UKC

Just been reading a precis of the Mayor of Calais' evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee and it gave me a very different perspective on the French attitude to illegal migrants heading to the UK. It's long been a common attitude here that the French were not pulling their weight and just passing the problem on by expediting people getting to the UK rather than doing anything serious to stop them. But listening to her I can see her town is justified in feeling the victim here. She says they have 2,500 illegal immigrants in town and within that group an unspecified number of gangsters and traffickers. These people, drawn by the UK benefits system, are obviously not welcome there and as far she is concerned they are only in Calais because it is close to the UK and the obvious crossing point. Calais itself is not the attraction. So are we being bad neighbours ? And is she entitled to expect us to do someting to stop causing her problems?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

What puzzles me is that my understanding is that if these people are potentially entering the UK illegally that means that they must have entered Europe(EU) illegally. Why are they being allowed to do so and to continue their journeys to Calais. In that situation surely the French(AND the other nations through which they have passed) also have a responsibility for dealing with them and returning them from whence they came.

In reply to mypyrex:
Well I think there is a duty to claim asylum in whatever country you land in first, which in many of these cases would probably be Italy - which may be why they want to stop picking up overloaded boats in the Med - but that is a slightly different topic. Reading her evidence just made me think maybe we ought to stop saying 'Bloody French' and perhaps accept that the poor residents of Calais may be more entitled to be saying 'Bloody British, this is all their fault'

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Thus far I agree but it's not really the fault of the UK either; so it comes back to the point that they should have been dealt with at the point where they first set foot in Europe. If they are genuine asylum cases then listen to what they have to say wherever they make their landfall or send them back from there.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

What I don't get is, they have entered Europe, they have got all the way to France, past Paris etc. Why is Britain so attractive to them? What's so wrong with being an illegal immigrant in France as apposed to the UK, why pay so much/ take so much more risk just to get one country further? Maybe Britain should work on being less of an attractive final location to them.

In reply to mypyrex:


But doesn't that unfairly put all the responsibility on countries bordering problem areas? Surely EU members should bear the burden of asylum seekers equally.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Then it's an issue for the French Government to provide Calais with the resources to deal with the illegal immigrants in France. As others have said; they are illegal immigrants in the EU, and they should be dealt with by whichever country finds them. They are currently in France. So France should deal with them.

Until the EU adopts a European Border Agency, and deploys centrally-funded resources around the borders of the EU, we'll have to rely on national border protection forces. Which does put a burden on countries closest to the immigrant sources.

Illegal immigrants will always concentrate at points where difficult border crossings (e.g. sea barriers) are actually possible. Which means major transport links, such as Dover/Calais, Brindisi and other ports, etc. Land borders are much easier to cross, since there are no natural barriers (barring mountain ranges...), so there are no natural concentration points.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Many of the reasons they want to come here are the same reasons I like living here. I'd prefer we didn't change those to be totally honest.

jk

In reply to captain paranoia:


Well they did. There was the camp at Sangatte but it closed 'in a bid to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the UK'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6553677.stm

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

£39 per week for an asylum seeker, oh yes how generous is that! HTF does anyone exist on that?

It's a European problem, we need to all a) contribute equally to the costs of containing them where they land (Italy, usually), b) contribute equally to policing the Mediterranean to discourage, catch and prosecute traffickers and c) contribute patrols so that we don't just let the poor f*ckers drown. That is a vile strategy.

Oh yes, and d) do as much as we can as part of the EU to contribute to peacekeeping and development so people don't have the same incentive to emigrate. Yay for the EU.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I think it's because the French government, which is theoretically left, doesn't want to pay the political price of taking a hard line with them. I often wonder myself why they do nothing about the large number of illegal immigrants around Calais, who are there quite openly, not hidden at all. I don't think it is reasonable to expect Britain to reduce its social system to make the country less attractive than the rest of Europe - it would seem a funny way of going about "solving the problem"!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Some of the talk about 'solving problems' - like reducing naval patrols in the Med , so they're out of sight, out of mind - comes perilously close to 'final solutions'.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Very well said.

Another thing. I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder how much of the attraction of Britain is simply that we use English, one of the most commonly understood languages in the world.

Fleeing from your homeland to another country isn't something people do just because they fancy it - it's a huge, frightening thing for most people to move country legally; imagine doing it when the authorities are against you. Speaking and understanding some of the language must make it a lot less terrifying, and make the hope of being able to earn a living after arrival seem much more realistic.

In reply to jon:


But, since Sangatte closed (which, IIRC, was 'controversial'), they obviously haven't provided adequate resources. So maybe the Mayor of Calais should address her concerns to her Government...

In reply to mypyrex:

Many of them will simply throw their passport away and not tell you where they come from.
Also most are basically asylum seekers who risk death and persecution in their own country so they can't always simply be deported, though a high percentage are deported.

In reply to skog:




Exactly I think we are hearing a lot about the pull factor of Europe, but what we have is mostly a push factor because large middle eastern population are being persecuted, terrorised, and killed, a situation Britain helped create, and now the only answer this government has is to basically look away and let those people drown.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not exactly true though, because a "push factor" as you describe would be assuaged as soon as they entered Europe. It appears to be an economic factor that drives/pulls them through Europe to the UK specifically.

In reply to mypyrex:

Its a european problem… and should be dealt with at the European Level, not singling out those countries which border or are close to Asia and Africa.

Its like the US saying mexican immigrants are the responsibility of Arizona and Texan..

In reply to RomTheBear:

Also most are basically asylum seekers who risk death and persecution in their own country so they can't always simply be deported, though a high percentage are deported.

If that was the case, why don't they stay in the first 'safe' country they encounter?
I think very few are asylum seekers and that they try and come to the UK for language and financial reasons.

In reply to FactorXXX:


These aren't mutually exclusive. If I was an asylum seeker fleeing persecution from an African nation and made it to Europe via Italy, I would most likely try to find work in a country where I could speak the language, which for many means the UK is the most attractive option. I doubt that many would be actively seeking benefits, nor particularly bothered if benefits aren't available, as long as they had some confidence in being able to find basic employment, legally or otherwise, to support themselves.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Really? "Most"? I don't know. Any evidence / numbers? Thanks.

Three important questions,

1. What percentage are asylum seekers risking death and persecution where they come from? What percentage are just looking for a better life?

2. Of the asylum seekers risking death and persecution, how many should the UK admit legally?

3. Of those just looking for a better life, how many should the UK admit legally?

I am not answering questions 2 and 3, or implying anything, I am just asking.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


TBH I'd go easy on the peacekeeping, it hasn't exactly gone swimmingly in the Middle East.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

All this talk of French or British or European problems - surely 99% of the issue wouldn't exist if we had fixed Africa? By that I mean (I think- I'm not an expert) stopping using it as a proxy for world rivalries/Cold War surrogate, stop asset stripping and do some proper economic development for the benefit of the people rather than for a small tranch of strongmen seeking to become hyper rich.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I agree with you. Just because they are heading in our direction doesn't make it our issue. Still feel for the people so desperate to live like that, and for the people of Calais who have had their town changed by this. Have to wonder if the French government choose to have the problem on show instead of hidden as it was before.

In reply to IainRUK:

Last time I checked we hadn't made it as far as the United States of Europe.

From a practical point of view we have rules and unless those are changed we should expect those rules to be in use.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Many do, look at how many refugees there are in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, they literally host millions.


what you think and what the evidence tells us is different. The increase in asylum seekers willing to die to cross the Mediterranean is linked to the multiple conflicts in the middle East.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

She wants the UK to change the entire benefits system because the French can't deport a few economic migrants? We'll get right on it.

In reply to mypyrex:

Not quite so simple. Where do they com from? How much to return them? What about the next boat full? The US has been trying this approach for the relatively simple Mexican border for a century and failed in many respects.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I think anyone, including the Mayor of Calais, who thinks our benefits system for immigrant is generous, should be invited to experience it for a bit. Having seen it first hand, I am under no such illusions.

In reply to The New NickB:

How about in comparison to say Italy's? I've no idea but presumably immigrants do. I wod imagine language, an established diaspora for certain groups, and a relatively buoyant economy are all attrations too.

In reply to off-duty:


I'm not convinced. Plenty so remain in other EU countries (look at the issues in Spain and Italy), but I suspect language and colonial ties to Britain will be significant factors.

In reply to The New NickB: Perhaps it's more "generous" than the French benefit system for immigrants, perhaps it's the weather.

In reply to off-duty:


Who said they are going to the UK ? A small percentage goes to the UK but most stay in mainland Europe.
The images of immigrants waiting at Calais might give the impression that illegal immigrants are generally desperate to come to the UK but the fact is that the numbers waiting there are a drop in the ocean compared to those who stay in Greece, Italy or Romania.

In reply to MG:

I suspect the illegal immigrants don't know, but they may well be told that they will receive generous benefits in various countries and get a nasty shock when they get there.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

More stay in France, Italy, Greece etc than come to the UK. Maybe it is the weather.

In reply to The New NickB:

And they're easier to get to, just a geographical fluke.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Yup, there´s about 2,000 a week coming into Munich alone so you don´t find a lot of sympathy down here for the British view. Turkey currently has 1.25 million "visitors" from Syria to look after.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think 'Benefits' are not the sole draw to migrants; I think it's the opportunities that the UK presents as a whole that make people want to come here.

E.g. I read a great article about Poles working in London. Apparently the friendliness of Londoners (!) was a big attraction ('Everyone calls you "mate" here', you don't get that in Germany).

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Having a go at the French is largely irrelevant without attempting to deal with the problem at source. i.e. why the conditions in these people's home countries are so bad they are prepared to save up an absolute fortune, hand it to a bunch of crooks and go on a journey that means they may never see their families again.

If we want to stop it happening then it is going to cost a lot of money but we really ought to be getting on with it. You never seem to see the whole problem being laid out in the media though. Picking people out of the sea and stopping them getting on trains could go on for a very long time...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The "problem" is for the people of Calais, looking after a couple of thousand homeless, moneyless people is a strain on their municipal finances which they can't manage. Do you think they should?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I'd agree with all that. As I said on another thread, I have some sympathy for the French and Italians who've been left to deal with this without a coordinated EU strategy. There are some very uncomfortable decisions that need to be made about external EU border security that are being ducked at the moment. It's a bit of gift to the more unsavory right wing elements in many European countries (including ours) whatever is decided.

It does seem to me that a policy of picking people up in the Med and then taking them to Italy is likely to encourage more people to try. Perhaps they should be picked up and taken back to North Africa but I don't underestimate the political and practical difficulties of being sure about where they came from and getting the local authorities to agree to a first world navy dumping penniless refugees in a third world economy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If you read the rest of my post Bruce you will see what I think about that too - you really should learn to read a whole post before commenting, but hey ho.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I have sympathy for Calais, but not the French as a whole - after all they let them into France in the first place.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

To be precise you said :


Which I quoted in it's entirety to you in my reply. Maybe you dreamt you had said something more but you didn't post it.

In reply to GrahamD:

But there are no border controls around France with it's EU neighbours except for the border with Britain, it is part of the Schengen zone. Britain isn't so there is a control. The Schengen agreement is clearly a major factor in this problem, which is why one (or more?) of the potential candidates for the next Presidential elections in France proposes to do away with it.

In reply to GrahamD:

As Bruce says, they didn't have much choice. The Schengen zone was a good idea for free movement within the EU but it was predicated on effective border controls with non-EU states. There is an obvious weakness on the Eastern borders but I don't think anyone foresaw the numbers of migrants that would be attempting to cross the Mediterranean, which would normally be considered a fairly effective frontier.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
'The Schengen agreement is clearly a major factor in this problem, which is why one (or more?) of the potential candidates for the next Presidential elections in France proposes to do away with it. '

Oh yes that will work. I'm sure that immigrants from, say, Afghanistan will find the hills around Mont Cenis or Modane totally insurmountable barriers.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I know there is little France can actually do about it but, nevertheless, they did let them in. Its unfortunate for Calais but its not really our fault either. The fault, if any, is at the first point of ingress into the EU.

In reply to GrahamD:


i quite agree, the French government itself is responsible, but they are blocked by the weakness of the President and political correctness of his government and many French. Judging by this thread a British government in a similar position would be in much the same position.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Yes, so the reason that they are coming specifically to the UK has got pretty much nothing to do with your "push factor" and is instead down to economic factors.

In reply to The New NickB:


The "push factor" of fleeing war etc, is resolved as soon as they are "safe". The decision as to which country they then choose to try and seek asylum in is down to "pull" like economics, language etc.

In reply to off-duty:

Plenty remain in other EU countries, the UK issue is tiny compared to the entry countries. 'Pull' factors will be complex.

In reply to The New NickB:


I agree that "Pull" factors are complex, my issue was with the suggestion that the drive of migration into the uk was "mostly a push factor because large middle eastern population are being persecuted, terrorised, and killed"

In reply to off-duty:

Of course your Libyan, Syrian, Iraqi exile arrives in say Italy. They have to think what to do next, whilst I expect the majority of Libyans to stay in Italy, other may choose or indeed be encouraged to move on.

In reply to off-duty:

But look at the numbers, the proportion of those trying to get to the UK is very small. I don't think there is a much of a pull as you think there is, there are almost 200,000 illegal immigrants making their way into Europe, every year, and less than 1% of them are stuck in Calais trying to make their way in the UK.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I am not disputing or suggesting the size of the pull.
I am just disagreeing with your suggestion that the cause of immigration into the uk is mostly due to a push to escape war etc.

In reply to off-duty:


The main country of origin is Syria so I would argue that yes most leave because they live in a country at war.

France, Germany and Sweden are taking most of the burden of these new arrivals now, so really we should stop whining and help them a bit.

In reply to off-duty:


This was in reference to migration in the EU.
Of course then these migrants will spread in the EU, and when they do, they disproportionately do not go to the UK.

In reply to marsbar:



Look again.. In terms of immigration it is.

In reply to IainRUK: Yes, and the "rules" say you seek asylum in the first safe country you reach, not the one you fancy most.

In reply to IainRUK:

What are you talking about?

In reply to marsbar:
I'm on about immigrants entering the EU.. Once in its free movement.

It's unfair to expect the med states take the brunt of the costs.

Immigration into the EU is an eu wide problem as once in they move on. Italy can be as anti immigrant as it wants but once in they can just move through Europe, either taking the legal or illegal route..

Do we really want to be like the US where we have millions of undocumented immigrants.. Who will likely never leave, nor pay tax, nor any social security or health care?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I wonder what Blunkett and Sarkozy were thinking when the closed Sangatte to fix the problem? They must have been blind...

In reply to IainRUK:

They are illegal immigrant Iain, on that basis they do not have the rights of free movement that EU citizens have, because they are not EU citizens.

Clearly the numbers in entry countries should be considered on an EU level.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

This is obviously a dirty tricks campaign by the Mayor of Calais, France has more tha twice as many asylum applications as the UK.

In terms of per capita we are 19th out of 32 countries, with France, Germany and Itsaly all well ahead of us in absolute and per capita numbers.

In reply to The New NickB:

But there is no border between most eu nations to stop further spread.. So it's an eu issue..

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's not the rule though, they can apply into a different country if they have stronger connections.

In reply to The New NickB:
Probably not going to be popular what I am going to say but I think France should let these asylum seekers go to the UK so at least they are not staying there desperately trying to cross.

The French have in fact no legal obligation to prevent them from crossing as legally Schengen exit checks do not imply checking whether they are allowed travel in the destination country.

Also France can't do anything with theses people anyway because they don't want to apply for asylum in France, they want to apply in the UK.
I think we should be better off letting them in, apply for asylum, and they from that point on we can decide who is deported and who stays.

In reply to RomTheBear: The French pass them back into Italy, if they make it here via Calais we can pass them back to France http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-a...
Really it's merely a case of a local politician talking bollocks. And anyway, the French should be used to being invaded by now.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


And do you really think they will tell you where they came through or where they are from ?
Anyway the "first country of asylum" principle is only a principle it's not binding, we have a Dublin convention in the EU (we agreed to) which sets out how asylum application should be handled. It does recognise the first country of arrival as the asylum country but also recognises that those who have links with another country can apply there.

Anyway it's irrelevant because you simply can't force people to apply for asylum in France or in Italy if they don't want to.

It think we just need to recognise that this is an EU problem and every country in the EU, including the UK, should take their fair share of the burden, that means accepting our fair share of asylum seekers, and help securing Schengen borders.

In reply to RomTheBear:

We know that the ones in Calais can apply to the safe country they are currently in, your proposal to pass them on to another country to deal with them is silly.

In reply to jon:


At the time both thought the centre at Sangatte attracted immigrants to the area. It was no where near big enough anyway so the overspill created a similar problem to that of today. The conditions there were atrocious, as they are in the woods and hedgerows around Calais today.

Concerning Schengen, Britain was always against it and refused to join so if this treaty causes any problems it's for those who set it up and joined it to resolve, not those who said it was a bad idea from the beginning.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I think you'll find they are supposed to apply in the first country they arrive in. It's in one of those treaties you are always harping on about.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don't think so, there have been a lot of reports on the French TV news about the difficulties local charitable associations are having trying to help these people. Those interviewed, usually while being filmed handing out soup, blankets etc. are really swamped by the demand. Add to that the hygienic conditions they are living in - card-board boxes under hedges, with no water or places to shit etc. and you can imagine the real problem a smallish town has in dealing with them in a humane way.

On the other hand they should be appealing to the French government, not the British IMO.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I agree, the "talking bollocks" was in reference to her blaming the munificent UK benefits system, rather than the inadequacies of the French government in dealing with the issue.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well I think you'll find that it is in fact not the case. Look at Dublin Convention.
Anyway it's pretty much irrelevant as we can't force people to apply for asylum.
The problem with the people in Calais is that they do not want to apply for asylum in France so really there is not much that can be done, legally the only option would be for them to be jailed, but that;s not really a solution as then they would be released eventually.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Don't be daft rom, as far as French law is concerned they are illegal aliens (as they haven't claimed asylum). If they applied French law they'd round them up and send them on their way. But they know perfectly well that they'd immediately claim asylum in France.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

On their way to where ? I'd like to know where you send these people to, they have thrown their passports away (or never had any) and they won't tell anybody where they are from.

The only legal option the French have is to prosecute them and eventually jail them which is clearly not a solution to the problem given that they have to be released at some point.


The problem here is that British law necessitate people to be in the UK to apply for asylum, but obviously does not allow anyone without a visa to enter the country. British law therefore necessitates illegal entry to the UK for almost all those who want to claim asylum, which is frankly a stupid system.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: " usually while being filmed handing out soup, blankets etc. are really swamped by the demand"

Bruce, you should know that you are not allowed to use the word swamp when talking about immigrants, please make an apology and volte-face otherwise i'm not sure how we will all deal with the offence.

In reply to RomTheBear:

That's a problem all immigration agencies face, hardly unique to France.


Why would you jail asylum seekers? As I've pointed out, if the French applied their law they would round up the illegal aliens at which point they would claim asylum.

In reply to RomTheBear:


One of the reasons they throw their passports away is so that they can claim to have come from a war torn country/claim to be asylum seekers rather than economic migrants. It's not so much they "wont" tell anyone where they are from, it's more a case that they lie about it , because they know that they have no case for asylum from their actual country.

In reply to off-duty:

What's your evidence ? Anyway I don't see how that changes anything, there is no solution unless we let those people apply for asylum in the UK, and once they have done so we can choose who stays and who goes back, instead of letting them accumulate in Calais.

In reply to RomTheBear:


1)Experience.

2) Why do you think they hide/destroy their passports - given that we have quite recognised processes for asylum seekers from countries that we recognise as at war etc.

In reply to off-duty:

? What kind of experience ? Are you an illegal immigrant ?


Still I don't see how that solves the problem, what's your solution ?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Never said otherwise, still it makes it impossible to send these people away.


Slightly confused there. What do you mean "round up" ?, how would that make them claim asylum in France ?


TBH the only solution I see to this problem is to let these people claim asylum in the UK and then from that point on decide who goes back and who gets to stay.
The second part of the solution is to secure the Schengen area, if we actually helped the Mediterranean countries to do that it would be a good start.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Dealing with illegal immigrants and having interpreters/border agency etc, saying "This guy says he's from XXX, but he doen't understand XXXX language/he' got an XXXX accent"


I am not suggesting solutions - it is very complex. But the first step to finding a solution is getting a true sense of the problem, which is not that all those who are trying to get into this country are "pushed" by war/civil disorder and that they are all genuine asylum seekers/refugees.

A significant proportion are economic migrants, and/or (if genuine) having escaped their own country have made their way to the UK rather than stay in the countries they travel through.
I suspect that many come due to false impression that life in the UK for them will be milk and honey with free money, free house, free healthcare but the reality is not that good.
(Like most people on this site, I am sure you have had a conversation with someone from a third world country who doen't grasp that just because one weeks wage in the UK = 1 years wage in their country, it doesn't mean that if they come to the UK they will be a millionaire.)

(EDit) - In addition, whilst it is easy to quote facts and figures about total levels of asylum seekers/immigrants etc, and produce statisitics showing how few we actually take compared to other places, this has the effect of patronising those in villages/towns/areas that are, for various reasons, overwhelmed with a concentrated influx, (much like Calais) and have to deal with the very real problems of overload on sanitation, healthcare, housing etc etc. (A patronising effect exploited by UKIP)

In reply to RomTheBear:


No it doesn't, it makes it complicated.


Round up, assemble, gather together the illegal aliens in Calais, very confusing. You said "The only legal option the French have is to prosecute them and eventually jail them", and I pointed out that when you gather them together they will apply for asylum rather than being deported (I'm not sure what you want to prosecute them for).


Tbh, the French could put their house in order before shipping illegal aliens out of France to the UK.


Yes, the EU should definitely work towards that. Rather than some half arsed plan to shunt people out of France because their system is inadequate.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


But don't you understand that these people CAN'T be deported that the reason why the French can't do anything about them. You can put them all in Calais I don't see how that's helping. They can't be deported because they won' tell you their identity unless they get to the UK to claim asylum there.
And yes they can be jailed for immigration offence but this is fairly useless.

In reply to RomTheBear:



It's not useless because at that point they can apply for asylum, in France. Rather than France abdicate responsibility and ship them to another country.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

?? But they already can apply for asylum in France, and many do, it's just that a small proportion of these illegal immigrants do not want to apply for asylum in France and that's exactly why they are in Calais trying to cross the channel.

France doesn't abdicate responsibility, in fact they are doing more than they actually have to by preventing them from trying to cross. It's rather Britain which has the stupid position of saying that these people can't apply for asylum in the UK unless they manage to cross the channel illegally, British asylum law is creating this situation, the French have no choice but to try to deal with the mess the best they can.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Asylum isn't about which country you would like to be in, it's about finding a safe haven because you were unsafe in your native country. France seems pretty safe.


So what is France doing about the illegal aliens in Calais?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Indeed, and many apply for asylum in France, but still you can't force some people to apply for asylum in France if they are not prepared to do it.


What can they do ? Legally their only option is to jail them for staying illegally in the country (some of them do end up jailed) which doesn't fix the problem given that they will be released at some point.

The problem here is that Britain makes it impossible for asylum seekers to claim asylum unless they cross illegally into the UK, which is now creating this situation in Calais.

It would be much better if we'd actually let them claim asylum in the UK, at which point they will reveal their country of origin an identity, and then we can deport them or let them in depending on circumstances.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You think they'd rather be jailed than apply for asylum in France? Come on, it's not that bad in France.


As I've repeatedly pointed out, people will apply for asylum rather than being jailed.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well what's happening in Calais seems to prove otherwise. They keep being arrested, jailed, eventually released. They even built a special immigration prison near Calais in Coquelles for that purpose.

In reply to RomTheBear:


And your solution is to let them come to the UK, where, as you've said, we don't know who they are or where they come from, so we'd have to grant them asylum because we wouldn't know where to send them back to. Thanks, but I think you'll find little support for your plan.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, the UK should let them apply for asylum from France, at which point we would know where they are from and we would known where to send them back to and who we should be keeping.

The problem is that UK law forces them to enter in the UK illegally to claim asylum in the UK, that's why so many are stuck in Calais trying to cross every bloody day. It's really a stupid policy which only contributes to increase illegal, unrecorded immigration to this country and creates a big mess in Calais, and all of this for the sole populist purpose to make immigration figures look lower.

In reply to RomTheBear:

By allowing people to apply for assylum to the UK from outside the UK, I forsee a deluge of assylum applications received from Africa and the Middle East just waiting to be processed. I presume you propose to interview them all ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


In which case they should be turned back at the French border, as you or I would be at the US border if we tried to enter the USA without a visa, or expelled if the police found their papers weren't in order, as you or I would be in the USA too. The problem is that France has decided to stop it's border controls when it entered into the Schengen treaty so has given up control over its own frontiers. No one forced them to, it was a free choice, now they have to assume the consequences.

I realise being French you feel obliged to defend them whatever they do and being a Scottish Nationalist you feel obliged to put the blame for all the world's wrongs on the British government but it does get a bit tiresome, a total lack of objectivity. All the British government is doing is exercising their right to decide who they let into their country - not long ago even French people were asked to show they had enough money on them to stay in Britain for their holiday. Even today if you were an Algerian trying to bring your mother over for a short holiday in France you would be amazed at how complicated it is. But for illegal immigrants once in France they have no solution it seems, maybe they should look at Schengen again?

In reply to RomTheBear:

No, they don't get jailed unless they are violent, they just go back to their cardboard box under a hedge until the next attempt to jump a lorry.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And you judging people on the basis of their nationality is tiresome and frankly just bigoted.
I believe Schengen totally makes sense in mainland Europe, everything is so integrated and so many people cross everyday. The problem is not to have no borders within Schengen is that the Schengen border is so porous.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Wrong, many of them go to an immigration detention centre, or are jailed in Paris for immigration offences, but keeping them in prison for a few months doesn't do much apart from maybe transforming them into criminals.

So yes there is no point for the police to systematically send them to the "parquet" (the French Prosecutor) because there is virtually no point.

Instead of the blaming game between countries what is needed is a coordinated solution, secure Schengen, and put in place the proper legal frameworks to handle asylum requests in a coordinated manner.

And internally in the UK stop having stupid laws that forces people to come here illegally if they want to claim asylum, they should be able to do so remotely and get an answer from where they are, instead of incentivising them to cross illegally to end up in an UK immigration centre waiting for an asylum application which is more likely than not to be rejected, and be deported at the UK's taxpayers expense.

In reply to RomTheBear:



The problem isn't the "stupid law". It's the fact we are an island. In order to claim asylum you need to be able to enter the country.

In reply to off-duty:

>



I don't think this is true.. look at the US immigration issue. The illegal immigrants come here and get little, but there is plenty of work. they will survive their whole life undocumented. They come for the work opportunities. I know many who have been here decades. It's a big risk but once here Immigration don't look for them.

Whereever you have huge discrepancies in the quality of life across a few hundred miles of land or water people will risk it because the gains are so great.. whether there is social security or not.

I think many are quite unaware how easily it is to survive off the radar even in developed countries, even in the US which is very big brother.. in NJ they can't get a driving license but I know some southern states give them out easier so they go down there.. once they have a license they can get the rest.. some banks don't ask questions either.. no tax.. run things through other peoples names..

Many US cities are now 'sanctuary cities', cities where no one asks about immigration status and public funding won't be used to enforce it.. these are often areas of agriculture which rely on undocumented immigrants in their workforce, NJ, California, Maine, Oregon, even some down in TX.. but also the often the more liberal areas.

Many won't enter illegally and then walk up and ask for a benefit as they know they risk being on the next flight home.

In reply to off-duty:

These two sentences do no logically connect but anyway.
It is a stupid law because if pushes people to gather up in Calais and hide where they come from and their identity, to try to enter the UK illegally.
Instead we could get them to apply from France, and if we reject their application the French authorities can easily send them back.

A more sensible solution would be to have a common European asylum system which would be the only asylum route available, and then successful applicants would be directed to their most preferable country depending on quotas negotiated between EU members. But given the current climate around EU and immigration it's not going to happen any time soon.
That would outright eliminate the whole situation in Calais and significantly reduce illegal immigration in the UK

In reply to RomTheBear: "Instead we could get them to apply from France, and if we reject their application the French authorities can easily send them back."

That's a great solution. UK can make it their default option that applicants from Calais/France are rejected as they are already in a safe country and tell the French to send them back whence they came.

That right there " would outright eliminate the whole situation in Calais and significantly reduce illegal immigration in the UK"

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Well that defeats the whole point, if you make the asylum process from France more likely to be rejected than the asylum request from within the UK then you'd be still incentivising people to cross illegally into the UK.

It;s the sensible thing to and it would reduce illegal immigration, the only problem is that the decrease in illegal immigration will be matched by an increased in asylum seeker and hence of the net immigration figure, which is what UK politicians wants to avoid for purely political reasons. The disgusting reality is that they don't care about having lots of illegal immigrants and all the misery their policies are causing as long as the headline figure looks good. It's very sad that it's not possible to have a non-prejudiced, rational, and quiet debate about this in this country.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I judge you on what you post here... your origins come in because your ideas correspond to commonly held ones by people of those countries - for French I've been living in France for 40 years so I know what a certain sort of Frenchie thinks about all things British, like you, and as for the Scottish side we have read your rants about Westminster etc etc for months, it creeps into all you say.

Your basic error is you see the political asylum system as one which is is very close to economic asylum, you think the asylum seeker can pick and choose his new place of residence but in reality it is a system which allows a person whose political activities in a tyrannical country have put his life in danger to obtain a safe haven in the country they manage to flee to, which in the UN texts is the first safe country they arrive in. Overland this will usually mean the neighbouring country, if the escape is by plane it will be where the plane lands. It's not a Cooks travel scheme.

It was meant to help political activists by avoiding them to be sent back to a certain death or prison at least, not just people who decided their country was to dangerous, unpleasant or poor. Clearly the people hanging around Calais are not real political refugees at all, they are economic ones - we've seen enough interviews to be convinced of this... heartbreaking yes but not political - many are barely in their teens, the parents count on them being taken in hand by Britain once they get their, just as the "passers" have promised when they took the family's entire savings in many cases. So by all means argue if you believe it that Britain should have an open door immigration policy and let anyone who's poor and looks nice into Dover but at least have the honesty to admit that this is nothing to do with political asylum.

Having admitted this next tell me how you will persuade a majority of your country men to go along with you rather than voting extreme right at the coming elections. Every decision has it's consequences, just like Schengen.

In reply to RomTheBear:

First it isnt the French that are stopping them crossing, its the UK border control in Calais.

Secondly I don't understand where you get this idea about asylum being a choice. If you are seeking asylum you don't have a choice. You seek it on arrival in the first safe country. That is the rule. Take it or leave it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Clearly you would not accept any such debate, if it were held (very rapidly or the current pace of immigration would make any such discussion irrelevant due to the creation of facts on the ground, or rather further creation of facts on the ground), if the results of it were (as it undoubtedly would be), that the majority of the native British population want no further mass immigration and believe, endless special pleading to the contrary notwithstanding, that such mass immigration has been harmful in all sorts of ways, to the point of threatening the survival of the country.

The only "debate" you would agree to is one with a predetermined conclusion where you are right, what you want to happen is correct, moral and unchallengeable, but where a few people are allowed to let off a bit of steam, then dogmatic left-wing cliches are handed down from on high and dissenters are told what is good for them and not to think such wicked thoughts and the normal SNAFU is resumed, i.e. open borders at least with the EU, which is to all intents and purposes open borders with the world.

People only ever call for "rational debates" when they know they are losing the argument and are desperate either to prolong it indefinitely without a conclusion being reached, while events move on, or else they think they can browbeat and intimidate their opponents with name-calling or veiled threats. Or possibly not so veiled threats.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Where did I even mention Westminster or Scotland here ? Try to have decent arguments instead of attacking me on the fact that I am Scottish and French.





This is all very good and I agree with most of what you said but it's completely disconnected from what I said, and also completely disconnected from the issue.


The problem here is simply that despite most people asking for asylum where they arrive, there is a small minority (a fraction of a percent of those who come to mainland EU) that won't claim asylum anywhere but in the UK, no matter what their reasons are, this is what is causing the issue in Calais, and it needs dealing with in a practical manner.

This does not mean having an "open door" immigration policy, on the contrary it means letting in people that we think should be entitled to come and send the other ones home. Instead our current policy is to let them try to enter the country illegally until they succeed. The current policy just leads us to have less legal immigration and more illegal immigration, which is shooting ourselves in the foot given the huge cost of illegal immigrants compared to legal ones.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
There is a serious point here, which is that the asylum seeker provisions have become massively outdated and unworkable.

They originated after WW II, and were designed to protect people being shunted slowly across Europe in cattle trucks, with little food or water ultimately or rapidly to their deaths in extermination camps. They were never intended to provide tenuous excuses for economic migration on an enormous scale, with gravy trains for publicly funded lawyers as an unwanted side effect.

There is no possible way that Western European countries, especially not the UK and specifically the incredibly crowded England, can provide havens to all those who experience economic hardship, or the lifeboats will certainly sink under the weight of the numbers. Quite apart from the fact that Western economies have nothing like the strength and world dominance they used to, if the teeming masses did arrive, the already chronically shaky economies would collapse under their pressure. Plenty of European economies are already collapsing without it.

Even if the asylum system were not so widely abused, there are far too many entirely genuine refugees from persecution to be accommodated, from Syria, Sri Lanka and from a dozen other troublespots. Even to investigate the myriad claims would be an unsupportable burden, let alone accepting the genuine refugees or the huge numbers of fake ones who find that "political persecution" is a convenient ploy to get what they want.

The age of the British empire really has ended, it is not down to us to sort out all the worlds problems, even if we could which we clearly cannot. Imperial responsibilities in any case require imperial resources, so unless someone is proposing that we re-colonise Africa, the Middle East or other hellholes, the white man's burden truly has to be laid down - we simply can't afford it, have no will to exercise it and throwing lifelines to the struggling, drowning masses would simply drag us in, and not help them at all.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I wonder if you know how this goes? Once in Britain there are no prison camps in Dover Castle, they would be let in and then given a date and a place to present their demand... an invitation for most to fade into the population in a country which has no obligatory ID papers (thank goodness IMO) where they will live in the black economy until they are unlucky. A few years ago they were obliged to stay around Dover which led to a similar sort of problem in Dover to Calais with Kentish AOPs saying a bit the same sort of thing as the inhabitants of Calais are saying now.

I wonder why you appear to totally disregard the legal solution for these people which is to apply for a visa in Paris? An enormous queue of honest people can be seen in front of the embassy at opening times, why wouldn't the do the same? In fact we both know the answer, because there are afraid it would be refused, or perhaps it has been already. If you wanted to go to the USA and your visa was refused - maybe you were a member of the "Communist Party or an affiliated organisation" as they ask on the visa form, would you feel this justified several dozen posts on a forum saying the USA should let you in all the same?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Are you deliberately playing dumb or you just didn't read anything of what I said ?

The point here is not to transfer all the people in Calais to Dover, it's to allow them to make their asylum claim from France so they can either enter the UK legally or be sent home.
I can't undestand why you think it's preferable to let them try to enter illegally until they eventually succeed.

Maybe you should leave your politics aside for a bit and use common sense.

In reply to Simon4:


I think you don't really get it. European economies collapsing has nothing to do with the pressure of people coming from outside. There is just no correlation, historically and regionally, so let knock that one out straight away.

In reply to RomTheBear:


well someone is.


So when they do get refused as economic migrants what do you think would happen?
They say bugger and head off home.
Or they try and enter illegally.

Also how fast do you think those requests would be processed?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Excepy they can't be sent home, because they have thrown away their passports. And who is paying the legal aid for the asylum claims, and the allowances payable while their claims are processed.

And when their claim fails which country will they disappear into - UK or France.

Unless what you are acutally proposing is that - on entry to the EU all illegal immigrants are held in large, walled camps where they are fed and housed whilst their claims are processed.
On failure to receive asylum in their requested EU country they are deported back to their point of entry to the EU.
But I'm guessing you are not.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not deliberately, maybe my best is not good enough for you?

Did you notice the bit where I suggested they follow the legal method, making their request in France along with all the others?

You seem to be more keen on having a knock at the British bureaucrats, of which there are doubtless quite a few, than having a sensible discussion.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


But that's the point they cannot make a request for asylum in the UK in France, because British law does not allow it.
In fact the only way for these people to apply for asylum in the UK is to enter the UK illegally, which IMHO is a dumb policy.


Who talked about bureaucrats ? Bureaucrats have nothing to do with it.

In reply to RomTheBear:



They can apply for asylum in France. They don't have any right to apply in the UK. I don't get why you are so keen for them to apply in the UK. Just because they want to doesn't mean they should.

In reply to off-duty:


Yes they can because if they apply for asylum then they have to reveal where they come from.


What do you suggest ? Put them in s concentration camp and let them starve ?



We deport them in their country of origin.


Well this is what we have, they have huge camps in Greece and Italy with barely human condition.

There is not much we can do about it though.

We will never be able to secure entirely the border and we are not going to let boatful of immigrants drown (like the UK government is suggesting).

(IMHO we would be better of giving them leave to remain so they can actually be productive members of society instead of of expensive prisoners, but that's another debate)


?? Why would they be deported in another place in the EU ? If the asylum claim fails then the next legal action is to remove them from the EU and back to their country of origin.


No indeed I am not I am simply suggesting that we stop this mad system where the minority of people who want asylum exclusively in the UK for reasons X or Y can only do so by trying to cross the channel illegally. It's just plain stupid, doesn't help us because we get a lot more illegal immigrants and certainly doesn't help the French in Calais.

In reply to marsbar:

The vast majority does apply in France or where they are, but there is this relatively small number in Calais we can't do anything about because of UK law, as a result the only option is to let them try to enter illegally until they succeed.
It's just plain stupid, how is that good for us to have more illegal immigrants ?

Most of what I hear on this forum seems to be a lot of whining about asylum seekers but no practical solution to solve the problems.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't prefer anything, I just don't get your obsession with it. It isn't the case and it isn't going to be the case.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The point is that in international law they must apply for political asylum in the first safe country. They can even be returned to a safe country by a later country in the chain if they haven't made their claim in the precedent country:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-a...

So even if they throw their passports away if Britain can show they came from France they can send them back to France. France could then send them back to a previous safe country if they could prove where they had come from... which might be difficult. It's all explained in detail with the references to the appropriate Geneva convention etc. on the link above.

So the attitude of Britain is quite logical as is that of France as what is the point of allowing them on a boat to Britain if they would then be sent straight back at the expense of the French taxpayer? So now that the legal position has been clarified and the objective reasons for the present situation been clarified perhaps you will stop repeating the same inaccurate info?

In reply to RomTheBear:


You really have it in for the British government, don't you? Can't help wondering why you stay in Britain

Have you got a link to when they said "let them drown"? Some tried to cross the Channel not long ago and they were rescued, not left to drown BTW.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Britain is great, it's the UK government that sucks, I did try to get rid of them by voting yes, remember ?


The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations of immigrants boats in the Mediterranean, that's what I was referring to.
So yes as a result of this decision it's pretty much likely that some people will drown.

Their argument was that maybe lives will be lost at first but by removing the "pull factor" more lives should be saved in the end. "Pull factor" my arse as if people would embark on shaky rafts to cross the Mediterranean just for some faint hope of being rescued.

In reply to RomTheBear:
"The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations of immigrants boats in the Mediterranean,"

You really do talk some bollocks.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



What bollocks ? Do you read the news ?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/27/uk-mediterranean-migrant-re...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, precisely. The UK hasn't been mounting stop and search missions in the med and it isn't stopping the missions it isn't carrying out.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Huh ? Where did I say that we were carrying out rescue missions in the med ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations

Hard to stop something that isn't ongoing...

In reply to RomTheBear:



I don't want people drowning either, but you don't help yourself by talking nonsense.

In reply to off-duty:

I was too slow....

In reply to off-duty:


Yes there is an operation ongoing conducted by the Italian navy, and yes the UK decided to stop the rescues by removing its support.

Maybe just read the news before accusing others of saying bollocks...

In reply to marsbar:

What nonsense ? If you don't want people drowning then maybe the UK shouldn't have stopped search and rescues in the med by removing its support for it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


To quote you "The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations of immigrants boats in the Mediterranean". You really do talk some bollocks.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well I didnt say what you say I am staying in this quote so maybe you should just read properly.

The point here is that search and rescue operation will stop because of the UK government withdrawing its support, I never said anywhere thar the UK was carrying those missions itself like you seem to suggest.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I give up. Its all my fault people drown. We should stop all border control immediately. Such a simple solution. I wlll get my people onto it in the morning.

Time to walk the dog. Have fun.

In reply to marsbar:

Well if the only solutions you can think of are letting people drown or letting them all in, yeah I'm giving up too.

Or maybe we could have a sensible debate with sensible solutions ?

Back to the OP it does seem to me that removing the legal conendrum that's creating the situation in Calais , and causing so much illegal immigration in the UK, is a sensible solution. If you have a better one my hears are all open.

In reply to RomTheBear:


There was an Italian operation ongoing, that the Italian government decided to stop funding.
They asked the EU to fund it instead.
The EU said they would fund a reduced version of the operation called Triton.
The EU agreed unanimously.

And it's the UK's fault?


I didn't accuse anyone.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No it wont.
Stop making things up.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It's a quote, it's what you said.


The Italians have said they will carry on with the search and rescue missions. Absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the UK is in support.

So we're back to you talking bollocks.

In reply to off-duty:






Well yes because the UK specifically said that it wouldn't support search and rescue as part of triton.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yeah but i don't read anywhere in this quote that the UK was carrying operations itself like you seem to suggest, hence why I am questioning if you read it properly.

In reply to dissonance:



Well yes it will, the Italian navy will be left doing what they can with the ressources they have.

But there won't be any continuation of the search and rescue operation under the new European framework.

In reply to off-duty:

For ROM everything's the UK's fault! If only the "yes" vote had won the Scottish Navy (Royal or not?) would already be out in the Med saving all and sundry. A squadron would have nipped into Calais and done a Dunkirk style operation taking all the eager immigrants to Scotland, and a few Calaisians if they were half a sleep quite likely... if only, if only....

In reply to RomTheBear:


Have you given up suggesting that the UK are carrying out the operations and that the operations are stopping?

You really do talk some bollocks.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Sorry but if the UK governent takes the decision to not support search and rescue in the med I don't know who else is at fault for taking that position !

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Where did I suggest that in the first place ? I think you just need to read properly instead of making up stuff.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You said "The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations of immigrants boats in the Mediterranean". They are your words (and they're bollocks).

In reply to RomTheBear:


and that is all the UKs fault?
Somehow the UK overruled every other country in Europe?
That would be a first.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes, there is nothing bollocks in that statement, it's what will happen, search and rescue operation in the med will stop.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think you owe everyone reading this thread an irony meter.
Possibly some compensation to the anti-terror police as well who will be wondering what all those explosions were.

In reply to dissonance:




Where did I say it's all the uk's fault ? I'd love to know.

As to the UK position yes only the UK is to blame for its position. Who else will you blame ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


I shall merely quote your words "The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations of immigrants boats in the Mediterranean".

You could just accept you made a mistake, but it's quite amusing if you want to carry on.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Well maybe you should read properly nowhere it says that the UK was carrying out search and rescue in the med.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You could just cast your eye up a few posts.
The point here is that search and rescue operation will stop because of the UK government withdrawing its support
I would suggest if you didnt mean the UK government was responsible for the stopping of, one particular, operation you should write something like.

The point here is that search and rescue operation will stop because of the UK and other governments not supporting it.


The French for not dealing with the asylum seekers claims in the ports they are setting sail from.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes dear, perhaps when you said "The UK government decided to stop search and rescue operations of immigrants boats in the Mediterranean", you meant something else.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I meant exactly what it says, dear. You just seem to want to put your own interpretation on it regardless of how many more details are given to you.

In reply to dissonance:



Well they are responsible, at least partly.

Enough quibble anyway back to the OP I still don't hear any other solution about the people in Calais...

In reply to RomTheBear:

The solution for the people in Calais is (at the the risk of repeating myself and others and bluntly as I'm fed up with this pointless conversation) to claim asylum in France. The French government needs to deal with anyone who doesn't have the right to be in France. This would include anyone who doesn't want to claim asylum in France.

In reply to marsbar:

Its not a pointless conversation at all.

Imagine the UK was a Mediterranean island state like Malta, massively inundated with immigrants wanting to gain entry to the EU…

This is a european wide issue, we should all fit the bill for immigrants trying to enter europe.

In reply to marsbar:

You probably still don't understand the problem here. Many, in fact, most, claim asylum in France. But those in Calais refuse to do so, that's why the French can't do much with them. The only thing they can do is put them in immigration prison, and once they have served their sentence and release they are back to square one. It's not a practical solution.

So I'm still waiting to hear your actual solution, the only ones I see at this point are :
- the UK processes asylum claim from Calais
- the UK makes it known that nobody entering the UK illegally will ever have asylum ( in which case there technically won't be any right to asylum in the UK any longer)
- or we design a proper unified common EU asylum system.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Then surely the answer is to deport them to their original country of departure.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Selfishly, it isn't the UK's problem to solve. The French have a problem in Calais, but it won't be resolved by them whining about the British.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I agree, but it also isn't helped by the less than friendly response the mayor of Calais received from some members at the parliamentary select committee. Some of them seemed barely able to believe that a foreign person was allowed into the building at all, let alone answer in a foreign language.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Do they? How many? Got any proof of that.

PS. I realise you are embarrassed at saying something silly but really, we all do it at times. You said "stop" the operations which clearly implies we were doing them before. You can't stop doing something you aren't doing... Unless you mean the British somehow managed to make the EU stop doing something it wanted to do? In either case it is quite silly. Whatever, the British have enough to do dealing with the seas that surround them, they can't be expected, and IMO shouldn't try, to police the seas 1000 miles away like the Mediterranean.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well yes they do, http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24636868

Germany and France are getting much more asylum seekers than we do.
And those in Calais not seeking asylum in France are a small minority.
There are about 200,000 coming to the EU, every year, and only 1500 stuck in Calais.

That's less than one percent.


Sorry if you are not familiar with the concept of stopping something from happening vs stopping doing something

In reply to mypyrex:

Which you can't do because they won't tell you where they are coming from unless you let them apply for asylum in the UK.

So really only thing they can do is try to convince them or jail them, which they do, but you still end up with a small proportion they can't do much about.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Ah, I see, you meant "preventing". Well Britain must have enormous power over the EU, funny they can't use it to sort out the problem, in Calais!

In reply to RomTheBear:


They don't, to repeat myself, they just leave them to rot in the woods around Calais. Sometimes they take them in for a few hours but then they are released. You haven't been following the French news, have you? If you're really so keen do what I do and buy a satellite dish and a Fransat box, the whole kit costs about £100. You need to buy it in France but there is no "abonnement" just the one off purchase but then you can follow the French news even in Britain.

In reply to IainRUK:



That hits my definition of pointless quite well. We are not Malta. Malta chose to be independent from Britain.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Technically they don't have to prevent those people from leaving Schengen, schengen exit checks do not require to check whether they are allowed to enter the UK or not, it's a job for the UK border.

So really it's the uk's problem as much as France's.

In reply to RomTheBear:

If the French government locked them up then they wouldn't have this issue in Calais. But they would rather pass the problem on to us.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I see, the article which says:

"France is the second biggest destination. But often English-speaking migrants head for the UK, which is home to large communities from Pakistan, Somalia and Middle Eastern countries."

In reply to RomTheBear:



Not really, even if they couldn't be prevented from boarding ships, under Dublin II all we have to do is send them straight back to France.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


We yes because there is no point transferring them all to the parquet given that most will be released or jailed and then released.
To be clear I am not in favour of jailing them, I think we should just find a solution for them but the problem is that they don't want anything else but going to the UK, so the UK needs to remove them all hope to ever get asylum in the UK or let them in.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So effectively the asylum seekers are trying to blackmail the europeans by not revealing where they come from until they get into the country they desire. I fully support the UK govts position on not negotiating with them on this issue as it will open the flood gates (pun intended) to more of the same.

Then when you said this..
"IMHO we would be better of giving them leave to remain so they can actually be productive members of society instead of of expensive prisoners, but that's another debate" you revealed yourself as a bleeding heart liberal do gooder who has no idea, or not given any rational thought to the consequences of their actions but just wants to bask selfishly in their own warm glow of vainglorious smugness.

Fck me, if we gave every immigrant that turned up at Calais indefinite leave of remain on the assumption that they would become productive then Farages party would have every seat in the house of commons nxt parliament. What bubble do you live in?

In reply to RomTheBear:

The UK border is handling its part of the problem relatively effectively. Hence all the people still in Calais.

The problem is not the people in Calais, they are a symptom of a much bigger issue. Dealing with trafficking would be more useful than picking up the pieces.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


At which point they'll board another ship. that's why it's a stupid situation, we need to find a coordinated solution instead of just sending them around border to border.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It shouldn't be too difficult to prevent people getting on a ferry if they haven't got a ticket. And if they make it into the UK undetected they are welcome to claim asylum, just as they can in France.

In reply to RomTheBear:



But, as has already been said and was explained quite clearly in the article I linked Britain, has the right to refuse them entry as they should have asked for asylum in their first safe country. This is indicated again quite clearly in the various international treaties like the Geneva convention which both Britain and France have signed (you still like treaties, don't you?) any ferry company will want to be sure they have right of entry into Britain before taking them on board - something they do more strictly than the customs.

I agree there should be some agreement over the issue but the problem really is the Schengen treaty and the incompetence of the countries in S Europe in policing their frontiers. It would also have helped if Western powers hadn't destabilised countries like Libya and Syria, but that's a different debate.

In reply to marsbar:
I think you need to realize the world has moved on.. It's an EU nation.. Were Malta not in the EU it wouldn't be a destination ..

Some of the comments on this thread are shocking. You can't just lock up illegal immigrants..

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well that's the problem here, somehow we prefer getting these people to enter the UK undetected rather than dealing with them, which is an absurd position, IMHO.

We should be working with French authorities to find a solution for them, or make it clear that they can never claim asylum in the UK if they entered the territory illegally.

In reply to IainRUK:



Of course you can, most EU countries detain illegal immigrants.

In reply to RomTheBear:


We don't prefer it, but the treaties and conventions dictate that states are required to determine asylum claims made by people in their territory. Now my geography is not perfect, but I don't think Calais is part of the UK.


We are working with the French. Hth.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
.


Incompetence ? The Meditaraneean is big, lots of the entry points are small nations... They need help and even then what can you do once you spotted a overfilled boat in the med ? Leave it there until it sinks ?

I think we have to accept that we'll never be able to prevent people from coming in the EU, as long as they are so desperate that they are prepared to die for it.


Can't agree more and that's why I think all the countries have a responsibility here, not only the poor Meditaraneean countries which happen to be the main points of entry.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So what?

A european country still has the death penalty..

In reply to IainRUK:



So what? You said "You can't just lock up illegal immigrants.. ", I merely pointed out that most EU countries can and do detain illegal immigrants.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes they do and can. Problem is it doesn't really solve much.

In reply to IainRUK:

Its far from ideal to lock up illegal immigrants, but it is probably safer than letting them starve, live in unsanitary conditions, or suffocate in lorries. If they are detained, they can be fed and kept healthy.

This is not an ideal situation.

In reply to IainRUK:


Then what do you propose doing to people who break the law? Giving them a fine wouldn't work as they haven't got any money. The only reason they would, possibly, be sent to prison is because they refuse to give their nationality, if they did then they won't go to prison and their case for political asylum could be studied - you can hardly judge whether this is justified without knowing the name of the country, can you?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Not any more.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

assist the french in dealing with it, have an EU level funded response to assist those countries in the med, have royal navy ships out in the med assisting.

In reply to IainRUK:


An EU funded response like Operation TRITON?

In reply to off-duty:

I think its poor we axed support.

You have a very poor view of people..

These immigrants won't becoming here for benefits, most won't even apply for asylum. Syria right now is a hell hole, its citizens want out.. you want to fly them back and say tough…

We have3 options.. provide refuge, do f*ck all, or intervene and make their country better..

The second one is an appalling notion yet many on here seem to prefer it.

In reply to IainRUK:


We didn't axe support. The Itialians asked the EU to take over funding their large scale response. The EU said no - and started a smaller scal EU funded response.


Do I?


Do I?


We do provide refuge. We also provide some subsistence money, healthcare etc. We also fund their legal applications for asylum.
We also attempt to make their home countries better - though whether we actually succeed in doing that is hotly disputed in UKC threads passim.


The question is what responsibility we have for those who are refusing to seek asylum in transit countries and are determined to come to the UK.
One of the main red herrings being that some on this thread appear to think that these consist only of genuine refugees from war torn countries and that none of them are actually economic migrants.

In reply to off-duty:


Triton is a more limited operation of border control only, it will have third of the budget and will not normally carry out search and rescue.

Now the EU members are gambling on the hope that less people will attempt the crossing if we stop search and rescue, but it's quite a gamble. I somehow doubt that most people fleeing atrocities will stop coming just because their chance of rescue has diminished greatly.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I agree it is a sh1tty situation, but ultimately someone has to pay for the rescues and the amount of money that the EU is prepared to allocate is always going to be limited.
How much should we pay - because I'm sure that the potential for costs is unlimited.

In reply to off-duty:



Some are economic migrants, no doubt.
But the large increase in influx is obviously driven by the conflicts, the fact that most refugees are now from Syria reflects that.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Most of the refugees from Calais are from Syria? I thought the majority were African.

In reply to off-duty:



I think at the very least we should have matched what Italy was paying almost alone with its previous operation, now the budget will be only a third of that. There is a big risk that the death toll will increase significantly as a result.

The EU hosts less than 10% of the world refugees, the rest are hosted in developing countries which have a lot less resources than us to deal with it, so yes I think we could do more.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Where do asylum seekers in the UK come from?

The top ten countries of origin are as follows:

Pakistan (3,343), Iran (2,417), Sri Lanka (1,808), Syria (1,669), Eritrea (1,377), Albania (1,326), Bangladesh (1,123), Afghanistan (1,040), India (965), Nigeria (915).

(Source: Home Office Asylum Data Tables January to March 2014)

In reply to off-duty:


I wasn't referring to Calais, we were talking about the med, which is a completely different problem.

What's happening in Calais has little to do with whether the migrant are here for X or Y reasons, in fact it doesn't really matter what they are here for the problem is pretty much the same.

In reply to off-duty:

That's in the UK, weren't we talking about those coming to the EU through the med ? most are Syrians.
Sorry the thread seem to have shifted toward the situation in the med so maybe we are not talking about the same thing.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You may have a point, however the smaller scale operaiton was a unanimous decision of all member countries.


It becomes difficult to judge exactly how much we are doing - given that through various means we supply large amounts of money to these developing countries and to support these refugees.
I think it is unreasonable to expect us to shoulder the full burden of costs for every refugee, everywhere in the world - so then the question is where do we draw the line - your suggestion that we should simply do "more" is an open-ended commitment without a realistic assessment of what we are already doing.

In reply to RomTheBear:

If people are here to seek asylum, and have reason to do so that is totally different from uncooperative economic migrants.

If people refuse to cooperate with what is in place then that is an issue too.

In reply to off-duty:


Indeed, but it doesn't make it right IMHO, I think it reflect EU members politics at the moment, nobody wants to spend too much on anything immigrant related, which is quite sad given our position in the world and the human lives at stake.

I fear that we'll have to have a large disaster in the med before people wake up.

In reply to marsbar:



I agree, but unfortunately they are a problem we can't ignore either way.

In reply to off-duty:
Yes you do.. You said up the thread you think people come for benefits... I just don't think that is the case.

The US has no benefits yet immigrants pour in.. Why? Because they want to live in safety and earn money..

We can't home everyone but we should treat them with dignity, provide safe havens for those from war zones and assist in SaR for the med..

Say we all say to Italy, Malta et al.. Bad luck.. Cope.. They can just allow immigrants in and they'll leave and cross into the rest of Europe..

But we need to pour billions into aid.. I can't see how many on here are anti-immigration and anti-foreign aid..

Just because by luck they were born in a prosperous society..

I don't buy the pull effect of SaR either, I think that's hugely related to ISIS and the ongoing wars in the region.

I disagree with Rom, I think the humanitarian disaster he predicts is happening already.. The Malaysian airlines in Ukraine was news but 10 times that will have died this year alone trying to cross the med. We'll probably see 4-5000 deaths by the end of the year..

In reply to IainRUK:
But don't you think that the more you guarantee that those who embark in rough old boats provided by gangsters in Libya will be picked up and taken to safe havens from which they will be let into the EU (which is what you and ROM are saying or implying) the more will set out? Then as in reality all won't be saved then the increased traffic could lead to more deaths?

On a similar line the more we provide an escape route for the brighter elements in countries racked by conflict, civil-war and general mayhem then the more this is likely to happen? Even if you don't accept that the West was involved in starting the civil war in Syria people living there were, wouldn't they all be better off if they thought a little longer before they took to arms?

You seem to consider that we are responsible for picking up the broken pieces for all the world but don't you think that one day they should look after themselves rather than look for help. Some like China, much of S America countries do, why not encourage self reliance rather than providing a limitless help system for when their countries have all gone wrong?

In reply to IainRUK:

Nope. Fairly confident I haven't suggested that.

I have just disputed the assertion that the edit - major (not primary) driver of migrants who have travelled all the way across various European countries to the UK was escaping war.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


We are hardly picking up up the broken pieces. To put things in perspective, 86% of the world refugees end up in developing countries. The EU and the US, despite being the two richest powers, are in fact taking only a small share of the burden.

I agree that we can't give limitless help but we are very far from even taking our fair share of the burden. And that's even before taking into account that we have at the very least some responsibility in destabilising many of the countries these people come from.

In reply to RomTheBear:

But you are not being honest here as obviously the mass movements of refugees will be on foot or local traffic just out of range of the immediate danger but in the same region, where often the language will be the same or similar of where the culture will be similar. The hope being to move back once the cause of the danger has gone away. Millions of Afghans went to Pakistan, others from the West of the country went to Iran. All these millions will necessarily outweigh by far the usually elite families who took a plane to Europe or the USA - comparing the two categories is dishonest when you say the rich countries are not taking their share. In WW2 there were mass movements within Europe, few flew to Africa or Asia, and why would they? Sometimes your use of statistics is less than reasonable.

In reply to off-duty:
Here...

In reply to IainRUK:


This what they are promised by the human traffickers when they are handing over their life's savings. There have been numerous documentaries on the subject.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not if they are illegal and they know it..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No I think you are just routinely misinterpreting what I said. Of course geographical factors are the reason but it doesn't detract from the fact that we are rather in a privileged position and we have to recognise that.
we are far from being over generous, relatively small numbers of refugees actually come to Europe compared to what less rich countries have to deal with.
IMO we have no justification for letting them drown in the med or make life for them impossible once in the EU other than selfishness.

In reply to IainRUK:


If you are claiming asylum then whilst your application is processed you recieve some free money, free housing, healthcare etc

In reply to RomTheBear:



It's not surprising thay the vast majority of refugees end up in neighnouring countries which are also poor/developing. I'm not sure there is much we can do to prevent that - geography being fairly immutable.

I'm not entirely convinced that the entire financial weight of that 86% falls on the hosting country though, presumably you have seen the numerous aid agencies and NGO's that appear to be involved in establishing refugee camps etc, in addition huge amounts of money are sent from the UK. Eg Syrian refugees receiving 700 million from the UK.

In reply to off-duty:


That's true, I am not denying that. But it puts things in perspective that we don't actually have so many of them coming to Europe, and even more so to the UK, being on a island and out of Schengen. So really I think we are in a privileged position here and shouldn't be whining too much.

In reply to IainRUK:


Yes, the crook sur don't deal with légal immigants!

In reply to RomTheBear:

"So really I think we are in a privileged position here and shouldn't be whining too much."

Rom, your argument is so muddled...I think you are suffereing from cognitive dissonance

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Huh ? Please explain why.

I don't see how pointing out that the UK is in fact relatively sheltered from refugees influx is somehow a muddled argument. Certainly beats having none anyway.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You say we shouldn't be whining too much from our priviledged position, but the only person I see whining about it is you. Hence my post.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

You're just making up stuff, I don't think I have been whining about too many asylum seekers coming to the EU. My point is that despite the EU taking relatively few of them many still complain about too many coming in. I think they just need to put things in perspective.

In reply to RomTheBear:

With that perspective being - why whine about making wholesale changes to UK law and procedures to cater for failures in French policy in dealing with, as you say, a very small number of people stuck in Calais.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Do they?
Or are you confusing asylum seekers with economic migrants?

In reply to RomTheBear:

I thought you were whining about the status quo, the fact that hordes of immigrants at Calais unable to get to the UK because we won't let them in and them withholding info until they get to the UK, the Italians scaling down their search and rescue in the Med and the fact you think the UK should open the borders and (in your opinion) allow indefinite leave to reamain.

Mostly everyone else is saying "ho hum, situation isn't great...but current situation the UK govt is adopting is probably sensible" and just reacting to your wild claims and whines of "it's not fair"

Then you have the audacity to claim that we are whining from our priviledged position of being an Island outside of schengen. We.are.not.whining.

Hence my post about your muddled argument

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



No I simply disagree that the UK position is sensible.
Our policy just increases illegal immigration and results in people being stuck in Calais. makes no sense to me.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Peole aren't stuck in Calais due to our policy, which is pretty much identical to every other European country.

It is due to being an island.

In reply to off-duty:

Of course it's not..

There's many European islands without this issue

In reply to IainRUK:



And do they have policies regarding asylum seekers that are different from the UK's ?

In reply to off-duty:


no they come for opportunity, to work..

In reply to IainRUK:


So, if these "many European islands" have the same policy as the UK, then clearly the problem at Calais is not a UK immigration policy problem.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm not sure why you need quotation marks…

It's a european level issue.. we can leave countries like Malta to fend for themselves, then what happens when they just grant asylum enmasse..they will then become EU citizens and move to the jobs..

In reply to IainRUK:



I'm not sure who is suggesting that Malta (or other countries) fend for themselves.

Other than the French obviously, who seem to consider that the problem in Calais is a problem for the UK to sort out themselves.
Or those that appear to heaping the blame solely on the UK for failing to deal with the problems at the Italian border of Europe.

In reply to IainRUK:

If asylum is granted. Economic migrants are unlikely to gain asylum. During the asylum process you can't leave the country you applied to. You then get 5 years refugee status if you are lucky. Another year before you get citizenship and free movement.

In reply to off-duty:

I mentioned that Malta chose independence.

In reply to marsbar:

Well they'll go another route…

The immigration crisis is more than Just france/UK..

There's huge issues right now world wide because you have very rich areas, like the US and Europe, right next door to very poor/dangerous areas like central america and the middle east/north africa.

There's naturally a push/pull effect and people wanting in.

In the US it's quite probable now that a huge number of visa's may be given out to the 'undocumented' who have been living and working here for generations.

Those countries in Europe could do similar.

If migrants make it here illegally they can claim asylum and get what? £30-40 a week and risk getting deported, or just work illegally, earn much more, and stay there.

TBH the calais immigrants are sod all.. 2500 people.. the med issue is much more worrying, 10,000's dead in recent years trying to cross..

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Just came across this article, apparently France has decided to build a new day-centre for these potential migrants in Calais, although not everybody agrees, from the Front National to humanitarian associations who take care of immigrants:

http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/migrants-a-calais-cazeneuve-change-d-avi...

For those who blame both governments for not getting together, here's a translation by auto-translate of the last paragraph:

"September 2014: agreement between France and the United Kingdom. The two countries signed an agreement on " management of migratory pressure 'in Calais. This agreement provides a British contribution of € 15 million over three years for "safe harbor" . According to the prefecture of Pas-de-Calais, 2 200 and 2 300 migrants, mostly from Sudan and Eritrea, are currently in and around Calais, against 1,500 at the end of the summer."

15 million Euros from Britain isn't too bad, or is it?