..the illegal immigrant sleeps tonight! Did anyone catch Andrew Hosken’s take on the plight of all those poor illegal migrants hitherto gathered together in “the jungle” at Calais but now scattered a bit further by the wicked Frencg? How one-sided was that? These illegals are continually portrayed as victims and never a mention of the reason why the risk life and limb to clamber into the UK. The BBC seems wilfully oblivious of the fact that they all seek to come here for the WELFARE, it’s the prospect of British taxpayers cash that makes them live in conditions that offend the UNHCR so much in France. All that was missing from Hosken’s report was the violin music to tug at the heart-strings.
IN THE JUNGLE, THE BULLDOZED JUNGLE..
Bookmark the permalink.
Will you take me to London in the boot of your car?
Poor chaps.
We see welfare scroungers. The BBC see gardeners, housekeepers, nannys and chimney sweeps all begging for minimum wage.
Mrs Bucket and Travis
Good points!
Aaaargh!
Illegal immigrants can’t claim benefits.
Illegal immigrants can’t claim benefits.
Illegal immigrants can’t claim benefits.
Illegal immigrants can’t claim benefits.
You ask why they risk life and limb: it is because they have the courage to do all it takes to escape from civil war and extreme poverty.
I suspect you have no heart strings to be tugged.
Duncat Stott,
Aaargh! These people do not have to travel all the way to the UK to escape civil war or extreme poverty. False premise.
Aaaargh! These people would like to come to the UK legally, and all reports on them are done in the context of immigration reform and getting these poor people into the UK as legal immigrants, in which case they most certainly wiil be eligible to receive benefits. You seem to be saying that these people are all going to seamlessly enter the legal job market upon arrival.
Even if you repeat a false premise four times, it will not become the truth.
This is the same BS we get in the US about immigration. There are already rules in place about how to legally apply for residency. You want to throw those out the door because of some misguided emotions.
That is a good point. The solution is that immigration reform and welfare reform need to go hand-in-hand. It shouldn’t be possible for new immigrants to have access to benefits.
Then until that’s worked out, you have no place to condescend to those who object to the current situation as having “no heart strings to be tugged”. It seems that your position was based on emotion after all, and not on reason or the facts.
Notice that you didn’t get any of this information from your official state broadcaster. No, they have taken the same emotional position you did.
Reforms won’t happen until the problems with the existing system are reported by the media. That is exactly what this BBC report did.
Emotion can be an important part of the news. To strip emotion from all news reports is as biased as being emotional in all news reports.
So what was factually inaccurate about the report?
Your original comment was factually inacurrate. Your conclusions were made based on emotion and not on the facts. No use trying to distract from that now.
Duncan
So, perhaps they choose the UK for our bracing climate, perhaps? They avoid all those other European countries and make a bee-line to the UK for one simple reason – easy C-A-S-H.
Now get that into your brain although I suspect you may not have one. 🙂
Lots of reasons why *some* immigrants into Europe choose the UK.
They are often able to speak English, rather than French, German…
They may have existing ties to immigrants who are already here.
And a lot of it revolves around false perceptions of how the UK is, compared to the reality.
Yes, they are financially motivated (who isn’t!). But that means they think they’ll be able to get a job here, rather than claim benefits.
They see the UK as the European country with the ethos closest to the USA’s: the free market, everyone-can-make-a-success-of-themselves attitude, compared to the more socialist outlook of those on the continent.
They are sadly mistaken, but that is the perception.
Dung-can, the French give them nothing, best place for a hand out is to get through Calais to Dover…. they’ll even get paid here to go home and return, call it a state paid for holiday.
Just to be clear, I don’t want immigrants to get any hand-outs.
But I have no problem with the vast majority of immigrants who want to work, contribute to the economy, and pay their taxes. We deport people who are working ‘illegally’. People working is a good thing!
Actualy your wrong. If you watch any of the programmes that focus on illegal workers you are told that they CANNOT be deported if they have no passports because they have no-where to be deported to.
They know it. They use this countries so called “system” against us.
I’m not wrong. If their country of origin can be established, they will be deported. It happens all the time.
You stated that “we deport people who are working illegaly”. I said your wrong because we can’t deport people who have no passports. we have no-where to deport them to.
Now you say “if” their country of origin can be established.
I stand by my original comment. You were wrong!!
The only way for my statement to be wrong is if we didn’t deport anyone. I never said every single illegal worker was successfully deported, which is what you are trying to twist my words into meaning.
David – I don’t understand why the BBC (or anyone) should be pouring scorn on these people, they are asylum seekers – mostly from iraq and afghanistan, there’s little reason to regard them as the bad guys
it’s the same the world over – currently there is a boat of 250 tamils in Idonesia trying to get into Australia – you may have seen the small girl’s sob story, they aren’t going to get in but no-one doubts that they are ‘victims’
and they don’t come here for welfare, as has pointed out to you countless times, they are illegals, bit hard to claim benefits without identification or visas – and france has a larger welfare system anyway, they come here because the work prospects are better and for other factors such as the language barrier etc
These asylum and immigration invaders come to the UK because they view it as a place where they can easily ‘disappear’ and work illegally.
It is not a victimless crime. Businesses that employ illegal immigrants have an unfair advantage over legitimate businesses that pay taxes and national insurance etc. The taxpayer foots the bill, while the crooked (often immigrant) businesses accrue the benefit.
More serious though in my opinion is the deleterious effect that the influx of Third Worlders, mainly adherants of the Religion of Peace, has on the country. An Afghan arriving from centuries of mud huts, burqas and sharia law isn’t transformed into a Briton by something magical in the air at Dover. He brings his values and beliefs with him.
So the paradox is that these people are fleeing from the misery created by their primitive belief system, but bringing that very belief system with them, thereby spreading backwardness with them.
Ed,
I agree about unlawful businesses getting an unfair advantage. The solution is an amnesty to allow more currently illegal immigrants to work here legally. That would dry up the pool of illegal workers that the unlawful businesses exploit.
Immigrants into the UK are obviously emigrants from another country. By migrating, they are to some extent rejecting the culture they are leaving behind, and then each generation of immigrant adopts more and more to British culture.
Duncan Stott you are being economic with the truth. “Asylum seekers” or the less politically correct economic migrants do get benefits. Why do you think the government set up NASS? Who do you think pays for their accomodation? I have dealt with far more of these people than I suspect you have and I gurantee you for many of them the main attraction for Britiain is the benefits system. However the question you liberal bed wetters never seem to be able to answer is why should Bratain accept any “asylum seeker” who has come via France? They are in a safe country and if they were genuinely seeking asylum they would claim it in France/Italy?Greece etc. Frankly the “victim” card is somewhat tedious. I find it especially galling in the case of Afghans when British soldiers are being killed seemingly on a daily basis whilst young men from Afghanistan are queing up to get into our country. They should be back in their own crap hole sorting out the Taliban not relying on us to do their dirty work.
I never said asylum seekers don’t get benefits. I said illegal immigrants don’t.
We should accept asylum seekers because we are a fair, compassionate and caring society. We see suffering and feel the urge to help those in need. Or at least most of us are. I don’t see why we should expect other European countries to take in asylum seekers just so that we don’t.
And your comments on Afghanistan are baffling. That we have soldiers in the country demonstrates the humanitarian difficulties that exist there, with the inevitable consequence of people needing to escape.
We seem to have some representatives of No Borders or the SWP’s “refugees welcome here” committees.
and then each generation of immigrant adopts more and more to British culture.
Any evidence for that? All evidence seems to be that it is second and third generation immigrant Muslims that are presenting the most problems with extremism and generally have more intolerant and radical views than their parents.
As for an amnesty, it’s a half-baked idea. What kind of message does it send to those thinking of coming here illegally? Smuggle yourselves in and stay hidden for long enough and you’ll get an amnesty. It’s just what would send the number of illegal immigrants soaring. The crooked businesses would still have an incentive to hire illegal workers, they’d get rid of the ‘legalised’ ones and get new illegals.
We don’t need an influx of unskilled labour, illegal or not. And presumably, if these people were legalised, they’d be free to claim benefits as well as to work…
You ask me for evidence without presenting any yourself. My own experience differs wildly to yours.
An amnesty is only part of the solution. The real solution is to allow anyone able to find a job in the UK to work legally.
In a free society, we don’t justify things on the basis of need. If we only allowed things that are needed, we’d live in a far worse society. But freedom goes both ways… it is deeply selfish to expect freedom for yourself but limit it to others.
Ducan Stott, if illegal immigrants can’t complain benefits perhaps you should tell the government to stop wasting their time with websites that report on crackdowns on stopping erm…illegal immigrants from erm…claiming benefits.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/blocking-illegal-benefits
Yep, the government is constantly trying to look tough to appease the anti-immigration segments of the public. It’s all spin.
That crackdown is actually about tackling fraud, not illegal immigration. They aren’t the same issue.
You’ll be telling us illegal immigrants can’t migrate into this country because it’s not legal, next.
Illegal immigration and fraud are different crimes.
It is not hard to become a “legal” resident and claim benefits in this country. All you need to do is work illegally – for long enough – then purchase a bent European passport from somewhere a bit dodgy, like Eastern europe, and pop down the Job centre for a national insurance number.
Simples.
“Applicant in employment and has falsified a genuine immigration document. Where Department of Work Pensions is satisfied as to the individual’s identity, a NINO (national insurance number) would be issued in this situation even if we have suspicions around his immigration status.”
Garry Gibson, of the Identity and Security Branch, Programme Protection Division, at Jobcentre Plus said
“Any prosecution action in respect of the falsified immigration documentation would be the responsibility of IND (Immigration Nationality Directorate) — Not the DWP.”
So one Department of Government (the IND) is supposedly trying to curb illegal immigration, while another Department (DWP) is handing out N.I. numbers like confetti, regardless of immigration status.”
http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/01/19/
Kevin, don’t confuse Duncan. He’s been told by a higher authority that illegal immigrants cannot claim benefits and he’s sticking to it. Anyway, any counter to his argument might lead him to think he’s wrong. Ergo think badly about immigrants. Ergo be a racist. Ergo be cast out of the lefty village in which he dwells.
Kevin, don’t confuse Duncan. He’s been told by a higher authority that illegal immigrants cannot claim benefits and he’s sticking to it.
Probably took it from an SWP leaflet about the wacist myths surrounding asylum seekers.
I’ve never read an SWP leaflet about anything. I’m not a socialist, I’m a liberal. Limiting immigration is all about governemnt interference, therefore a deeply socialist aspiration. I’m surprised the SWP aren’t anti-immigration.
I guess that just shows that the lunatic fringes of extreme libertarianism overlap with the Marxists, anarchists and other loonies who dominate the ‘No Borders’ scene, just as the extremes of fascism and communism overlap.
Once you get far enough out into moonbat territory they’re all much of a muchness.
…wimoweh, wimoweh, wimoweh, wimoweh…
International law says that an alleged asylum seeker requests asylum in the first country they enter. Anyone coming via another country to the UK is breaking international law if they do not seek asylum in that country. If any alleged asylum seeker flies directly to the UK it is reasonable to assume they have not suffered persecution in their homeland. Could a persected person buy and use an air ticket? Thus except possibly for the Irish and the Faroese no one is able under international law to claim asylum in the UK
Duncan Stott,
The UK Border Agency kindly produce a webpage explaining how to claim free money and housing here:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/
Yep, asylum seekers can claim benefits. Your point?
it is because they have the courage to do all it takes to escape from civil war and extreme poverty.
Spoken like a true Libtard.
Hilarious.
Just been reading these excellent posts.
I have dealt with legal and illegal immigration both in the UK and West Africa ( not on behalf of the UK government ). I can confirm that Duncan hasn’t a clue what he is talking about and the Immigration authorities and Home Office are totally useless and incompetent, but something tells me Duncan won’t return to this thread !
Hiya!
Clearly the are questions to be asked about the real motivation of the “asylum seekers”, and true to form the BBC are avoiding the issues that don’t fit their agenda.
They should explain why if these people are fleeing persecution and they have reached safety in France they don’t apply for asylum there. If they are successful they would then be able to travel legally to any other EU country.
I don’t buy the language argument or existing relatives, they aim for the UK because we’re a soft touch and everyone knows it.
If I was an ‘economic refugee’ willing to risk 10X-20X my family’s annual income to a fixer with good chance of not reaching any destination alive I, too would aim for the country that offered the best possible return on my efforts. If that meant some months in difficult but not necessarily life-threatening circumstances, so be it.
I don’t see why anyone is surprised.