I, & I only speak for myself, consider an economic migrant as someone who has decided to come to Europe for the benefits systems. Those who come to work I do not consider migrants although strictly speaking they have migrated. I assume that those who move country to find work have a passport, pay for their travel & can at least afford accomodation until such times as they find a job. These people are merely workers. I came to France, showed my passport, paid my own way until finding work here. I did not camp out outside Dover trying to smuggle myself on to a lorry or plan to make my first stop the offices of CPAM in order to demand housing & food. I never expected France to provide free housing & food! Ido not speak for other ex pats.
I am in no way lumping those fleeing a war zone with those looking for an easier life. I do admit to not knowing what kind of benefits system Romania has, though.
Ahhhh, that brings back such fond memories - not. When the borders first opened I made a suggestion (not here, elsewhere) that emergency centres should be set up with medical care, legal bods etc so at least families/children would have a safe, warm (winter was fast approaching) haven where ID checks/asylum applications could be fast-tracked and aid agencies would know exactly where to deliver much needed items instead of people milling around the roads looking for shelter. I was hauled over the coals, told I had absolutely no compassion and was suggesting something akin to concentration camps. Some of those same people are now horrified by the deplorable conditions in the camps and blaming all and sundry. If they'd been housed and fast tracked maybe some may have reached their destinations by now.
Maybe all of us ex-pats of whatever nationality should pack our bags and return to our home country - regardless of our view of it or of our reasons for relocating here to France. We need to remember that we too are guests in someone else's country - and not everyone loves us being here or in other countries that we have migrated to in great numbers.
Most of us have moved here as we thought that move would enhance our lives - be it for the weather, calmer and more secure lifestyle, great healthcare etc. - how do we differ from the migrants hoping to make a better life for themselves and their families elsewhere? This particularly applies to refuges that are not just seeking a pleasanter life but are fleeing all manner of dreadful situations.
How hypocritical that some see fit to judge other people’s desire to move to another country when we have taken advantage of the lack of borders ourselves - or do we still have colonial mentality where it's okay for us Brits to go where we please but don't think others should enjoy the same rights?
I know that some will assume that all migrants will be a drain on 'the system' - but most are hoping to find work and many will do work that the indigenous workforce are not prepared to undertake for the pay on offer. Declining birthrates mean that in the future many countries will have insufficient people of working age to support the demands of an ageing population and perhaps we should be grateful for the influx of young working age people of all educational levels.
Yes. They include those who are eligible and have applied for entry and those who are not/have not. As it relates to Calais, some are in the camps simply hoping to gain illegal entry into the UK. I thought they were possibly who Carol was referring to as diverting the help away the true refugees.
Well said Dick - although I am led to understand (from previous posts) that the home owners around Manston may not be very happy with the effect of their property prices! :-) A tad....'awkward'.....
Defence is shown as £45,1 bn in the table, each of the other remits includes it own administration costs as you probably know. Flood defence is, as we have been hearing, a few measly millions and the BBC budget is being cut year on year and they are expected to raise money selling programmes, etc. National debt repayment is not part of a budget. It is taken off before a budget is set, otherwise the 300 year plus debt would grab a vast part of any allocation, especially since it has gone from £577billion in 2006 to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at present and around 90% of the entire UK economy. That is well above the 60% threshold agreed within the EU, including by Gideon Osborne at the time, another reason why nervous Tories want out.
Economics is a fairly precise science with lots of guessing and speculation but falls apart when the numbers are not there. Increasing UK poverty is making that worse, but the City will not admit that. Another reason why the UK despite needing more people for low paid work is reluctant to have migrants in. They would have to go legitimate instead of black if registered and then get minimum rates, fixed hours and no more exploitation!
Economic migrants are all who enter a country to earn or otherwise find an income, not as certain newspapers preach to be benefits collectors. In fact, look for statistics on how many collect them, very very few in fact. As for the six wives and 18 children in Somalia type stories, no they are not being subsidised by the tax payer. Sure occasionally somebody pulls off a scam like that, but that does not make them all scroungers.
OK. I have held off for so long. As we are all immigrants (to France) mainly for economic reasons, we should be much clearer than appears to be the case in all these posts.
The Calais problem could be solved at a stroke. Allow these human beings to cross the channel and hold them in sanitary conditions at one of the many disused military camps - maybe at the closed airport at Manston. Process them all properly and take appropriate action.
The reason for Calais is the British government doesn't want these humans on British soil in case they claim asylum.
I think the term 'economic migrants' refers to those who simply wish to better their lives elsewhere due, predominantly, to lack of opportunity where they are.
As an aside - I do try to speak from 'I' rather than 'most of us' as I don't actually know what 'most of us' think.....:-)
Valerie, I think that most of us use the term "economic migrants" to mean those who wish to establish themselves in a country with a better benefits system than that of their own country (which may have none) rather than those who move to a country to work as there are no suitable jobs in theirs.
The question was rhetorical but you turned it into a statement. If you are going to quote me please do so correctly & not change my meaning.
I have not said that all migrants are terrorists but as many are coming from a country from where there is a powerful faction who clearly are, any country accepting people from there should be allowed to research these peoples background to make sure. I remember going on holiday to the USA in 1978. I had to get a visa so was obviously checked then & on arrival was met with a most serious grilling by immigration - & that was just for a holiday & before all the problems of today! I'm just saying that anyone wishing to enter another country should at least expect similar treatment. If I went to Syria I would have to show a passport so why should the reverse not apply?
I have read with interest all of your comments, and I am pleased that you were all brave enough to debate such an emotive subject. I have stayed away from the thread, as I would have inevitably become a target, and that would have detracted from the real issues raised throughout this post (one person, in attack mode, even suggested that I was out for a drink with Marine Le Pen, before hurriedly deleting the comment). Thank you for all your time and input. Personally I am pleased to learn that I am not alone in believing that we MUST help genuine refugees but that 'Economic Migrants' should be dealt with in a different way entirely.
Whilst the Economic Migrants are clogging up the system and depleting the available resources, that vital help is being denied to those who really need it. I think this is wrong and needs to change.
This will be my final comment on this post. Wishing you all a pleasant evening.
Mark I haven't forgotten any of those atrocious attacks and, I was personally 'touched' by one of them so, how you could even dare to imply that the victims of those incidents are somehow insignificant - is frankly beyond belief :-(
Back on topic - I don't get why you're clearly tarring all immigrants with the same brush....just in case...
How do you any of us know our neighbours aren't involved in any untoward terrorist activity?
I think that much of the remaining 35% goes in law & order, defence, administation, infrastructure, national debt repayments, flood defence, BBC, local government, the list goes on.