20,000

[victor]

Syrians to be housed in the next 4 years ?

so what about re-housing English homeless?

\

[manxie]

Agreed take all our own homeless off the streets first

Manxie xx

[Workingman]

At 5,000 a year it is a gesture by the UK compared to the overall numbers.

I have been pretty clear that we should not take one illegal immigrant or economic migrant or bogus asylum seeker. This country does not want or need them.

However, if we are forced by International pressure to take on a few thousand genuine, and checked to be genuine, asylum sekers we have quite a few mothballed military bases where they can be housed and given healthcare, education and protection. Any genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution would surely gladly accept such accommodation.

What disturbs me about the headlines is the way this is being presented. There is a subtle hint that they will be given 'houses' and somehow allowed to 'jump the queue'. The councils, on the other hand, are said to have found them 'places' to live. The DM and Express need to find out what and where these places actually are before stirring up trouble.

[Suff]

The people who we are choosing are some of the most impacted from the camps in Syria itself. People with horrific injuries and serious psychological problems.

Whilst I agree with the approach, I do know that the NHS is not receiving one extra penny to pay for their treatment. This has a much larger impact than simple housing. You can build a house cheaper than you can treat some of these people and this is totally hidden and nobody is talking about it.

This should be open with the funding allocated to bring them over and treat them visible in the books. Whilst it is not a patch on what Turkey is paying with 3M Syrians in the camps in Turkey, or the slightest sliver of the problem in Syria itself with 24M people displaced, it does need to be open and above board.

I'm also totally in agreement re: the illegals. If they make it to our shores they are sent back to Syria or Turkey and apply like everyone else. That is the ONLY way that this problem will be resolved. There are 10,000 in Calais and growing. The French are ignoring their Legal obligation to these people in the hope that they will, somehow, break the law yet again and make it into the UK.

Personally, were I French and living in Calais, I'd ben inclined to raise a crowdfunding case and take the French Government to the International court for failing these refugees. You can guarantee that the camp would be dismantled and the people moved in a week if that happened. Of course the French have a different approach open to them. Vote for Sarko or Le Pen and the problem will be solved. Sarko burned temp gypsy camps to get them to move on, he's hardly likely to suffer the Jungle.

[Kaz]

It is the French failing them - absolutely!

[cromwell]

I think it's time we withdrew from any sort of international agreement on asylum seekers. Most of them aren't asylum seekers, and the asylum system agreed after WW2 is in no way comparable to the situation we face today. 99% of "asylum seekers" have no intention of returning to their lovely homeland at all; it's just immigration by another name.

[AggersAgain]

I can't see how this business is going to end.

I think it's pretty certain that life in this country will never be the same again.

I can't see how this country will be able to cope with the number of immigrants that will no doubt come here.
Some, of course will be worthy of our help and compassion, but there is bound to be many who will cause untold problems.
We will certainly need to revise our justice system, so that punishments handed out by Courts will act as a real deterrent,
which is certainly not the case at present.

[Workingman]

It is the French failing them - absolutely!

No they're not, it is the application of International Law that is at fault. Once asylum seekers set foot in a land deemed to be safe, Turkey, as defined by the UN, that is where they should seek asylum. The UN, as well as Oxfam, Save the Children, Red Cross/Crescent, Meds sans Frontiers, and so on, should focus all there efforts in camps set up there. The end game, for governments, should be to return the asylum seekers to their homes once hostilities have ceased.

This is not a Eurozone, EU or European problem - it is a Syrian problem.

The Syrian people took up arms against their government in the hope of overthrowing it. We, the West, were not involved. It was IS who brought us to where we are today and it is they who have to be defeated on the ground so that the 'asylum seekers' can return. But can we please stop blaming ourselves, the West, for this débâcle.

We either go in with ultimate force and end this now, or we let the M.E. sort out its own crap.

I would go for option 2 and let them sort it out while cutting them off from International trade, tourism etc.

[Suff]

It's my contention that by not applying the International (and EU for that matter), law and repatriating these illegals to the country they first landed in, that the countries are failing them and causing camps like the Jungle.

We may not be responsible for the cause of the influx but we are responsible for causing the flood by not sending people back to where they came from. If we did that, those who are spending money to illegally cross the EU to try and get to Germany and the UK would not be so keen to do so.

These are NOT true refugees. TRUE refugees do not have functioning mobile accounts, months after they have left their country, able to phone relatives and beg for help in the middle of the ocean when it goes horribly wrong.

The EU, by taking ships just off the shore of Africa and shipping them hundreds of miles to Malta and Itlay, are causing this problem because more and more clamour to pay ever increasing sums to get just off shore in boats overloaded and at risk of their lives. The EU is Causing that risk of life by not returning the boats and occupants to the point of departure.

Yes they are absolutely responsible and they need to live up to it. There is no point in threatening to repeal Le Touquet because they won't do what needs to be done. We'll just bring customs onto the ships and, for British ships, they will not be allowed to board in Calais and for EU ships they won't be allowed to debark at all in the UK. Pretty soon the shipping companies will demand that France does something about it or they'll debunk to Oostende. I certainly remember Calais as a small OLD port in the middle of the town.

Until countries start living up to the treaties they signed instead of vying for votes with the people at the misery of others, instead of giving a false impression by their actions, this mess will never be resolved.

There are hundreds of millions who see the EU and especially the UK, as their salvation. How many do they take before too much is really too much. Then what do they do when "too much" start voting for MP's who want to make "too much" into "too little"?

[Workingman]

We learn today that the UK is to fund the building of, another, 1km long wall in Calais to keep the hordes out. I must be missing something. These people have traipsed thousands of kilometres to get to Calais and the wonks think that another kilometre is going to deter them!

History is littered with examples that physical barriers, be they natural, the Alps, or man-made, Great Wall of china, do not work. The only way to deal with the Jungle is to round up its inhabitants and deport them, and to do it on a daily basis until the message gets across.