, could this not be sidestepped by pushing them along in the direction of the closest international waters?
Also to minimise illegal we just need to implement a proper asylum system from all our embassy globally, then allow claims to run through them. Only people who are rejected would consider attempting a dangerous and expensive journey. We could even fund the process by charging fast track/assistance fees to help with the process & undercutting smugglers.
It would be deeply obvious the UK was doing that though, even assuming you're talking about pushing them outside of territorial waters only. Even that would be a death sentence. If you're talking about international waters proper, it's even worse: you'd be dumping them in the Atlantic somewhere west of France, just beyond a line that you can follow draw along the coast of Portugal. So no, that wouldn't work. There's no sidestepping things here, and attempting to do so would be crueller than just shooting people in the sea where they are.
Oil is flammable. Doesn't mix with water.
I haven't watched this video, but I clicked onto it to explain why - I'm put off by the title. I think I'd be more likely to watch this video with a title to the effect of "What can we do about the migrant crisis?" or "How do we fix the migrant crisis?"
The current title just feels a little too uncomfortable (which shouldn't be a bad thing in objective journalism, but humans gonna human)
The above is intended as purely constructive criticism and is obviously just my opinion. Keep up the great work! You guys are one of only a few news sources I trust.
I drive channel pilots to and from the pilot boat. There are no safe routes for unannounced traffic across the busiest shipping lane in the world. If we want to protect their lives, we need a way to stop them trying it in the first place. There are already measures that should ensure this, but they are not working, so alternative measures are necessary. However, this requires other countries to enforce their own existing measures, which they are not doing and there is no way to force them to do so. This leaves making the UK an unattractive destination, which may, for a start, require issuing national I.D, cards for the first time. This would probably be too radical a move for most of the existing population. Only mass repatriations of illegal arrivals are likely to stop this, which will inevitably mean mistakes are made in some cases.
The premise of your second sentence is wrong and so what the rest of the paragraph is based on is incorrect and pointless. Of course you can make a safe form of passage from France to the UK. How about a ferry? Then they can come along, ask for asylum and we can decide yes or no. Really not difficult.
@@petergoodwin7038 Read what I posted again. I said "unannounced traffic". Ferries are very much "announced" traffic as they run to a predetermined schedule. The channel pilots can predict them. They can't predict clandestine migrant boats. Indeed, they can barely see them. I don't have to defend positions that are not mine.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j A non-starter, from my point of view. I don't see the advantage in encouraging something undoubtedly damaging to become a norm within society in order to deal with an external humanitarian issue.
The last time the UK did mass deportations hundreds of Settled Caribbeans of the 1940s and their decedents were deported. So yeah they better not fuck up.
@@natenae8635 I don't think any "Settled Caribbeans in the 1940s" were deported, or many, if any, of their descendants. Perhaps you could name names, if I am wrong. I am presuming here that you are referring to the so-called "Windrush Generation". Strictly speaking, this refers to those who came over on the SS Windrush and other ex-troopships in the late 1940s. Many, perhaps most, of them were Jamaican ex-servicemen recruited originally in 1944 for service with the RAF as technicians. However, it has become the practice to extend the term "Windrush Generation" to cover West Indian immigrants from subsequent decades as well, few of whom were ex-servicemen. The 100+ people illegally expelled to their places of origin were from this latter group. I would suggest that the use of the term "Windrush Generation" to cover non-ex-servicemen is a form of "stolen glory" - a term usually reserved for people who wear other peoples' medals to personate ex-servicemen.
Some segments in the video are stamped not adjacent to each other
What sort of a stupid question is that ? Its like about their human rights when they enter the uk illegally ? If this government had any balls, they would return them back to France and get our 54 million quid back
The silly thing is that both sides of UK politics are on paper fine with legitimate asylum and migrant claims. And if that had been the genuine case, it would have been no problem for them to make it easier to seek asylum, since only the legitimate claims would make it through and the rest would be deported. But the issue for one side is that there are any claims at all, so ofc they are going to make it as difficult as possible regardless of how many bodies end up floating around the Channel.
The numbers that the uk have taken in are token at best, just something to point to and say , see we're not COMPLETELY heartless, only mostly so. Look at all the caribbean migrants that came before, how long till most of them were self sufficient and a net plus to the economy? A couple years max.
Just take everyone then.
@@stevengruber57 It's not either or, no one or everyone. It annoys me that people seem to be incapable of having an adult conversation on this topic. While it's completely false that these people would be a drain on resources for very long, if given the opportunity to integrate into the labor market. And it's completely false that there is an arbitrary amount of jobs that doesn't increase with more consumers and producers. It still takes time for these things to occur. No where near as long as the right want to believe, and no where near as many resources per person as the right want to believe. Somewhere between 50,000-100,000 new migrants each a year is more than doable for a uk, a germany or a france. Or half a million a year for the USA. We could have built affordable housing the last 30 years, but haven't. It's not the migrants fault that we refuse to look after "our own people" when we've had the means to do so, and their arrival doesn't make us any less capable of looking after "our own people".
@The505Guys I reject that people often try to portray it as one specific, unchanging thing. Instead of a nebulous concept that exists on a spectrum. I personally feel like i have more in common with someone born in another european country that shares my hobbies and interests, but that does not share my language, than i do with another british person that does not. I am more culturally distant from my grandparents than i am from an american of the same generation as me. Culture changes every generation and always has and always will. It has never been homogenous and at best in the past was regional. I reject creating an arbitrary in group, just so we can have an excuse to not feel bad about shirking our duty to each other.
or we send them back so they can benefit their countries, which is also a net positive :)
im for that plan :)
difference is the Caribbean migrants were controlled migration and we knew who was coming. This is migrants abusing asylum laws for economic migration
Abolish the Home Office
the immigration/asylum process problem is super simple do it right or be barred both the seeker and ANYONE tthe seeker can use as an "anchor" in perminantly.
I think the most ironic part of most commentators on this video is that they would happily continue to vote Conservative (as they are seen to be tougher on migration), but do not take into account that Tory policy is to keep on supporting despots like Saudi Arabia who perpetrate acts of genocide and war and ultimately increase the migration crisis. Climate change will only make migration towards Europe more of a problem in the future. We can continue voting for reactionaries who provide short term solutions for people crossing the channel, or a long term policy of anti-interventionism, withdrawing support for awful, refugee creating regimes like Saudi Arabia and a massive push towards reducing the damages of climate change.
Should people who pay taxes contribute to this problem or should the country of orgin sort there own mess out.
Thats not how asylum works nor should it.
Lets say if someone escapes North Korea, its certain death if they return, classic asylum case. Are you suggesting we should wag our finger at them and say ‘you shouldnt have left, fix your own country instead’ and/or charge North Korea to house this refugee?
How about another refugee that fled cause the US bombed them?
What you are saying is nonsense and absurd.
By your logic us taxpayers shouldnt help homeless people, their family should pay to help them.
Do you really think Iraq could sort out that mess? A mess that was never created by them in the beginning.
@@samirhussain458 I went to Iraq last year, in the Kurdistan region they are doing an amazing job of trying to move on and build a bright future and take they own security seriously, Kurds are fierce fighters and proud of themselves for keeping the war out of their region for the most part, the yanks are the most dangerous element there. The last major event I heard of in that region was an illegal rocket attack by the US at the start of 2020 as they assassinated someone.
@@jonsmith5058 Right and as you mentioned the yanks are the most dangerous element there. The lack of social and economic mobility (as you mentioned yanks and western powers intervening) force Iraqi Kurds to move to countries were they can work and make an actual living. Not to mention the constant threat from neighboring regions, factions. The standards of living are just still not great enough.
I know most Kurds I have met in the UK are actually some of the hardest working people I know earning an honest living.
@@samirhussain458 The reason I was even in Iraq was because I was dating a girl who was born in Iraq but as a child her family fled to Europe.
Shes now a UN human rights lawyer and based there for weeks at a time trying to help refugees who are stuck in the country.
Its crazy but there are actually a bunch of Syrians who are just trying to get away from the explosions but still arent safe there so still need help.
People need to gain some perspective, stop blaming refugees for their circumstances or how they got to the UK and just focus on supporting and helping them.
We need to sort out our shit Home Office, clear that backlog and then make sure applications get processed quickly. Currently even rejected people dont get kicked out quickly if at all. We had a woman on the stroke ward in the hospital I used to work at who wanted to go home and was here illegally. The Home Office didnt care, the ward Consultant ended up buying the ticket herself for her.
You mean to tell me a dozen or so planes and a makeshift processing centre can’t sort this? Of course this would need to be a joint EU(France)-UK effort with funds as I’m pretty sure jet fuel isn’t free and pilots (most likely airforce pilots as there’s a pilot shortage anyway) won’t wanna work for free
I’m not well-versed in the whole migrant thing but surely thinking up a solution that doesn’t involve trying to cross the channel with a 50/50 chance of survival, let alone making it on UK shores is possible?
It would be easy enough to put them on Eurostar trains or seaworthy vessels to make the crossing. They don't want to do that for fear it may encourage further migrants.
Everyone should
Its interesting that many of the refugees and asylum seekers come from countries where the UK has been militarily involved in or the UK has imposed economic sanctions on.
Lol, yet people complain when we get the tiniest impact and moan that they should ‘fix their own country’. Its often just an excuse for racism I find.
True, and that's one of the main reasons mirgation is a question of morality, destabilizing a nation and not dealing with the blowback is a lack of morality.
What? You say people would not emigrate from Iran if the bitish government hadn't overthrown the iranian democracy in order to keep their oil?
@@jonsmith5058 I love racism . Racism protects its people .
@@shockmaster1929 lol, an American from Texas, where you can be sued for abortions, you guys are memes of ignorance and intolerance.
We’re all people, skin colour doesn’t matter.
What you really mean is it protects you and means you can live a privledged life at someone elses expense.
Typical selfish American.
Here’s the solution, the same thing Canada used to do. You must claim asylum in the first safe country you get to. France is a safe country. If you’re so concerned for your safety, why didn’t you claim asylum in France?
Because UK law says they don't have to... R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court (1999) established this. This same case acknowledges that asylum seekers may enter the UK through means which would normally be considered illegal. So for them it is legal... even including the use of false documents. And the decision invokes international law, treaties to which the UK is a part of.
because you would need France to agree with that law in order for it to work. If you don't, France will just tell you that you're bound by the international treaties you've signed and call you out on breaching them, refusing to receive the refugees back. And since accepting such law would be 100% at their disadvantage with 0 benefits, that will never happen. Especially not when the Uk has been busy pissing off the French gov repeatedly, don't expect them to be nice and caring.
Because they want to see the degradation and filthyness of UK before they move to France.
Does beg the question why are they so desperate to leave france and come to the uk? Are fish and chips that appealing?
edit: oh, its because they cant be arsed learning french... yea, fair enough
Yes.
my thoughts? Go back to the pre-1960s situation -- fully open border.
Legislation:
1793: Aliens Act - restricting refugees from the French Revolution (ignored by port authorities)
1905: Aliens Act - restricting Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms (ignored by port authorities)
1960s: 3 Acts restricting Commonwealth citizens ("rivers of blood" speech, Windrush)
1971: Immigration Act - the source of the problems.
Prior to 1971 the only people restricted from entry or residence were holders of British passports issued in the Commonwealth (which seems like a pretty disgusting law).
If you're buying £multi-million mansions in London to launder dodgy money or if you're a major Tory donor you're still not restricted from entry or residence.
Alternatively we could just close the borders AND try to find solutions to the land-banking issue.
wow! an invitation for Immigration attacks (like what's happening in Poland)
You'll have to basically dismantle any social safety nets then. It's not sustainable to have both open borders and social safety nets.
@@Raigan_Avalon do you think you get government support by just walking up to a government office and asking for money? Closed borders and citizenship are not the same concept. What an absurd claim to make
@@echotheresa So, every time someone needs medical attention, they show proof of citizenship, and if they can't, they pay for everything? Materials used, time taken, space occupied, the works? I'm not from the UK, so I don't know how it works there. I'm assuming you do. Non-citizens don't get any governmental support in the UK?
The UK may be experiencing a migrant ( illegal immigrant or asylum seeker,) situation but it is in no way a crisis. The likes of Turkey and the Lebanon have endured refugee numbers that were genuinely potentially overwhelming.
Prison island sounds like a decent idea for some of those Scottish islands up north
No they shouldn't. No one ever should.