Large slums developing in France

PasturesNew

Mistermeaner wrote: »

...

Ah, the final solution.
At least it makes choosing your New Year fancy dress outfit easy as you've got a handy uniform in the wardrobe.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

is a slum in france better or worse than say a slum in Nigeria?
do they have more or less food
do they have more or less access to health care
do they have more or less access to education
do they have more or less access to paid employment

Substitute "Nigeria" in your post for "China" and let us re-examine this.

Obviously China has faced similar problems which you list in the not so distant past.

Their solution was not to encourage half a billion Chinese to emigrate to more prosperous countries like South Korea or Japan.

They obviously intend to grow their own economic and industrial base, as we have done in the past.

This model to prosperity is well proven, yet we seem to ignore it when it comes to places in Africa?

BobQ

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't think this will happen here. If they get to the UK, they either claim asylum successfully, get deported (eventually) or disappear into the black economy. But getting here is the main obstacle.

They are mostly economic migrants. They would have very little chance of claiming asylum in France; even if they were genuine refugees, the French laws take a dim view of applicants who've traveled via a third country in which they could have made an application.

The upgrading of these slums to shanty towns is probably going to prolong their stay in France until the authorities finally decide to take decisive action (make them apply for asylum or be deported). As the reporter highlighted, the camp at Calais isn't all that different from living conditions in many parts of the world.

Although I'm not sure about whether we're taking a fair number of genuine refugees, I believe that Cameron's approach of accepting people who've only made the claim on the countries bordering warzones is the right approach.

If you are correct, why do the French authorities not segregate the economic from the genuine refugees?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

If you are correct, why do the French authorities not segregate the economic from the genuine refugees?

maybe its difficult to distinguish between them especially if they have lost their papers

and anyway how do you deport people ?

Sapphire

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe its difficult to distinguish between them especially if they have lost their papers

and anyway how do you deport people ?

Didn't people used to be deported back from whence they came if they entered a country illegally?

The trick is to have proper border controls, and not allow in anyone unless they a job to go to and will not receive any support from taxpayers.

European countries would never have allowed illegal entry in the past – they need to go back to border controls, otherwise Europe will be swamped.

kinger101

BobQ wrote: »

If you are correct, why do the French authorities not segregate the economic from the genuine refugees?

As Clapton indicates, some of those that would have been classified as economic migrants have deliberately lost their papers; deporting them back to country of origin requires that you know where this is.

Aside from that, I think there has historically been inertia on the side of the French as they just want them to reach their final destination (UK). And I believe 1 in 5 applications for asylum are successful in France, whereas the figure is nearer to 1 in 3 in the UK. So that is going to discourage some people from applying in France (though they still get twice as many applicants as the UK).

I think it would be more useful to have an international body deciding whether applications for asylum are successful, and an international commitment from countries to accept a given number of genuine refugees. The camps in France are minor compared to what's happening in Turkey and Lesbos. Turkey took in 1.6 million refugees last year compared to the UK's 30K.

Overall though, I suspect most of those in the camps in France though are economic migrants. France will house genuine asylum seeks (as does the UK) and they benefits provided are slightly more generous. Someone with a genuine case isn't going to slum it.

cells

Marktheshark wrote: »

Even the best camera angle and selective editing can not hide the fact that most of the refugees are young men

why is that a surprise or somehow wrong

in a family there is usually a mother a farther and children. The children cant go first by themselves for obvious reasons. The only two choices are that

A: the whole family jumps into the unknown
B: the father goes first

In their shoes I would take option B

there could also be reasons why option B is the only option for some. for instance if they need to pay for the voyage and they only have a limited resources. One Indian man I know tells me their family sent him to England (back when anyone in the commonwealth could come) and that they had to sell their whole herd of sheep. They could just about afford to send him and it was a huge financial risk for the whole extended family to sell off their few sheep.

cells

Sapphire wrote: »

Didn't people used to be deported back from whence they came if they entered a country illegally?

The trick is to have proper border controls, and not allow in anyone unless they a job to go to and will not receive any support from taxpayers.

European countries would never have allowed illegal entry in the past – they need to go back to border controls, otherwise Europe will be swamped.

with over 500 million people and an overall EU fertility rate of ~1.6 babies per woman the EU could shrink by 20% per generation.

If a generation is about 30 years the EU could lose 100 million people per generation if there was no inward net migration. Either the fertility rate needs to improve or migration on a large scale is needed or the EU needs to accept the possibly very dire problems that would happened with a 20% fall in population every 30 years.

the uk and france are at the higher end at close to 2 babies per woman

kinger101

cells wrote: »

why is that a surprise or somehow wrong

in a family there is usually a mother a farther and children. The children cant go first by themselves for obvious reasons. The only two choices are that

A: the whole family jumps into the unknown
B: the father goes first

In their shoes I would take option B

there could also be reasons why option B is the only option for some. for instance if they need to pay for the voyage and they only have a limited resources. One Indian man I know tells me their family sent him to England (back when anyone in the commonwealth could come) and that they had to sell their whole herd of sheep. They could just about afford to send him and it was a huge financial risk for the whole extended family to sell off their few sheep.

I think you're reinforcing the point he was originally making. If they're refugees, it's definitely women and children first. What kind of a man leaves his family behind to face Assad or Isis?

kinger101

cells wrote: »

with over 500 million people and an overall EU fertility rate of ~1.6 babies per woman the EU could shrink by 20% per generation.

If a generation is about 30 years the EU could lose 100 million people per generation if there was no inward net migration. Either the fertility rate needs to improve or migration on a large scale is needed or the EU needs to accept the possibly very dire problems that would happened with a 20% fall in population every 30 years.

the uk and france are at the higher end at close to 2 babies per woman

That might be true, but

(a) the UK population has increased in the last 50 years;

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/2013/sty-population-changes.html

(b) wouldn't it be better to have migration from genuine asylum seekers and selected skilled workers rather than some economic migrants of which we know nothing?

(c) also, migration aside, the population does not decrease because birth rate <2.0. It declines when the number of deaths exceed the number of births; the difference between the two numbers either side of the dash on the tombstone is a variable. The key thing though is having sufficient income to the treasury.