Mediterranean migrant deaths and CMD.

[heathgate]

To put a figure on where one says nay is utterly simplistic and NIMBYism on a grand scale.

Didn't ask for a figure, what circumstances would prompt you to say no, it isn't nimbyism to consider a position. What personal circumstances or societal changes, would turn you into a nimby as far as migration is concerned? .......... my question could be considered simplistic, but I try to adjust for the target audience of course.

 

[BadFish]

Didn't ask for a figure, what circumstances would prompt you to say no, it isn't nimbyism to consider a position. What personal circumstances or societal changes, would turn you into a nimby as far as migration is concerned? .......... my question could be considered simplistic, but I try to adjust for the target audience of course.

Are you talking about migration in general or refugees?

With migration in general I would be happy to say no if a referendum demonstrated its popularity. But as is often pointed out I don't live in the UK so it isn't really up to me. I mentioned this a few posts ago.

If you are talking about refugees then my answer is as above.

 

[heathgate]

Are you talking about migration in general or refugees?
.

I think that presently you can say both are largely joined at the hip, cause and effect, it is impossible to avoid lumping them in together, migration through the need to escape violence etc, or migration from an economic need, how can anyone judge?

 

[glasfryn]

this is a straight question/s
why have some of these people sailed around the med from Turkey to Rhodes when they might have just gone across the Bosphurus Straight?
where do they get 2000 euros to do the journey?

 

[RexCathedra]

Going through weak spots in the periphery pretty much dictate sea travel.
No roads, no roadblocks.

People cross into the US via the Sonora desert, rather than by just walking from Juarez to El Paso.

 

[Hastings gull]

This is again why I think distinction is so important. Yes we will need to help Asylum Seekers until their cases are heard they are not allowed to work so have little choice than to survive on what is offered to them. This is part an parcel of being a signatory to the Asylum Seeker Convention. However it is not the case with other migrants as your posts suggested the data suggests that on the whole migrants come over to the UK, and don't claim benefits.

So are you saying that those on the boats are asylum seekers and those in Calais are migrants, or perhaps vice versa? How do you know what they are? Who decides and if they work out that is best to claim that they are, say, asylum seekers, as this is more likely to gain them entry, then that is what they will all do. Wouldn't you? It is an academic distinction at present.

 

[Hastings gull]

It is also worth pointing out that the 15% of British nationals was an aside for comparison (it was in brackets). The 9% of non British nationals was the statisitc i was using to debate your argument.

The original statement: Bad Fish: There you go 6% of non Uk nationals are claiming benefits (compared with 15% of Uk nationals)

Perhaps I am being thick here but I have looked at this time and time again, and still cannot work this out. You try!

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

this is a straight question/s
why have some of these people sailed around the med from Turkey to Rhodes when they might have just gone across the Bosphurus Straight?
where do they get 2000 euros to do the journey?

A question that no one seems to want to answer,why pay 2000+ euro to travel on an overcrowded inflatable when a ferry or plane would be a much safer option?

 

[Titanic]

A question that no one seems to want to answer,why pay 2000+ euro to travel on an overcrowded inflatable when a ferry or plane would be a much safer option?

I think you need a passport if you arrive on a ferry or plane. If you have one and the money, it seems likely that you will already have made your move.

 

[carlzeiss]

A question that no one seems to want to answer,why pay 2000+ euro to travel on an overcrowded inflatable when a ferry or plane would be a much safer option?

A would guess a passport would then be necessary and also a valid reason to " visit " the country they are attempting to migrate to .

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I think you need a passport if you arrive on a ferry or plane.

I don't think you do,I have on rather good authority that a large amount of asylum seekers will routinely destroy their papers upon arrival to the land of milk and honey.

 

[Hastings gull]

A question that no one seems to want to answer,why pay 2000+ euro to travel on an overcrowded inflatable when a ferry or plane would be a much safer option?

It is of course possible that the figure of 2000 euros is a huge exaggeration. Would they be persecuted if they applied for an exit visa for a flight away from the home country or went through an official channel of some sort? I don't know that In Somalia they would be this advanced, but it might be the case elsewhere. Not sure.

 

[Hastings gull]

I don't think you do,I have on rather good authority that a large amount of asylum seekers will routinely destroy their papers upon arrival to the land of milk and honey.

I think the post might have meant when they board in their own country, and yes, I gather that this is routine that they get rid of their passport, when facing the prospect of a detention centre, knowing that it would be far more difficult to send them home.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

It is of course possible that the figure of 2000 euros is a huge exaggeration. Would they be persecuted if they applied for an exit visa for a flight away from the home country or went through an official channel of some sort? I don't know that In Somalia they would be this advanced, but it might be the case elsewhere. Not sure.

Seen a documentary where successful survivors said how much they paid for passage,some claim as much as 10k dollars,surely for that sort of lolly one could get a bloody good cruise from Egypt across the med?
I don't understand, why pay thousands of dollars/euros to go on some patched up dinghy which will almost certainly end in death?

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't understand, why pay thousands of dollars/euros to go on some patched up dinghy which will almost certainly end in death?

its loaned. and if you dont pay back, your family back home has a visit.

 

[BadFish]

I think that presently you can say both are largely joined at the hip, cause and effect, it is impossible to avoid lumping them in together, migration through the need to escape violence etc, or migration from an economic need, how can anyone judge?

So are you saying that those on the boats are asylum seekers and those in Calais are migrants, or perhaps vice versa? How do you know what they are? Who decides and if they work out that is best to claim that they are, say, asylum seekers, as this is more likely to gain them entry, then that is what they will all do. Wouldn't you? It is an academic distinction at present.

Okay one more crack at this: then I will concede that my explanations are not up to scratch

The point i am making is that all those people on those boats and at Calais are Asylum Seekers. Those boats are dangerous and expensive which means that other types of migrants would not use this method of entry if another was available. It is also unlikely that the people on the boats are economic migrants attempting to escape extreme poverty because such poverty would mean that they can't afford to get on the boats.

The key point to them being Asylum Seekers is that they claim to be one. You said that they may claim this just to escape poverty, at this stage the validity of their claim is not relevant to their status. Asylum Seekers are such because they are seeking to claim Asylum. This is perfectly legal.

The next stage once they land in the UK is to claim Asylum. Once they do this then their claims are processed. This process is rigorous and only those escaping persecution or death are given Refugee status. the process also allows for an appeal and I believe a new application if they believe they can provide new evidence. Those that are refused refugee status are asked to make arrangements to go back to their home lands. Still at this point no one has broken any laws. The only way that an Asylum Seeker can break the law is if they decide to abscond once their application is finally denied. These people are obviously living and working illegally and cannot gain a NI number or claim benefits. I don't know the figures for how many of these people there are.

So if people are falsely claiming to be refugees then they are still Asylum Seekers but will not be granted refugee status and will not become migrants. In short Refugees are a subgroup of migrants and Asylum Seekers may or may not end up being migrants. The figure for the UK is around 40% being granted refugee status. I have not looked up the statistics for the people coming across the med to Italy.

As I have said the distinction between Asylum Seekers and migrants is not just academic and it is very important, especially in the context of this thread which is about Asylum Seekers.

i am assuming that I am not explaining this stuff very well so here are a few links that may do it better.

https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/asylum

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/glossary

http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/the-asylum-process-made-simple/#What

 

[BadFish]

The original statement: Bad Fish: There you go 6% of non Uk nationals are claiming benefits (compared with 15% of Uk nationals)

Perhaps I am being thick here but I have looked at this time and time again, and still cannot work this out. You try!

What don't you get?

You inferred that most migrants turn up with the hand out wanting food, clothes and housing. I used that stat to show that 9% of non uk nationals (migrants) were claiming benefits so the vast majority were paying their way and working. You said that the figures didn't include migrants who had gained UK National Status and i agreed but caveated that with the point that this would only push up the figure by a tiny amount and that my point still stood. The vast majority of migrants do not claim benefits.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

its loaned. and if you dont pay back, your family back home has a visit.

Must be a few loan sharks going out business then,if 800 of your punters go in one crossing .

 

[Hastings gull]

What don't you get?

You inferred that most migrants turn up with the hand out wanting food, clothes and housing. I used that stat to show that 9% of non uk nationals (migrants) were claiming benefits so the vast majority were paying their way and working. You said that the figures didn't include migrants who had gained UK National Status and i agreed but caveated that with the point that this would only push up the figure by a tiny amount and that my point still stood. The vast majority of migrants do not claim benefits.

The original statement: Bad Fish: There you go 6% of non Uk nationals are claiming benefits (compared with 15% of Uk nationals)

6% of one smaller group and 15% of a larger group are claiming. OK, so far so good. Agreed? Then you say that use this comparison, to prove that 9% of the smaller group are claiming. What am I missing here, when I say I do not understand?

 

[BadFish]

The original statement: Bad Fish: There you go 6% of non Uk nationals are claiming benefits (compared with 15% of Uk nationals)

6% of one smaller group and 15% of a larger group are claiming. OK, so far so good. Agreed? Then you say that use this comparison, to prove that 9% of the smaller group are claiming. What am I missing here, when I say I do not understand?

Sorry i get you now. My mistake I was thinking that the 6% was a 9%. just not reading properly. Apologies.