Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
|
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"harry" wrote in message ... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK. Another pig ignorant lie. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them, so at least they would not get as far as France etc, as its a big headache for them also. I've never quite understood why this is not upheld and the person sent back to their entry point for assylum. Obviously, once accepted and perhaps given some work they can then see if they can finance thmselves to go anywhere in the eu, but at the moment its just a total shambles, wich everyone passing the buck. These are mostly displaced people so there has to be some kind of organised way to get them sorted. brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "harry" wrote in message ... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic. And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share". |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic. And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share". One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along the north African coast. |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:53:53 +0100, Richard wrote:
One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along the north African coast. Go and look at a map of the North African coast. |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 13/07/2015 08:01, harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK. The port is not their main target. Even when a number managed to break into the port last year, they were unable to get aboard any of the ferries. -- Colin Bignell |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
In article ,
Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic. Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine what it must be like on Lesbos, etc. And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share". The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. -- *Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. Can't easily do that. To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say) would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the Libyan gov't to accept them. And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything... Damn that whole international law mullarkey... |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Monday, 13 July 2015 11:59:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic. Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine what it must be like on Lesbos, etc. Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK. And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share". It's difficult top get ral numbers when they confuse asylum seekers with refugess and that's just those they know about. The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. Why are we only concerned with those that can afford the 1000s it costs to be illegal trasported from their country, what of the poorer that have to stay and suffer while the rich are lucky enough to escape from and get help. ? |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 13/07/2015 13:52, whisky-dave wrote:
.... Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK. Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU countries. -- Colin Bignell |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Monday, 13 July 2015 12:41:03 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. Can't easily do that. To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say) would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the Libyan gov't to accept them. And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything... Damn that whole international law mullarkey... We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Immigrants could be taken to Tunisia and shoved over the border into Libya. They could then let the others know what's going on. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 13/07/2015 13:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU. So they would do the redistribution themselves. Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do not have the right of free movement within the EU. If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to reach a specific country before applying for asylum. Oddly enough, many of those trying to get across the Channel would do better under the French provisions for refugees than they would under the UK rules. Only those with families would be better off in the UK. However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken. Perhaps we should fund French lessons in Eritrea. -- Colin Bignell |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
In article ,
harry wrote: We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? -- *Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:22:20 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU. So they would do the redistribution themselves. Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do not have the right of free movement within the EU. Not quite... Schengen, there's no borders*. There is no difference. If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to reach a specific country before applying for asylum. Except the asylum tests are standardised throughout the EU, and one country's results of those tests is accepted by every other country. So somebody granted asylum in one country would automatically have that asylum respected in another. However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken. There are, of course, a lot of largely-Francophone former French colonies in Africa. * - Well, there shouldn't be... |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:25:52 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
OK. In that case why aren't the `french preventing their entry from Italy? Because they're both Schengen countries. Oh, and... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33131893 But these are people whose asylum claims haven't been processed yet. There is a certain irony, of course, given Sangatte... |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? 460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all? Nice easy job... Let's not forget the near-on thousand km with Algeria - which is not only pretty much a failed state itself, but has a thousand km of border with Libya, too. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 13/07/2015 17:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:22:20 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote: Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU. So they would do the redistribution themselves. Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do not have the right of free movement within the EU. Not quite... Schengen, there's no borders*. There is no difference. A refugee can cross a Schengen border, but that does not give them the right to reside or work in the second country. They only have those rights in the country that grants them asylum. If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to reach a specific country before applying for asylum. Except the asylum tests are standardised throughout the EU, and one country's results of those tests is accepted by every other country. So somebody granted asylum in one country would automatically have that asylum respected in another. IOW, they are not illegal immigrants if they enter another EU country and meet the requirements for a foreign national visiting that country. They do not, however, have the automatic right to reside or work in any country other than the one that grants them asylum. However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken. There are, of course, a lot of largely-Francophone former French colonies in Africa. Which is reflected in the mix of peoples seeking to settle in France. Their largest group of asylum seekers come from the Congo. -- Colin Bignell |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? 460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all? .... Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that border. How effective it will be is another matter. -- Colin Bignell |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote: On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? 460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all? ... Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that border. How effective it will be is another matter. Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out - successfully, I understand. -- Please note new email address: |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:53:53 +0100, Richard wrote: One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along the north African coast. Go and look at a map of the North African coast. OK. Back from looking. And? |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:34:42 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? 460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all? Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that border. Well, along 168km of it. The other 300km aren't a problem, apparently. How effective it will be is another matter. Quite. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0100, Richard wrote:
One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along the north African coast. Go and look at a map of the North African coast. OK. Back from looking. And? OK, did you notice the 1,200km of Algerian shoreline? Or the 1,800km of Libyan shoreline? Or just the 500km of Moroccan Med shoreline and the 1,100km of Tunisian shoreline? Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the implications there? |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On Monday, 13 July 2015 11:59:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic. Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine what it must be like on Lesbos, etc. Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK. And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share". It's difficult top get ral numbers when they confuse asylum seekers with refugess and that's just those they know about. The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. Why are we only concerned with those that can afford the 1000s it costs to be illegal trasported from their country, what of the poorer that have to stay and suffer while the rich are lucky enough to escape from and get help. ? Because there will always be plenty of places that couldn't organise a ****up in a brewery like Zimbabwe and Syria and Tunisia etc. |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
whisky-dave wrote Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK. Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU countries. Why would it only apply to legal immigrants from other EU countries ? In many ways the illegals cost the govt much less because they can not claim benefits and have to do whatever work is available otherwise they wont have any income and so will do the work others don’t want to do. |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic. Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine what it must be like on Lesbos, etc. And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share". The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. As the Aussies found to be a very successful tactic. -- bert |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
In article , Adrian
writes On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. Can't easily do that. To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say) would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the Libyan gov't to accept them. And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything... Damn that whole international law mullarkey... Return them to their port of departure. -- bert |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"harry" wrote in message ... On Monday, 13 July 2015 12:41:03 UTC+1, Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came from. Can't easily do that. To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say) would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the Libyan gov't to accept them. And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything... Damn that whole international law mullarkey... We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. You'd have to police all their borders because the illegals would just use the ones that aren't policed. And the cost of that would be utterly insane. Immigrants could be taken to Tunisia and shoved over the border into Libya. Legally they couldn't be, because there is no govt to agree to that. They could then let the others know what's going on. And they would just use the other borders instead. |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"Tim Streater" wrote in message .. . In article , Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote: On 13/07/2015 13:51, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote: Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU. So they would do the redistribution themselves. Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do not have the right of free movement within the EU. OK. In that case why aren't the `french preventing their entry from Italy? Because they dont have that level of border control at that border anymore. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0100, Richard wrote: One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along the north African coast. Go and look at a map of the North African coast. OK. Back from looking. And? OK, did you notice the 1,200km of Algerian shoreline? Or the 1,800km of Libyan shoreline? Or just the 500km of Moroccan Med shoreline and the 1,100km of Tunisian shoreline? Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the implications there? Hire an Antonov 225 or even lesser aircraft. Full load of refugees. Fly along coastline and evenly distribute cargo. Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the 'distributed evenly'. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
"charles" wrote in message ... In article , Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote: On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? 460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all? ... Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that border. How effective it will be is another matter. Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out - successfully, I understand. And then the world move on just a tad. |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:52:32 +0100, Richard wrote:
Hire an Antonov 225 or even lesser aircraft. Full load of refugees. Fly along coastline and evenly distribute cargo. Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the 'distributed evenly'. True. I didn't think you were suggesting mass murder. |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 13/07/2015 19:02, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote: On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think? 460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all? ... Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that border. How effective it will be is another matter. Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out - successfully, I understand. Both of which required large garrisons and, if they had a military purpose (the purpose of Hadrian's wall is disputed - it may have been a customs control measure or even just a symbol of the power of Rome) it was to resist attacks by marauding bands, not infiltration by individuals. -- Colin Bignell |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Monday, 13 July 2015 17:11:26 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/07/2015 13:52, whisky-dave wrote: ... Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK. Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU countries. Pity they don't explain that at the time regarding 'legal' immigrants. But I've never seen the term legal immigrants used ONLY the term immergration is used. |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote: Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out - successfully, I understand. Both of which required large garrisons and, if they had a military purpose (the purpose of Hadrian's wall is disputed - it may have been a customs control measure or even just a symbol of the power of Rome) it was to resist attacks by marauding bands, not infiltration by individuals. Perhaps they didn't have a B&Q in those days where you could pop in and buy a ladder? -- *I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On 14/07/2015 11:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 13 July 2015 17:11:26 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote: On 13/07/2015 13:52, whisky-dave wrote: ... Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK. Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU countries. Pity they don't explain that at the time regarding 'legal' immigrants. But I've never seen the term legal immigrants used ONLY the term immergration is used. It suits some people to lump together those from other EU countries working here legally, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants under one all-encompassing title. -- Colin Bignell |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:55:15 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
Pity they don't explain that at the time regarding 'legal' immigrants. But I've never seen the term legal immigrants used ONLY the term immergration is used. It suits some people to lump together those from other EU countries working here legally, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants under one all-encompassing title. Or, perhaps, legal migration is a bit of tautology, since it's all that's left once you discount illegal migration. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|