Calais

[TheArtfulDogger]

I am confused by the situation in Calais and the migration camps of people wanting to come to the UK to claim asylum or to be illegal immigrants.

Whilst the people in the camps obviously didn't originate in France, surely France should be applying the Dublin Regulation to get them processed by the appropriate member state in Europe and thus out of the shantytowns that have built up around the port and into a better life?

I sympathise with anyone who has been dealt a hard blow in life and need to seek asylum, but I fail to understand why they want to claim the UK as their point of entry rather than the first country they arrive in. Surely the rumours that the streets of London are paved in Gold has been disproved by now!

Interested in other people's views on what could be perceived as misuse of the Dublin Regulation by EU member states.

"The Dublin Regulation stipulates that the criteria for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application are to be applied in the following order:

Family unity. The first three criteria for determining responsibility (Articles 8 through 11 in Dublin III; Articles 6 through 8 in Dublin II) prioritise family unity and the welfare of unaccompanied minors. Asylum seekers who have family members with recognised refugee status or who are in the process of applying for asylum will have their claims deter- mined in the state where their nuclear family members are located. Where an unaccompanied minor has family present in another Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining his or her claim (but only when in the best interests of the minor).

Legal residence or visas. In cases where no family is present, asylum seekers with a valid (or recently expired) resi- dence document or visa will have their claims assessed by the Member State that issued the documentation (Articles 12 and 14 in Dublin III; Article 9 in Dublin II).

Illegal entry. If none of the above criteria applies, applicants without residence documents or family present who have illegally transited through another Member State when entering the territory of the European Union are the responsibility of the first Member State in which they arrived (Article 13 in Dublin III; Article 10 in Dublin II).

Place of application. Finally, where none of the above criteria applies, responsibility lies with the first Member State in which the applicant filed a claim of asylum (Article 13 in Dublin II)."

Source: Council of the European Union, ?Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?; European Union, ?Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013?.

[KalamityKel]

I'm also very much confused

"Border security is being stepped up in northern France and Dover after migrants desperate to reach the UK tried to exploit ferry strike action."

and

"UK blamed

Tuesday's industrial action by French ferry workers led to the suspension of trains through the Channel Tunnel between the UK and France.

Hundreds of migrants tried to board slow-moving UK-bound lorries amid the chaos." (Both quoting BBC News reports)

Especially ^^^ that one. What?!

[Jeremy]

The Mayor of Calais thinks it's because of our benefits system, lack of ID cards, and ease of finding cash-in-hand work. She also thinks that we should open our borders and scrap border checks...

[Parkdrive]

The Mayor of Calais thinks it's because of our benefits system, lack of ID cards, and ease of finding cash-in-hand work.

And she's not too far from the truth. If not why do asylum seekers, genuine or not, immigrants, genuine or not, seem to have the UK as their preferred European destination.

[miga]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Mayor of Calais thinks it's because of our

> benefits system, lack of ID cards, and ease of

> finding cash-in-hand work. She also thinks that we

> should open our borders and scrap border checks...

What he said (failure to deal with illegal immigrants, black/grey economy) + once you're in, family visas are easier to come by than some other EU member states.

But good question - I'd also been wondering why the UK seemed so relatively attractive, given that it's more difficult to get to than Germany or France.

[miga]

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And she's not too far from the truth. If not why

> do asylum seekers, genuine or not, immigrants,

> genuine or not, seem to have the UK as their

> preferred European destination.

Not sure it's *the* preferred destination - but it is *one of* the preferred destinations.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_77922434_where_applicants_go_20140916_624.gif

Also - I wouldn't equate asylum seeker with immigrant.

Also - as an immigrant, I'm not sure what would make me a "genuine" immigrant, other than the choice I made to live somewhere else.

[david_carnell]

Well it's tricky isn't it? And more nuanced than the Mayor of Calais or the media depictions suggest.

Firstly, we are an island at the Western edge of Europe so theoretically no one would have the UK as their entry point unless they flew in (unlikely). So to take any sort of "share" across the EU some will have to cross from another EU nation into the UK. And for logisitical reasons that's going to be France.

Secondly, try putting yourself in the shoes of these people for just a minute. Regardless of their status, economic migrant or asylum seeker, they will want to go to a country that contains a decent sized diaspora of their own people. You would too. It's why Brits tend to concentrate in villages in the Costas and the Dordogne and not the Balkans.

Thirdly, the numbers we are looking at here are actually miniscule. Do you know what the displacement of refugees is just from Syria alone? Over 3 million have fled since that conflict began! Most have gone to neighbouring countries and if you think this is a "swarm" or a "flood" or any other pejorative term then check out the camps in Jordan or Turkey or Lebanon. That's just Syria. Now look at displacement from Iraq or Afghanistan that we directly had a hand in. Or in sub-Saharan Africa that we are talking about cutting aid budgets too. Those on tv jumping on trucks are a drop in the ocean not some biblical plague pouring into the country as some would depict them.

Finally, perhaps, the UK is seen as bastion for all that is good. Justice, humanity, the rule of law, a good quality of life, a meritocracy that looks past skin colour, tribal alligiance, religious persuasion or any other characteristic that could get you killed elsewhere in the world. We should be proud of those things, protect them and as one of the richest economies in the world do what we can to shelter those who make arduous, and in some cases fatal, journeys to our shores.

[steveo]

And often English is their second language

[Jeremy]

Yep. I think people are often drawn to the UK when they have contacts or community ties here, and hope they will help them settle in and find work, etc. Also the perception of fair treatment and tolerance. And if they can already speak a smidgen of English, then that's another good reason.

[Louisa]

I blame the French. These people have travelled across land and sea (in some cases) to get to safety, why are the French not processing them and providing them with housing? It's an absolute disgrace that a western country like France is allowing people to live in tents right on the edge of Calais. I don't see the EU raising this with them?

Louisa.

[david_carnell]

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And often English is their second language

Well that's often a legacy of our colonial past as much as American movies and the BBC.

French speaking Africans would naturally head to France and stay there rather than make the journey.

[Earl Aelfheah]

david_carnell is spot on. Also, our history and cultural reach - the fact that we once colonised much of the globe means that many people have some sort of link to the UK and / or speak English.

[Blah Blah]

Louisa, the French do have plenty of immigrant settlers of their own, mainly from French speaking North African countries. They were a colonial empire too in the past. The French did close those camps at one point and it made not a jot of difference. If people are determined to get to the UK through France, only imprisonment will stop them, and we don't want to go down that road.

We are born where we are by accident of birth. The distribution of wealth, faireness etc is controlled by a cartel of a few richer nations. When we sort out that out, we might just create a world where every country has an economy that stops people wanting to flee to somewhere else in the first place.

[Louisa]

I get your point blah blah, but the French could at least build a camp with caravans/temporary build huts with sanitation etc yes more people would come, but the French can relocate these people in other regions, it's not that difficult. They just want to pass the buck onto the UK.

Louisa.

[miga]

France processes twice as many asylum seekers as the UK.

[Louisa]

Exactly, so they want to pass the "problem" onto another state. It's wrong. These people are already in France, they should be providing them with basic sanitation and care. Leaving them in tents like this is just a disgrace.

Louisa.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... the other factor in this, is that as a nation, we have played a role in the events which have destablised some of the countries from which people are fleeing. That puts no small responsibility on us to help them.

[Blah Blah]

Agreed rahrah and if ISIS make progress we can expect increasing refugees for some time to come.

It's not as simple as that Louisa. Remember Sangatte? These people don't want to stay in France. That's the hard thing to resolve.

[miga]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly, so they want to pass the "problem" onto

> another state. It's wrong. These people are

> already in France, they should be providing them

> with basic sanitation and care. Leaving them in

> tents like this is just a disgrace.

Ah OK - so you think the French, who process twice as many asylum seekers as the UK, deliberately want to pass the problem to the UK. Interesting.

[Louisa]

Of course they do! Any nation state which has refugee's and asylum seeker's inside their borders should be providing basic care and human rights, whatever country that may be. The whole school playground argument of "we've got twice as many as you so nah nah" it's just plain childish cat and mouse politics. It seems the French are washing their hands of the migrants within their borders who wish to go to another country.

"Not my problem guv" - I think you'll find it is Monsieur Mayor of Calais.

Louisa.

[miga]

You're second guessing motivations that may or may not be there, with no evidence. Those people in Calais *want* to get to the UK. By your standards, for the French to show intent to deal with their own asylum seekers, they need to round up the immigrants in Calais and process them somewhere else. (Let's not get into historical precedents for people being trucked around Europe to processing centres). By simple logic, though, the fact they already take many more refugees/asylum seekers is enough to show that, at least relatively to us, they do plenty.

In fact it is the UK where recently the tone of the public debate on immigration and refugees has shifted into "not my problem guv" territory (see Theresa May on the Med crisis, UKIP's calls to cut foreign aid, Cameron's and Miliband's commitment on stronger immigration controls).

Please absorb what I have argued here before you snap back.

[Louisa]

I think that the tone of the debate is much more polarised in France than it is here. The rise in support for Marine Le Pen and Front Nationale gives an indication as to why visible media attention brought to a high profile case such as Calais, motivates some in French politics to turn their heads and scrub their shoulders.

However, I do agree that all EU states must take their fair share of asylum seekers and refugees. It seems a shame that this country turned its back on the Italian's by not offering to take at least a proportion of those migrants who were rescued in the med.

Louisa.