Channel Tunnel: '2,000 migrants' tried to enter

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I dont doubt that thousands of immigrants are living in shanty camps in and around the Calais area

Yes, and all choosing to do so because they do not wish to claim asylum in the safe country they are in.
They are no longer fleeing death, oppression, or violence as an asylum seeker is, they are safe, in France.

The UK has no obligation to assist people who are in a safe country and able to claim asylum in that safe country.
If they choose not to and wish to illegally enter the UK while hanging around in France then it is right that the UK protects its border.

what i doubt is the "2000 immigrants storm Calais" nonsense.

Well, there are 3000-5000 of them hanging around the tunnel with the sole purpose of entering the UK illegally.
...and over 30,000 attempts have been stopped so far this year, so there is obviously a problem, and I'm glad the UK is attempting to secure our border with France.

The people are safe in France so they are no longer fleeing oppression, just deciding to choose which safe nation they want to live in. That ain't an option under international conventions.

You wonder why they gather in groups of 3-5000?..it's for protection. They are beaten black and blue, stabbed and racially abused on a daily basis, not only in France, but in most countries in Europe they suffer.

Russia is a big no no for them. Call that safe.? They have fled oppression only to be kicked from pillar to post wherever they go.

They actually believe the UK to be one of the more welcoming countries in Europe, though running through this thread i dont know where the hell they got that bat# crazy idea from.

As Human Beings we have a duty of care for fellow Human beings in peril. If you saw a person drowning. would you ask what country he/she was from before you tried to help? No, you would help because it's the Right thing to do as a Human being..
I see no difference here. These people are drowning and need assistance now, not asked to tread water until the paperwork has been checked over and permission to be rescued granted.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

There are still folk who think that way, although they are the minority.
We don't need any extra migrant workers, the Eastern nations of the EU filled that gap well enough.

And for the record I actually do support asylum/refugee legislation and the obligations of the UK to adhere to it.
The conventions do not require us to take migrants from a safe nation such as France though, so I absolutely support increased defence of our border.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Take your bleeding heart to the UN solo, start a campaign or something, I'll ignore it.
Right now France is not the oppressive/dangerous nation they fled from and the UK has no obligation to take migrants from France or any other safe nation of the EU.

They want to come here because they speak English as a second language. Your post is mostly silly hyperbole.

*Edit*
Again, if they want assistance as an asylum seeker all they have to do is claim that asylum status in France. They choose to live 'off grid' in shanty camps in France to illegally enter the UK by choosing not to claim asylum there.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Many of these immigrants are coming from former French Colonies i.e Syria, and Italian Colonies i.e Libya. So where is The French and Italian responsibility for their former subjects?

They don't want to know is the answer. Just move the problem on toward The U.K.

There is an anger building up in Britain, I can see it exploding very soon and it wont be nice. As I said before once the army is called in its a slippy slope that will end in deaths, and having read the comment on many web sites a lot of people would be happy about it."When the government stops listening to the people then its time for the people to rebel"

a reply to: imod02

Most of the anger is at the French government not really making much of an effort to stop these migrants from trying to enter the UK illegally.
I don't see the revolution style things you imply, just calls to defend our border.
That is sensible.

a reply to: grainofsand

Hmmm, it seems you are solving the problem the wrong way around.

See, there are not wanted immigrants coming to Europe from every possible angle out of the south.
Italy and Greece are flooded.

IF we are a community of Europeans, we should each accept our share of responsibilities - which, to the disadvantage of other countries, the UK doesn't seem to want to.

Who blocked the EU on 20 july? Hungary. And the UK. Edit: oh, and Austria.

Accepted numbers of immigrants into these countries:

Austria
0
Belgium
1 364
Bulgaria
450
Croatia
400
Cyprus
173
Czech Republic
1 100
Estonia
130
Finland
792
France
6752
Germany
10 500
Hungary
0
Ireland1
600
Latvia
200
Lithuania
255
Luxembourg
320
Malta
60
Netherlands
2 047
Poland
1 100
Portugal
1 309
Romania
1 705
Slovakia
100
Slovenia
230
Spain
1 300
Sweden
1 369

Source

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Many of these immigrants are coming from former French Colonies i.e Syria, and Italian Colonies i.e Libya. So where is The French and Italian responsibility for their former subjects?

They don't want to know is the answer. Just move the problem on toward The U.K.

You are ignoring the fact we sent hundreds of millions of British ££££ to help destabilize those countries making us complicit and duty bound to fix the problem and help those people.

a reply to: alldaylong

Most them actually come from much further afield - Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and sub-Saharan African countries like Nigeria, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Despite what some of the bleeding hearts on this thread might have you believe, none of them are that bad - these people are simply heading to UK in the hope of a house, an education and work. I'm sorry, but none of these reasons are good enough just to open the doors and let them in - I can't go to the US simply because I fancy the California lifestyle unless I meet the criteria for immigration.

However, those who are coming from Syria or Libya should be given refugee status and all EU countries should shoulder the burden. Those who are economic migrants should be sent back. And we should stop rescuing them in the Med and bringing them into the EU.

I make the distinction between genuine refugees and those who are not. Sadly, not everyone does hence why we have the disjointed response from the Government, as they do not want to be seen to do anything to upset anyone.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

You're ignoring the fact that Ed Miliband and The Labour Party put a halt to Cameron and The Tories desire to get involved in Syria.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
IF we are a community of Europeans, we should each accept our share of responsibilities - which, to the disadvantage of other countries, the UK doesn't seem to want to.

There is no EU or UN regulation, law, treaty or convention requiring the UK to take people who wish to leave a safe country such as France.
...and yep, I'm voting out of the EU in the upcoming UK referendum, and I support strong protection of the UK border.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
IF we are a community of Europeans, we should each accept our share of responsibilities - which, to the disadvantage of other countries, the UK doesn't seem to want to.

There is no EU or UN regulation, law, treaty or convention requiring the UK to take people who wish to leave a safe country such as France.

... -rest of your comment removed by me. You won't make friends with that attitude outside the UK, believe me.

Well, the EU tried to bring a fair allocation on its way, but the UK didn't want to partake. Therefore, you are right.
But you are not correct.

Because it is not fair. Greece? Italy? Should they be the only countries having to deal with the immigrants from Africa?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Because it is not fair. Greece? Italy? Should they be the only countries having to deal with the immigrants from Africa

I am pleased that you used the word " immigrants", because they are exactly that.

These people are not " refugees", which in an entirely different thing altogether. They are economic migrants, looking to make money and receive handouts.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

I'm voting to leave the EU, start a thread about it if you like and I might contribute my thoughts.
I won't derail this thread by discussing my reasons for wanting to leave the EU though.

The migrants in France are in a safe country and can claim asylum instead of living in a shanty camp.
The UK is following the international conventions and lawfully protecting its border.

It seems we can't say 'Swarms of people' now.

This is what 'cameron' described the groups trying to get through the tunnel... 'A swarm of people' but guess what? The PC brigade and members of the UN are questioning 'Cameron's' use of the word 'Swarm'.

What is wrong with saying 'swarm' of people?

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I dont doubt that thousands of immigrants are living in shanty camps in and around the Calais area

Yes, and all choosing to do so because they do not wish to claim asylum in the safe country they are in.
They are no longer fleeing death, oppression, or violence as an asylum seeker is, they are safe, in France.

The UK has no obligation to assist people who are in a safe country and able to claim asylum in that safe country.
If they choose not to and wish to illegally enter the UK while hanging around in France then it is right that the UK protects its border.

what i doubt is the "2000 immigrants storm Calais" nonsense.

Well, there are 3000-5000 of them hanging around the tunnel with the sole purpose of entering the UK illegally.
...and over 30,000 attempts have been stopped so far this year, so there is obviously a problem, and I'm glad the UK is attempting to secure our border with France.

The people are safe in France so they are no longer fleeing oppression, just deciding to choose which safe nation they want to live in. That ain't an option under international conventions.

You wonder why they gather in groups of 3-5000?..it's for protection. They are beaten black and blue, stabbed and racially abused on a daily basis, not only in France, but in most countries in Europe they suffer.

Russia is a big no no for them. Call that safe.? They have fled oppression only to be kicked from pillar to post wherever they go.

They actually believe the UK to be one of the more welcoming countries in Europe, though running through this thread i dont know where the hell they got that bat# crazy idea from.

As Human Beings we have a duty of care for fellow Human beings in peril. If you saw a person drowning. would you ask what country he/she was from before you tried to help? No, you would help because it's the Right thing to do as a Human being..
I see no difference here. These people are drowning and need assistance now, not asked to tread water until the paperwork has been checked over and permission to be rescued granted.

Then why dont you give them all your money and invite a few dozen to squat in your house?


Put your money were your mouth is.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunterIt's got nothing to do with Hitler. That was a total different thing, don't drag it in here.

Oh, but it is NOT a totally different thing at all: it's what all populists do. They seek out a group of people and blame everything on these people. You do the very same thing: you point to all Muslims and say "they aren't welcome here".

Britain is Britain and has a predominately Judeo Christian heritage.

The Pope would probably not agree with you there But apart from that: the Muslim faith is based on the Judeo Christian heritage too. So, I fail to see why you are worried. Also, Britain has been a non-secular state since a very long time, so it is quite irrelevant what faith one has - as long as one upholds British Law. British Law does not allow murder, stabbing innocent truck drivers with knives, beheading folks and driving at the right side of the road, to name but a few things that SOME Muslims do (and even more non-Muslims do).

What is wrong with wanting to maintain our way of life without being swamped by Muslims that have taken over ALL of north africa, ALL of the middle east and much of asia?

Nothing at all. So, if that way of life is so much better, let the poor bastards in and show them that the British way of living is the better way. Also, most Africans that come to Britain love the country - and it's culture - they almost literally die to get in there. I can't imagine you would do the same to go to say Libya or Iran, would you? Why not: well, because you don't like these countries. Why would they be anything else?

I like Britain the way it is, we are setting a time bomb if we let Islam get to something like 33% of the population. Don't you see it? Are you blind to what happens to countries with sizeable muslim minorities. Do you not see a historical trend?

I do: what I see is that there always has been a battle between all kinds of religions. The State therefore decided to be a non-secular state. And that is how it will remain, unless 51 percent or more of the Brits decide otherwisely. Such is democracy.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Nothing, in my opinion, but the bleeding hearts will use any tactic to call into question anything which might "deny" these people their "human rights" and therefore cripple any attempt to have any kind of debate on the issue - much like they have done for years anytime anyone brings up the topic of immigration.

It's an old, tired, overused tactic.

Just a question coming to my mind: is there a conspiracy here that all MSM are starting to call these people "migrants" (in other languages too)? I thought it would be more appropriate to call them "illegals". So I quickly looked this up and here is what I found in Wikipedia:

Illegal immigration

There have been campaigns to discourage the use of the term 'illegal immigrant' in many countries since 2007, generally based on the argument that the act of immigration may be illegal in some cases, but the people themselves are not illegal. In the United States, a "Drop the I-Word" campaign was launched in 2010 to advocate the use of terms such as "undocumented immigrants" or "unauthorized immigrants" to refer to the foreign nationals who reside in a country illegally

I conclude there are indeed some "interests" trying to soften the things by using softened words.

Since this year, I start to see the word "migrant" more and more, just as if this would make it even more ok to the reader. The point is that I view this as an aggression against any country being the target of these so called "migrants". In the end the result would be a burden and a deterioration to the living conditions of legal residents in a country for a lot of reasons (such as increased unemployment, deteriorated welfare benefits, increase in crime rates). If you are not convinced, just look at France or the UK, where we can fairly say that the results of these massive "migrations" are far from being positive.

Seriously, anyone concerned about the future of his/her country and well-being of his/her children should very much push for much stronger actions against these so called "migrants".

a reply to: stumason
I can't agree more with you. Only in Europe we see such things as bringing boatloads of people from a few miles off the shore of Lybia all the way up to Italy with taxpayer's money, allegedly as a "humanitarian action". In Asia for example, they give them water and food and tow them back to the place where they sailed from, but they are certainly not allowed to disembark at their intended destination (of course, MSM here is calling this type of action inhumane). So, if "humanitarian" attitude is so much more important than the well being of your citizen, why not just let the whole of Africa and maybe also a good part of the Middle-East and South-Asia come and settle in Europe, certainly this would be very much humane and complying with high morale standards. History will tell us in 50 years who got it right, but my bet is certainly not on Europe.