Please let me know the names of the luxurious hotels that can be had for £70. I'd be there in a shot.
A £70 hotel is a relative concept. It seems rubbish to you, but to an illegal migrant who sleeps on the floor of a forest in Calais it is extreme luxury.
It is the pull factor that is making these migrants risk their lives and others to cross the channel and disrupt our trade route.
I thought charities enabled individuals, who had a strong compassion for a particular group of needy people, to freely contribute over and above what they provide through taxation.
I have stayed in some very nice hotels, with gyms, swimming pools etc for less than that.
That £70 is for the room, the hotel is also providing meals so that must be at least £110 per day. and that is before you get to their incidental expenses.
Could you afford to live in such a hotel full time? Just the room and food would need £40,000 of your net income per annum and then you have everything else you need to buy to get by. That is why it is only the really wealthy (and asylum seekers apparently) who can afford to live only in hotels. Some do.
Maggie
so where should asylum seekers stay? A small minority are being put up in hotels because there's no where else to put them.
Do you think it would widen the appeal if we gave participants (or maybe we could call them sponsors) an exemption from, say, the 'bedroom tax'????? Ready made lodgers. Mind you, I'd insist they removed their balaclavas (as seen on today's news) first.
so where should asylum seekers stay? A small minority are being put up in hotels because there's no where else to put them.
I have already provided a solution.
"he problem is difficult, once these people manage to get here then the UK has a responsibility to them to feed and house them safely. Other EU countries have the exact same responsibilities but being more crafty and not wishing to encourage more of their ilk to come in reality act differently. France does not refuse to meet its responsibilities to them it just says there is a ‘temporary’ difficulty in processing them due to large numbers and say the are on a ‘waiting list’ to be handled and they need to wait to get their correct treatment. Of course it is BS they will never get to them meaning the illegal immigrant is on their own and must either scrape an existence from somewhere or get to a more amenable country eg the UK!
France is also not stupid in allowing these people to disappear into their shadow economy. They have secure ID systems and every employer is required to positively ID their potential employees. If they are a foreign national, permits have to be applied for, at the employers expense and substantial fees have to be paid to the immigration authorities by the employer failure to do so by any employer means this.........
“Sanctions.
Failure to comply with immigration procedures is a criminal offence for the employer and employee.
The chief executive can be sentenced to up to five years' imprisonment and a EUR15,000 fine (the amount of the fine is multiplied by five when the company is convicted of the offence). The company can also be made responsible for the payment of a special contribution of EUR17,550”.
That is why France is not attractive to the non-genuine illegal immigrant unlike the UK with its weak ID laws and failure to stop employers doing just what they please to generate profits for themselves at a huge cost to the rest of us.
So what should we do, to attack the problem, aim to reduce it not increase it down the line and still meet our responsibilities to house and feed these people.
We should adopt similar employment laws as France for a start, to dissuade economic migrants who just want to disappear into the shadows.
We should set up more special reception centres where people can be placed and housed in similar type of barracks that are deemed suitable for our soldiers for instance. The overwhelming bulk of these people are young men. Their food and toiletries will be supplied, nothing fancy but adequate.
Of course where should these reception centres be placed, we surely want to minimise the security costs of watching over them?
Well I think South Georgia is highly suitable! It is British territory, the people will be safe and secure from the alleged tyranny they are fleeing, they will be housed and fed and their other basic needs will be met. Security will be really cheap, if they leave the provided accommodation not really anywhere else to go on the island.
Of course I suspect that it would not be a popular location for potential illegal immigrants, it is a bit chilly normally and I don’t think they can get a signal for their mobile phones!
We would get some bleeding hearts saying ‘its not fair, we are restricting their rights to escape and disappear’. Well Boo Hoo we will be meeting our legal requirements and keeping the mainland safe from people who have destroyed all papers and may be here for other than the stated purpose.
This will of course pretty much solve the Calais situation. Next stop South Georgia anyone?
It may cause a reversal in numbers of those already here and hiding in the shadow economy. if they feel that if they are found they are heading for South Georgia, it may cause some to sneak back out!
So a perfect solution that will cause a huge reduction in illegal immigrants whilst still meeting our international obligations. Just need a politician now with the bottle to implement it."
A £70 hotel is a relative concept. It seems rubbish to you, but to an illegal migrant who sleeps on the floor of a forest in Calais it is extreme luxury.
It is the pull factor that is making these migrants risk their lives and others to cross the channel and disrupt our trade route.
If you think thousands of immigrants from Africa are leaving family and friends possibly for ever, travelling thousands of miles, risking their lives crossing the Med to get to a strange country just for the remote chance of spending a week or two in a basic hotel room, then you need your head checked.
so where should asylum seekers stay? A small minority are being put up in hotels because there's no where else to put them.
I think we need a 'tent city' within a secure compound, where they can stay whilst they are being processed. It just needs to be a very basic roof over their heads, nothing that they can get too comfortable with, and it also may deter others from coming. And if their claim is rejected, then they must be deported straight away.
We need to make our country NOT look like the land of milk and honey, we need to make it look like a last resort.
Obviously I didn't say that. The idea for this particular "charity" was silly. It's trying to say that individuals should be responsible for solving major world problems instead of governments. It just can't work that way.
Do you think it would widen the appeal if we gave participants (or maybe we could call them sponsors) an exemption from, say, the 'bedroom tax'????? Ready made lodgers. Mind you, I'd insist they removed their balaclavas (as seen on today's news) first.
Why do they need to cover their faces? What do they have to hide? I can see this whole situation taking a very sinister turn very shortly.
so where should asylum seekers stay? A small minority are being put up in hotels because there's no where else to put them.
Tents in a field or an old army camp. I don't buy this argument that it would cost more than a hotel.
How much would a few tents, a canteen and portable toilets cost?
As for security we have loads of fence left over after the NATO summit, but barbed wire and dog patrols would do. We could use armed soldiers to prevent them escaping. If they are genuine asylum seekers they will obey our rules and be fine.
If that sounds harsh just remember they don't have to come to the UK, they could go to Sweden instead. Once word gets back that that's how they are treated they won't want to come here anymore anyway.
I think we need a 'tent city' within a secure compound, where they can stay whilst they are being processed. It just needs to be a very basic roof over their heads, nothing that they can get too comfortable with, and it also may deter others from coming. And if their claim is rejected, then they must be deported straight away.
We need to may our country NOT look like the land of milk and honey, we need to make it look like a last resort.
Guarded by the British army? Maybe somewhere where they can acclimatise to the rain?
That's two workable solutions in the last two pages!
Obviously I didn't say that. The idea for this particular "charity" was silly. It's trying to say that individuals should be responsible for solving major world problems instead of governments. It just can't work that way.
It doesn't stop Save the Children or the Sally Army and many others doing their bit for the less fortunate.
"he problem is difficult, once these people manage to get here then the UK has a responsibility to them to feed and house them safely. Other EU countries have the exact same responsibilities but being more crafty and not wishing to encourage more of their ilk to come in reality act differently. France does not refuse to meet its responsibilities to them it just says there is a ‘temporary’ difficulty in processing them due to large numbers and say the are on a ‘waiting list’ to be handled and they need to wait to get their correct treatment. Of course it is BS they will never get to them meaning the illegal immigrant is on their own and must either scrape an existence from somewhere or get to a more amenable country eg the UK!
France is also not stupid in allowing these people to disappear into their shadow economy. They have secure ID systems and every employer is required to positively ID their potential employees. If they are a foreign national, permits have to be applied for, at the employers expense and substantial fees have to be paid to the immigration authorities by the employer failure to do so by any employer means this.........
“Sanctions.
Failure to comply with immigration procedures is a criminal offence for the employer and employee.
The chief executive can be sentenced to up to five years' imprisonment and a EUR15,000 fine (the amount of the fine is multiplied by five when the company is convicted of the offence). The company can also be made responsible for the payment of a special contribution of EUR17,550”.
That is why France is not attractive to the non-genuine illegal immigrant unlike the UK with its weak ID laws and failure to stop employers doing just what they please to generate profits for themselves at a huge cost to the rest of us.
So what should we do, to attack the problem, aim to reduce it not increase it down the line and still meet our responsibilities to house and feed these people.
We should adopt similar employment laws as France for a start, to dissuade economic migrants who just want to disappear into the shadows.
We should set up more special reception centres where people can be placed and housed in similar type of barracks that are deemed suitable for our soldiers for instance. The overwhelming bulk of these people are young men. Their food and toiletries will be supplied, nothing fancy but adequate.
Of course where should these reception centres be placed, we surely want to minimise the security costs of watching over them?
Well I think South Georgia is highly suitable! It is British territory, the people will be safe and secure from the alleged tyranny they are fleeing, they will be housed and fed and their other basic needs will be met. Security will be really cheap, if they leave the provided accommodation not really anywhere else to go on the island.
Of course I suspect that it would not be a popular location for potential illegal immigrants, it is a bit chilly normally and I don’t think they can get a signal for their mobile phones!
We would get some bleeding hearts saying ‘its not fair, we are restricting their rights to escape and disappear’. Well Boo Hoo we will be meeting our legal requirements and keeping the mainland safe from people who have destroyed all papers and may be here for other than the stated purpose.
This will of course pretty much solve the Calais situation. Next stop South Georgia anyone?
It may cause a reversal in numbers of those already here and hiding in the shadow economy. if they feel that if they are found they are heading for South Georgia, it may cause some to sneak back out!
So a perfect solution that will cause a huge reduction in illegal immigrants whilst still meeting our international obligations. Just need a politician now with the bottle to implement it."
Maggie
I have no idea why just typed out a lengthy response talking about illegal immigrants when my question, and the article, was about asylum seekers.
A £70 hotel is a relative concept. It seems rubbish to you, but to an illegal migrant who sleeps on the floor of a forest in Calais it is extreme luxury.
It is the pull factor that is making these migrants risk their lives and others to cross the channel and disrupt our trade route.
Exactly.
Sums up a lot of these elite liberals who think that a £70 a night hotel is a slum they wouldn't been seen dead in.
so where should asylum seekers stay? A small minority are being put up in hotels because there's no where else to put them.
How about those countries in south east and Eastern Europe they passed through which have loads of spare housing since their populations decamped en masse waste. You are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country - not the one that offers the best handouts. But economic migrants have different ideas.
If you think thousands of immigrants from Africa are leaving family and friends possibly for ever, travelling thousands of miles, risking their lives crossing the Med to get to a strange country just for the remote chance of spending a week or two in a basic hotel room, then you need your head checked.
If their circumstances were so dire then why are they not seeking asylum in the first country they reached? That's the bit that I don't understand. The people at Calais have chosen to travel through countries like Spain, Italy, Greece, France to get to the tunnel entrance. All those countries have asylum policies, all those countries could help them if they are really in dire need. Yet they chose to skip these countries. Is that the action of people who feel in danger? That seems to be the actions of people who are picking and chosing what countries they want to live in.
Well I think South Georgia is highly suitable! It is British territory, the people will be safe and secure from the alleged tyranny they are fleeing, they will be housed and fed and their other basic needs will be met. Security will be really cheap, if they leave the provided accommodation not really anywhere else to go on the island.
Of course I suspect that it would not be a popular location for potential illegal immigrants, it is a bit chilly normally and I don’t think they can get a signal for their mobile phones!
We would get some bleeding hearts saying ‘its not fair, we are restricting their rights to escape and disappear’. Well Boo Hoo we will be meeting our legal requirements and keeping the mainland safe from people who have destroyed all papers and may be here for other than the stated purpose.
This will of course pretty much solve the Calais situation. Next stop South Georgia anyone?
It may cause a reversal in numbers of those already here and hiding in the shadow economy. if they feel that if they are found they are heading for South Georgia, it may cause some to sneak back out!
So a perfect solution that will cause a huge reduction in illegal immigrants whilst still meeting our international obligations. Just need a politician now with the bottle to implement it."
I agree. I don't see the problem with us transferring asylum seekers from the mainland to one of our territories. How does that violate our asylum obligations. South Georgia is safe. Maybe a bit cold.
You have identified the point that the liberals never seem to get, if the migrants don't get to go where they want in the UK, they wont want to come here in the first place and the problem will be solved.
Giving them what they want and letting them live in say a community from their old country will only encourage them.
It will filter out the economic migrants from the genuine ones.
If their circumstances were so dire then why are they not seeking asylum in the first country they reached? That's the bit that I don't understand. The people at Calais have chosen to travel through countries like Spain, Italy, Greece, France to get to the tunnel entrance. All those countries have asylum policies, all those countries could help them if they are really in dire need. Yet they chose to skip these countries. Is that the action of people who feel in danger? That seems to be the actions of people who are picking and chosing what countries they want to live in.
That's a myth. France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and Hungary all have higher asylum seeker claims than the UK.
France alone has double the amount of asylum claims than the UK.
If their circumstances were so dire then why are they not seeking asylum in the first country they reached? That's the bit that I don't understand. The people at Calais have chosen to travel through countries like Spain, Italy, Greece, France to get to the tunnel entrance. All those countries have asylum policies, all those countries could help them if they are really in dire need. Yet they chose to skip these countries. Is that the action of people who feel in danger? That seems to be the actions of people who are picking and chosing what countries they want to live in.
Apparently what they do is leave Italy without being fingerprinted, the idea being to get through the tunnel and get caught by the British immigration authorities that will be the first to take their prints. Legally this means under EU law that the UK is the first safe country they arrived in under the Dublin agreement.
The Italians and Greeks apparently are a bit annoyed that other EU member states won't take their quota so I guess they just put them in insecure accommodation and never get round to taking their details. They of course just jump on the first train for northern Europe.
They pass through Milan in northern Italy but only about fifty have ever stayed and applied for asylum. Thousands just stay for 24 to 48 hours before moving on. There was a programme on Aljazeera about it.
Comments
A £70 hotel is a relative concept. It seems rubbish to you, but to an illegal migrant who sleeps on the floor of a forest in Calais it is extreme luxury.
It is the pull factor that is making these migrants risk their lives and others to cross the channel and disrupt our trade route.
Charity is a silly idea. Are you sure about that?
I thought charities enabled individuals, who had a strong compassion for a particular group of needy people, to freely contribute over and above what they provide through taxation.
What is the difference, please be specific?
Maggie
so where should asylum seekers stay? A small minority are being put up in hotels because there's no where else to put them.
D' ya think.....?
Do you think it would widen the appeal if we gave participants (or maybe we could call them sponsors) an exemption from, say, the 'bedroom tax'????? Ready made lodgers. Mind you, I'd insist they removed their balaclavas (as seen on today's news) first.
I have already provided a solution.
"he problem is difficult, once these people manage to get here then the UK has a responsibility to them to feed and house them safely. Other EU countries have the exact same responsibilities but being more crafty and not wishing to encourage more of their ilk to come in reality act differently. France does not refuse to meet its responsibilities to them it just says there is a ‘temporary’ difficulty in processing them due to large numbers and say the are on a ‘waiting list’ to be handled and they need to wait to get their correct treatment. Of course it is BS they will never get to them meaning the illegal immigrant is on their own and must either scrape an existence from somewhere or get to a more amenable country eg the UK!
France is also not stupid in allowing these people to disappear into their shadow economy. They have secure ID systems and every employer is required to positively ID their potential employees. If they are a foreign national, permits have to be applied for, at the employers expense and substantial fees have to be paid to the immigration authorities by the employer failure to do so by any employer means this.........
“Sanctions.
Failure to comply with immigration procedures is a criminal offence for the employer and employee.
The chief executive can be sentenced to up to five years' imprisonment and a EUR15,000 fine (the amount of the fine is multiplied by five when the company is convicted of the offence). The company can also be made responsible for the payment of a special contribution of EUR17,550”.
That is why France is not attractive to the non-genuine illegal immigrant unlike the UK with its weak ID laws and failure to stop employers doing just what they please to generate profits for themselves at a huge cost to the rest of us.
So what should we do, to attack the problem, aim to reduce it not increase it down the line and still meet our responsibilities to house and feed these people.
We should adopt similar employment laws as France for a start, to dissuade economic migrants who just want to disappear into the shadows.
We should set up more special reception centres where people can be placed and housed in similar type of barracks that are deemed suitable for our soldiers for instance. The overwhelming bulk of these people are young men. Their food and toiletries will be supplied, nothing fancy but adequate.
Of course where should these reception centres be placed, we surely want to minimise the security costs of watching over them?
Well I think South Georgia is highly suitable! It is British territory, the people will be safe and secure from the alleged tyranny they are fleeing, they will be housed and fed and their other basic needs will be met. Security will be really cheap, if they leave the provided accommodation not really anywhere else to go on the island.
Of course I suspect that it would not be a popular location for potential illegal immigrants, it is a bit chilly normally and I don’t think they can get a signal for their mobile phones!
We would get some bleeding hearts saying ‘its not fair, we are restricting their rights to escape and disappear’. Well Boo Hoo we will be meeting our legal requirements and keeping the mainland safe from people who have destroyed all papers and may be here for other than the stated purpose.
This will of course pretty much solve the Calais situation. Next stop South Georgia anyone?
It may cause a reversal in numbers of those already here and hiding in the shadow economy. if they feel that if they are found they are heading for South Georgia, it may cause some to sneak back out!
So a perfect solution that will cause a huge reduction in illegal immigrants whilst still meeting our international obligations. Just need a politician now with the bottle to implement it."
Maggie
If you think thousands of immigrants from Africa are leaving family and friends possibly for ever, travelling thousands of miles, risking their lives crossing the Med to get to a strange country just for the remote chance of spending a week or two in a basic hotel room, then you need your head checked.
I think we need a 'tent city' within a secure compound, where they can stay whilst they are being processed. It just needs to be a very basic roof over their heads, nothing that they can get too comfortable with, and it also may deter others from coming. And if their claim is rejected, then they must be deported straight away.
We need to make our country NOT look like the land of milk and honey, we need to make it look like a last resort.
Obviously I didn't say that. The idea for this particular "charity" was silly. It's trying to say that individuals should be responsible for solving major world problems instead of governments. It just can't work that way.
Why do they need to cover their faces? What do they have to hide? I can see this whole situation taking a very sinister turn very shortly.
Tents in a field or an old army camp. I don't buy this argument that it would cost more than a hotel.
How much would a few tents, a canteen and portable toilets cost?
As for security we have loads of fence left over after the NATO summit, but barbed wire and dog patrols would do. We could use armed soldiers to prevent them escaping. If they are genuine asylum seekers they will obey our rules and be fine.
If that sounds harsh just remember they don't have to come to the UK, they could go to Sweden instead. Once word gets back that that's how they are treated they won't want to come here anymore anyway.
Guarded by the British army? Maybe somewhere where they can acclimatise to the rain?
That's two workable solutions in the last two pages!
It doesn't stop Save the Children or the Sally Army and many others doing their bit for the less fortunate.
I have no idea why just typed out a lengthy response talking about illegal immigrants when my question, and the article, was about asylum seekers.
Exactly.
Sums up a lot of these elite liberals who think that a £70 a night hotel is a slum they wouldn't been seen dead in.
Yes, but they are big charities - often international in nature. Individuals cannot do much about world problems on their own.
How about those countries in south east and Eastern Europe they passed through which have loads of spare housing since their populations decamped en masse waste. You are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country - not the one that offers the best handouts. But economic migrants have different ideas.
If their circumstances were so dire then why are they not seeking asylum in the first country they reached? That's the bit that I don't understand. The people at Calais have chosen to travel through countries like Spain, Italy, Greece, France to get to the tunnel entrance. All those countries have asylum policies, all those countries could help them if they are really in dire need. Yet they chose to skip these countries. Is that the action of people who feel in danger? That seems to be the actions of people who are picking and chosing what countries they want to live in.
I agree. I don't see the problem with us transferring asylum seekers from the mainland to one of our territories. How does that violate our asylum obligations. South Georgia is safe. Maybe a bit cold.
You have identified the point that the liberals never seem to get, if the migrants don't get to go where they want in the UK, they wont want to come here in the first place and the problem will be solved.
Giving them what they want and letting them live in say a community from their old country will only encourage them.
It will filter out the economic migrants from the genuine ones.
Wriggle, wriggle. Not what the poster who introduced the term "luxury" was trying to dishonestly imply.
That's a myth. France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and Hungary all have higher asylum seeker claims than the UK.
France alone has double the amount of asylum claims than the UK.
Apparently what they do is leave Italy without being fingerprinted, the idea being to get through the tunnel and get caught by the British immigration authorities that will be the first to take their prints. Legally this means under EU law that the UK is the first safe country they arrived in under the Dublin agreement.
The Italians and Greeks apparently are a bit annoyed that other EU member states won't take their quota so I guess they just put them in insecure accommodation and never get round to taking their details. They of course just jump on the first train for northern Europe.
They pass through Milan in northern Italy but only about fifty have ever stayed and applied for asylum. Thousands just stay for 24 to 48 hours before moving on. There was a programme on Aljazeera about it.
Who said they wouldn't be seen dead in a £70 hotel? Or are you making up strawman arguments again.
Here's an example of how it could work- this was on Look North last week.
Perfectly feasible....or are you concerned that when push comes to shove, all those bleeding heart liberal commentators wouldn't sign up?
http://www.sash-uk.org.uk