Curious as to why African immigrants are trying so hard to run through the channel tunnel or stow away in trucks or shipping containers to get to England from Calais. Are the potential benefits in the UK that much better for them there than in France or other parts of the EU?
The key words are highlighted.
Contrary to the impression papers like the Daily Mail might create, the UK isn’t the destination of choice for asylum seekers the world over. Or even asylum seekers across Europe. Of all the EU countries, in 2014 Germany received the largest number of asylum applications (203,000), followed by Sweden, Italy and France. The UK (32,000) was in sixth position, a bit behind Hungary (43,000) and ahead of Austria (28,000).
Relative to population, the UK is even further down the field - it had 494 asylum applications per million of the population, which puts it in the same league as Ireland (315) and Iceland (517). Switzerland, by contrast, has 2,890; Belgium has 2,016; Norway has 2,562.
So, yes, there are several thousand migrants in or near Calais who hope to get to Britain, but they are tiny, tiny fraction of the pool of migrants in the EU, and we should assume that the factors which lead them to try to get to Britain are personal to them. Perhaps they have family who went ahead of them, or neighbours or friends? Perhaps they have employment or educational qualifications which they feel they can turn to better advantage in the UK than elsewhere? Perhaps they, too, have read the Daily Mail or similar papers, and have uncritically swallowed the story that the UK’s benefits and welfare system makes it a migrants’ paradise?
Older thread here.
I heartily agree with the bulk of your summation about the situation being inflated by the media, although I would add that it is significantly harder to get into the UK in the first place in order to claim asylum than it is anywhere in mainland Europe, so you would expect asylum applications to be significantly lower for that reason alone.
Daily Wail notwithstanding, there is a widespread belief, no doubt reinforced by those who make a profit from them, that the UK is a land of milk and honey with a welfare system that will provide for them in a manner far superior to the rest of Europe.
Comparing numbers is not all that helpful because this overcrowded island has done more than its fair share of absorbing genuine refugees from all over the world. These people ere, by and large, economic migrants, much the same as the immigrants from S America to the USA are. We are one of the smallest countries in the eu.
And yes, That 20 mile stretch of water is a formidable obstacle for them to overcome and the French don’t really care - they just want to be rid of them. It must be hell to live in Calais these days.
Europe has better benefits than Africa, and England has better freebies than Europe? The African immigrant’s African governments suck and their freebies suck. The grass appears to be better in Europe.
No. In the EU there are 7 countries with a larger area than the UK, and 20 countries with a smaller area than the UK.
Given that there is already a threadon this in GD, and the subject is likely to lead to debate, I’m going to close this one and refer further comments there.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator