As the original documentary laid out this week, one of the biggest motivations for them to get to the UK is that once they have asylum, it's far easier for them to get their dependents (the entire family) to move to the UK legally, for free. In other countries in the EU (Germany and France were mentioned), it can take 2-3 years for this to happen; in the UK it can take weeks.
Indeed, Germany accepts more asylum seekers than any other in Europe. However, here in France, the problem is the bureaucracy involved. It's legendarily slow, inefficient, and painful.
There is little political incentive to change it since our right wing (profoundly anti-immigration) has gained in popularity in recent years. More generally, anytime you'll have to deal with our administration, it will be incredibly painful (for foreigners and locals alike).
Some motivations for travelling on from France to UK (as mentioned in various news media over recent years)
Smugglers telling people that it is better to live in UK (the smuggler then gets to charge for the trip).
Easier to get work without papers
Community of people from same country of origin
More generous welfare provision (UK still gives 'normal' accommodation, other EU countries are re-purposing non-residential buildings to house asylum seekers)
It's essentially psychological, the UK is more popular amongst refugees, and they natively speak english, the 2 other big countries speak either French or German.
I forgot to add: when the application is done, he's legally pinned to the country.
Is that true though ? It seems to be a recurrent theme, both in the press talking about benefit tourism in the UK and from apparently the believes of the immigrant like those desperately trying to cross the Channel tunnel at Calais.
However, I'm a European living in the UK. About all areas I have looked seem to pay less or way less than France, Belgium or northern countries.
For example, unemployment benefits are a fraction of the one in France. State pension is a joke. As soon as you start earning an average salary, child/housing benefit are pretty much inexistent, especially considering that stuff like nurseries cost 3 to 4 times more than equivalent private nurseries in France or Belgium. Public school do not offer facilities for children outside hours and start later and close earlier than on the continent, meaning you need to "go private" for that too while it is free in both France and Belgium. Your workplace rights are laughable: after 8 years my wife would get the same redundancy package than a new starter in the same company in France. The list goes on and on.
What exactly is so amazing about the UK benefits that is worth the trouble compared to staying in France ?
The real stuff that the UK has going for it is that you pay less tax, there are more work opportunities and in big cities, there is less employment discrimination. But that means that immigrant come to work not as benefit leeches as they are picture in the news.
This idea that paying less tax is a good thing boggles the mind.
Do you think tax payer money is just burnt or something?
Paying taxes provide services that maintain the sensible level of social movement and pay differential that has been demonstrated to advance entire societies.
Why do so many people want to be the richest person in a shit-hole?
> This idea that paying less tax is a good thing boggles the mind. Do you think tax payer money is just burnt or something?
Let me rephrase that.
With everything I listed that you don't receive in the UK, this idea that paying less tax than the French is a good thing boggles the mind. Do you think tax payer money is just burnt or something?
edit: OK in case it requires more explanation: I don't mind paying more for more, but if I receive less then at least I want to pay less. And by "I", I don't mean personally receiving more or less. As a middle classer I know that I'm more likely to be a net positive contributor to the tax coffer and I'm ok with that.
Do you think tax payer money is just burnt or something?
No, some small percentage of it is used for "social good" and the rest is wasted or funneled to well connected / powerful political insiders and their cronies.
In my experience the countries with lower tax rates have higher gross salaries and higher net immigration so this argument that low-tax regimes are shitholes seems to break down.
> Is that true though ? It seems to be a recurrent theme
Does it really matter? It's sufficient if many believe it. Apparently I could be wrong, but also you yourself are not taking a clear position if that's the case or not.
You'll probably get downvoted but you are correct. As an Arab it sickens me how these "refugees" are choosing what country to stay in despite the fact they say they escaped war and torture. It saddens me how they are giving us, potential future immigrants with degrees and a desire to be functional parts of society, more bad rep.
Because the law says you can't do that. Well, you might not agree with that certain rule, but note that many do not agree that any form of taxation is fair. Maybe they just want to maximize their chances of a successful rest of life?
> It saddens me how they are giving us, potential future immigrants with degrees and a desire to be functional parts of society, more bad rep.
Does having a degree make you a better person or a more functional part of society? Does not having a degree bring bad rep?
And.
Why do you think these people don't have degrees and can't be functional members of society? Do you think they're stupid because their country was at war? or are they stupid because they have no means to just catch a plane and get a visa?
>Does having a degree make you a better person or a more functional part of society?
I can't answer that. However, I can say that having a degree makes an Syrian immigrant a better person or a more functional part of a Western society.
A degree in the Third World is often associated with education (duh), work ethics and a sense of civility. I know this might sound elitist as heck but what use would a developed country have for someone without any of those qualities?
>Why do you think these people don't have degrees and can't be functional members of society?
Simply because they couldn't even be functional in their own society.
I never said they were stupid but if Third Worlders were so bright, why isn't the Third World developed?
Unfortunate? What's unfortunate to me is that I have to point out why countries like my own are far behind. Like it or not the reason for that regression is people.
Wow. You're going to have a hard time adapting to Europe, unless you only mingle with the elites.
Here is the thing, our values are not "get a degree". Our values are respect, treating and considering each other as equals, help each other, you know, stuff like that.
Unfortunately you seem to be very far from understanding it. Hence why you'll have issues in Europe. You're welcome to come and learn about our values, but be ready to respect everyone equally regardless of their origin, studies or money.
As a refugee one is looking for a better life per definition. Surely the primary goal is to get away from war or threats of violence and death, but if you were starting over, wouldn't you want to start with the best possible odds?
The worst of those odds still beats living in Syria by a long mile believe me. For this particular guy, going for the "best possible odds" definitely doesn't justify the risk he took.
What that statement generally means is that beggars can't generally afford to turn down charity, hoping for others to give something better.
But in this case this is not what we are talking about, but a situation where someone has to decide which country they will try to apply for asylum in, amongst multiple possible options. In that case, they most definitively can choose to some extent, even though the alternatives may have different perceived risk profiles.
And as with everything else, of course some people will choose badly.
But these aren't simply "multiple possible options" that differ only in the final country.
One option, getting asylum as soon as you can, is your right, and the other option - crossing the border with forged documents to get asylum elsewhere - is a crime.
Yes, you may prefer A to B - but if one of them is permitted and the other is not, then there is a big ethical difference, and simply choosing whatever benefits you most is not appropriate.
Yeah, this is a huge misconception. You pretty much need to be able to learn the language to successfully live in a country long term.
Even if you can find a job in English (which is possible, things like startups or video game developers are sometimes in English), you will need the local language to talk to shop keepers, repair men, salespeople, any government worker, etc. Basically all the day to day bullshit errands you need to do are only doable in the local language.
Nordic countries are probably OK with English only since a huge % of the population speaks English. Everywhere else though, no chance. The English speaking % is far too low.
That is precisely the point. Some options are not open to them. Something about having to go through smugglers and secretly cross borders gives that out.
I don't agree with breaking the laws of a host country when coming in as a refugee, but it's important to realize that many refugees had normal lives and were functional parts of their society before war befell them. They aren't just the dregs of society, looking for the next host to scam and rummage before moving on, though your use of "refugees" in scare quotes seems to imply that you don't see them as real people.
For me, the disgusting thing was when the large amounts of immigrants were coming in all together and they were complaining about being in Denmark or wherever. This guy, I mean, in this situation, I guess it's wiser for him to choose -- but the people in the first situation should have just been grateful, not complaining that they don't want to be here in X. The way they expressed it made them come off really poorly, in my opinion.
Are you serious? Do you understand what the situation is in Syria? Why do you deserve to be in a country any more than a refugee? What exactly does your "degree" do to contribute to "functional" society any more than a refugee's job?
I never said I deserve to be in a country more than they do but when someone illegally enters a country and accidents start to happen. Citizens of that country can't help but question immigrants in general and that's all I've said.
I used "refugees" intentionally to refer only to immigrants with solely economic motives not all refugees.
When uneducated immigrants seek social services, I don't look at them in a negative light. Dismissing them just like that, however, comes to me as too elitist.
If it's social services you are after, the UK should be far down the list of places in the EEA to go to. Benefits payments here are laughable compared to large parts of Europe.
I haven't watched the video, but it would more likely be things like already having a basic grasp of English, being more familiar with the culture, etc, that would make integration easier.