Ok-Tap-4824 t1_ir6pph9 wrote on October 5, 2022 at 7:01 PM

Reply to comment by SterlingMNO in UK to seek asylum ban on refugees crossing the English Channel by DavidMalony

Those are emotionally harder, sure. And physically harder -- learning a new language doesn't take much upper body strength.

But in time and effort required? Language learning takes years. During those years, you can't contribute productively in most jobs.

But let's take family -- if someone has family in the UK and speaks English, wouldn't it be much easier to resettle them there than in Greece or Turkey? Particularly if they have no family in those places and don't speak the language.

These asylum seekers don't speak Czech or Finnish. They likely speak Arabic, English and/or French. Why not let them go to safe countries where they can fit in and be productive rather than trapping them in whatever country they touch first?

SterlingMNO t1_ir6qxu1 wrote on October 5, 2022 at 7:08 PM

> But in time and effort required? Language learning takes years. During those years, you can't contribute productively in most jobs.

It doesn't take years, especially when you're already multilingual. That's a lie English speakers tell ourselves because we're largely monolingual.

> But let's take family -- if someone has family in the UK and speaks English, wouldn't it be much easier to resettle them there than in Greece or Turkey? Particularly if they have no family in those places and don't speak the language.

Sure, depending on just how close their familial ties are and what the immigration quota is.

> These asylum seekers don't speak Czech or Finnish. They likely speak Arabic, English and/or French. Why not let them go to safe countries where they can fit in and be productive rather than trapping them in whatever country they touch first?

So your argument is essentially then that all immigrants to Europe go to the UK or France? Purely out of the convenience of language? Do you realise how many immigrants there are coming to Europe?

Language really is a non-factor. Sweden has taken in A LOT of immigrants from the middle east. Guess what? They pretty much all speak Swedish now. Learning a language is not "years of non-productivity". Learning a language is relatively fast when you're surrounded by it and it's your lifeline to prosperity, and when you already know the 3 official languages from your home country..

There are immigrants here since the 70's that still don't speak English, and it's not because it's too hard, it's because they don't want to. There are immigrants here that a year ago didn't speak English, and now they do.

Ok-Tap-4824 t1_ir6s1vd wrote on October 5, 2022 at 7:16 PM

>That's a lie English speakers tell ourselves because we're largely monolingual.

Israel blocks out 5 months of daily language studying for people who just moved there. They still do manual labor, but they're not going to get an office job until they understand the language. So hey, maybe tell Israel that they're doing it wrong, lol.

>Sure, depending on just how close their familial ties are and what the immigration quota is.

Quotas defeat the entire purpose of asylum. In 2020, you would have had virtually no asylum seekers from Ukraine. Today you have millions. A quota makes no sense.

>So your argument is essentially then that all immigrants to Europe go to the UK or France?

Or whatever country works best for them. I see no benefit in making them stay in places where they can't be productive and where they have no family.

As for the number of immigrants, France lets anyone from the EU move there without permission. That means tomorrow 100+ million people could move to France and it'd be perfectly legal. If they're okay with that, I don't see why they'd object at having a couple hundred thousand people who can't go home because they'll be killed.

SterlingMNO t1_ir6u5g1 wrote on October 5, 2022 at 7:29 PM

> Israel blocks out 5 months of daily language studying for people who just moved there. They still do manual labor, but they're not going to get an office job until they understand the language. So hey, maybe tell Israel that they're doing it wrong, lol.

That's fine because most asylum seekers aren't getting office jobs even if they already learn English. That's the fact of it. We've seen that historically first generation largely end up in blue collar work. Asylum seekers generally aren't also classed as skilled workers. That's why they're claiming asylum, not for a work visa.

Asylum seekers do not have the right to work, and Asylum applications even once in-country often take over a year. So that's over a year where you're being supported by the state, given a place to live, money for food, clothes, and opportunities such as language courses. So it really doesn't matter whether they speak English or not.

> Quotas defeat the entire purpose of asylum. In 2020, you would have had virtually no asylum seekers from Ukraine. Today you have millions. A quota makes no sense.

It does, because if we didn't have quotas and just said "come one come all!" our culture, society, public services would look very different right now, and we wouldn't have space for anyone from Ukraine either.

> Or whatever country works best for them. I see no benefit in making them stay in places where they can't be productive and where they have no family.

Okay but what's the point here? You're making the assumption that every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English and nothing else, and has family in the UK, which isn't true. So why are you so bent out of shape? You've beaten this horse enough, in your fairy land where everyone only speaks English and already has family in the UK it makes sense, in reality it doesn't.

> France lets anyone from the EU move there without permission

Well.. Yes.. That is what the EU is, and what every country in the EU has to do.. Notice how Afghanistan, Iraq, Burkina Faso, Somalia are not members of the EU..... Kind of important tidbit.

We already went through this with Polish and Lithuanian immigrants when we had such a large influx. A lot were great, but a lot are still working at car washes cash in hand and equally unproductive/unuseful jobs that benefits no one. The rate of migration from eastern europe was arguably more damaging to eastern europe than it was us. My hometown had Polish ambassadors come over on 3 different occasions to try to tempt Poles back to Poland because they had such a workforce deficit. Not many returned yet there were still 2 bed homes being lived in by 10+ working age eastern europeans doing construction. Clearly there just wasn't, and isn't the space for the same rate of immigration then, let alone now.

You also just can't be an EU citizen, move to France, and say "Benefits, please". You're expected to work, and you can't receive state benefits until you're a worker. If 100 million people moved to France tomorrow, 97 million of them wouldn't find work, and wouldn't be entitled to state benefits, and would have to leave.

If the UK let in 5 million asylum seekers tomorrow, they have no right to work and are state-sponsored from the moment their application is in, meaning they have to be provided a place to live, and money for every day living. After they're granted asylum, whether they can get a job or not, they still receive state benefits.

It's extremely fucking different and it's embarrassing that I've spent this long replying to you and only now realising you don't even understand the basics.

> who can't go home because they'll be killed.

I think you have rosetinted glasses on. This isn't the case for a lot of immigrants, especially ones crossing the channel. There's a difference between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. There's a reason why immigrants from some countries are largely adult men.

The UK already takes on a lot of immigrants, a bigger burden than most EU countries actually. Especially when you factor in that the UK has generally taken a larger percentage of elderly immigrants and child immigrants than the rest of the EU.

If you can't go home because "you'll be killed" - but you make it across the entirety of Europe illegally, to finally get to the English channel, and you then risk the lives of your family to cross the channel because you've deemed it too difficult to learn another language despite your kids likely not speaking English anyway, you lose a lot of sympathy.

You want ALL the migrants to be let into the UK - that's fine. Good luck finding somewhere for them to live, finding the billions to fund their support. The UK really isn't that bad when it comes to asylum seekers (asylum seekers, not immigrants, they're different things), or immigrants, and have taken in a large amount historically too, including when we were in the EU.

I just think you lack any understanding whatsoever of how immigration works and your whole "But 100 million people could move to france tomorrow!" thing really showed it off. It's the same level of ignorance as saying you have a "50/50 chance of winning the lottery, you win or you lose". On the surface it sounds like there's a sliver of truth to it but kick up one grain of sand and you expose the absolute fuckery of it.

Ok-Tap-4824 t1_ir6vkmn wrote on October 5, 2022 at 7:38 PM

>You're making the assumption that every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English and nothing else, and has family in the UK, which isn't true. So why are you so bent out of shape?

I dont think I am. I'm saying that people who flee a country might be logically resettled somewhere that isn't the first safe country they set foot in. I don't see the point in discussing anything further if you're going to attribute things to me that I haven't written.

Nowhere did I say that "every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English." Or anything remotely similar.

If you want to know if thats what I'm assuming, ask. Don't just attribute things to me that I haven't written.

SterlingMNO t1_ir6xp5g wrote on October 5, 2022 at 7:51 PM

> Nowhere did I say that "every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English." Or anything remotely similar.

But that's your only fucking argument that you keep bringing up even after I agreed. If an asylum seeker already has family in the UK and speaks English, I have no problem with their settled status being preferential to the UK rather than them being sent to Finland. But it doesn't matter that I say this because next comment you'll repeat yourself.

> If you want to know if thats what I'm assuming, ask. Don't just attribute things to me that I haven't written.

It's too late for that after the "But 100 million people could move to france tomorrow legally" comment, you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know the difference between an asylum seeker and a working migrant.
You don't know that asylum seekers cannot work and are state-sponsored.
You don't know the rules of the EU.
You don't know that a large number of illegal immigrants across the channel are economic migrants not asylum seekers that left their families back home where they can't return because "they'll be killed" so they can make better money in the UK.
You don't recognise that asylum seekers can't work
You repeat the "BUT WHAT IF THEY SPEAK ENGLISH" line literally 4 times with the same answer each time
You don't understand the need for limits on immigration because EU freedom of movement exists, in the EU, which is largely made up of wealthy countries with similar cultures.

Like I said, if you can find a place for them to live, money to support them, then go and make your case to the government to set up a ferry from Calais. Until then, that's the reason why the number of asylum seekers any country takes in is limited, France included.