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

a reply to: stumason

Im scratching my head on this too....


Why spend £10,000 with human traffickers on a dangerous trip that could result in failure or death when you can jump on a plane for £500 and get here safely and either claim asylum or just claim there tourists and disappear?

either:

1) these people are absolutely stupid and brain dead, in which case we don't want them here as we have enough brain dead British youths we can employ let alone having them.

2) They have criminal backgrounds and would never get a tourist visa, in which case we don't want them either.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Not having internal borders anymore is what European nations decided on and so it now is not a national problem anymore

Nope, it's a problem for the countries who gave up their border controls. The UK was not that stupid.

Free travel of people and goods, that's also what the UK decided on. Actually, it is bizarre that the UK / France still have these ridiculous border control routines in place; I can travel from Danmark to Greece, zigzagging my way right through most European countries and never be stopped once, but if I have to go to the effin' UK they nearly strip me naked.

Yep, and you are still free to travel around Europe and into the UK so long as you can prove you have the right to at the UK border. Quite simple, EU nationals a free to enter, illegal immigrants are not.
Your nation gave up it's border control, that's fine, if it makes you feel warm inside I am happy for you.
I am glad the UK government did not join the open borders to illegal immigrants club.

a reply to: stumason

Exactly - for the cost many of these migrants are paying the traffickers, they could get a 1st class ticket from anywhere in the world and do as you say, claim asylum upon arrival. Christ, they could get a world cruise on a luxury liner, wait until they arrive at their country of choice and still have change to spend when they got here....

Yeah, but what most people probably don't understand is that a passport which allows you to travel basically anywhere you want on this earth, is an extreme privilege that us 1st world citizens usually only have the right too. Most 3rd world people simply don't have the legal right to travel the world as we do.

originally posted by: imod02

Nice idea, but you missed the fact the its been the dream of Islam to take over the world for a very long time, and by pushing refugees in vast numbers to Europe they are taking the first big steps, thats why the rich ME countries dont help.

Exactly Oldman states the a Christian nation Zim turning away Christian refugees from Botswana. But at least they are the same people and culture. We are seeing Islam flooding in to our cities like never before and it's almost too late to stop many places going Balkan and going their own path in the future then it's Bosnia v.2 all over Europe. I swear when I look out the works window it's like a scene from Out of Africa. It is city centre but they are "swarming" in for sure.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Libyan nationals with a passport are free to apply for a short visitor visa, but there is a slight problem for them as the UK embassy in Libya is currently closed. In order to obtain that visa they would have to visit a UK embassy in another country.

Either way, all the immigrants in France are in a safe country so if the are fleeing oppression, death, or violence they only need to claim asylum in France and they will receive similar support as they would in the UK.
The UK has no obligation to take in people from safe nations.

They are no longer fleeing oppression now they are in France, so if they choose not to claim asylum there they are choosing to live in a shanty camp without any state assistance.
France will assist people who have claimed asylum, they will not assist undocumented illegal immigrants who choose not to claim asylum.

a reply to: grainofsand

Libyans who want a travel visa to The U.K. can obtain them form The British Embassy in Tunisia. Just over the border from Libya.

There must be some corelation between the invasion of ufos in our skies and the invasion of illegal immigrants. Not sure where I'm going with this one but I know from personal experience BOTH these are facts

1 We are being invaded by UFO Orbs all over the Great Britain
2 We are being invaded by illegal immigrants

What if the two are the same threat? What if the illegal immigrants are being sent in as foot soldiers by the UFO Orbs in the sky? The two have got to be related, all thye while our Government does nothing realistic to curb it.

a reply to: alldaylong

Just checked, a standard (up to six months) visitor visa from the UK embassy in Tunisia will cost 264 TND, which at todays exchange rate is £86.42.
The only requirements are to not be a convicted criminal and have enough money for your stay, so a cheap package week break in the UK, and any asylum seekers are good to go as soon as they arrive at London.

...of course, if the UK embassy at Tunisia started getting 10,000 visitor applications at once then it ain't gonna happen in reality.

a reply to: grainofsand

...of course, if the UK embassy at Tunisia started getting 10,000 visitor applications at once then it ain't gonna happen in reality.

Yeah exactly, there'd be a whole lot of conditions in the fine print... like the right to refuse if your deemed to be at risk of overstaying your visa.

It wouldn't be as easy as just paying your money and getting your passport stamped for a 2 week visa, like it is for us.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
It wouldn't be as easy as just paying your money and getting your passport stamped for a 2 week visa, like it is for us.

Rightly so in my opinion. If it was then we would have tens of thousands of skint people rocking up at our airports claiming asylum.
I wouldn't want that for obvious reasons.

Either way, I'll say it again, the immigrants in France are in a safe country now, and by refusing to claim asylum in France they are choosing to remain undocumented and living in a shanty camp.
It is their choice, so my sympathy ends there, as does any responsibility of the UK government.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

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.

Is Islam really based on judeo christianity?Judeo-Christian values of the Bible; are outlawed by Islam under penalty of death.
Muhammed borrowed stuff from the bible. Islam is a offshoot only because of abraham getting it on with a hand maiden whore to be brutually honest in todays terms. Against Gods wishes mind you since he said SARAH would bear the promised child HERSELF and not a surrogate.

a reply to: yuppa

Interesting thoughts, but for me personally I couldn't give a toss if the immigrants in France are atheists, Sikhs, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Zoroastrian for that matter.
They are in a safe country and refusing to claim asylum in that safe country.

While they choose not to claim asylum in France they are not entitled to any state assistance as provided for asylum seekers.
Their choice, and thank previous UK governments for not being as stupid as other EU nations who removed their border controls.

It is a French problem in Calais, not a UK problem, and the UK is absolutely within it's international obligations by defending it's border from illegal immigrants, or in other words, people who have no entitlement to enter the UK and are currently in a safe country.
Not our problem.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: grainofsand

...of course, if the UK embassy at Tunisia started getting 10,000 visitor applications at once then it ain't gonna happen in reality.

Yeah exactly, there'd be a whole lot of conditions in the fine print... like the right to refuse if your deemed to be at risk of overstaying your visa.

It wouldn't be as easy as just paying your money and getting your passport stamped for a 2 week visa, like it is for us.

Still alot less risk than paying £10,000 to a human trafficker and living for months in a squalid hovel in Calais trying nigh after night to break in (most get turned back) and risking a huge risk of death and injury.

If they can get £10,000 they may as well try the smart and mostly LEGAL method.

Everyone's just trying to off load these people, no country wants them or are prepared to follow their international commitments so we still have a problem that's not going away. Even if we send them back to their country of origin, they will come back and keep coming the bleeding hearts don't want to call them a swarm or dehumanise them, the rest just want rid of them by any means it seems Where is this mentality leading us., what's the conclusion of this type of thinking?

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Who knows, I'm just glad we didn't stop our border controls to enter the UK.
International conventions do not require the UK to accept people from safe countries, so if anyone has a problem with that then they need to take it up with the UN instead of bleating that Britain is doing anything wrong.

I don't really want to go specifically into radical Islamic threats of conquest alone in this thread, although I find it relevant, especially since ISIS has threatened to overrun Europe with illegal immigrants as a form of psychological terror.
www.dailymail.co.uk... -Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html

But these illegals come from various source-countries.
In each documentary one hears of more, from Ivory Coast to Iran and Nepal.

Neither are they only coming across the Mediterranean.
Several thousand come overland via the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
There's even been reports of known radicals going and coming this way with impunity.

OK, in Syria there is war, and there could be Western refugee camps (although not just Europe - the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand must then also have boatloads coming), with qualified people (who won't resort to crime or sponge of social security) allowed to stay as permanent residents.
This also poses moral questions - who will rebuild Syria when the war has ended, and Europe has kept all the qualified people?
Isn't that a theft of skills?
Surely countries already in trouble need those skilled people more than Europe.

But ultimately all I'm asking is that fair is fair, and one shouldn't have countries like Hungary crapped out by the UN for wanting to build a wall to keep out "economic migrants", while rich Saudi Arabia dumps Somalian refugees back into a war-zone with impunity.

The source countries, ideologies and regimes should also be punished, from symbolic bills per refugee, to interventionist regime change (especially in Eritrea).

Europe has allowed itself to become the UN's whipping boy, while nobody else is responsible for nothing.

If, as my link on the previous page proves, a fairly rich Botswana can cane (whip) illegal Zimbabwean refugees and send them back and the UN says nothing, this is not consistent, but targeted discrimination against Europe and the rights of its indigenous populations.
Europe doesn't even have reservations for its indigenous peoples, where only its people may live (although even here they'd soon be climbing over the fences).

For Europe to demand global consistency and equality concerning refugees from the UN will help to stem any Islamic conquest, and global regimes who simply want others to pick up the bill for their greed and misrule.
The UN stance is enabling misrule.

Currently the UN only wants rights for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a free-for-all access to white-majority countries.
Others can do what they like.
That's unfair, albophobic (anti-white racism) and unacceptable!

a reply to: alldaylong

A quote from the website of the British Embassy:

One unfortunate consequence of the closure of our embassy is that Libyans now have to travel to another country to obtain a visa for the UK.

So, that's for Libyans. But in fact, if you're outside the EU, you'll need a visa. And to get it, you either need to be in a special category (e.g. exceptional talent, young sportsperson, a Swiss national) or - you need to show that you have a job-offer. But - nationals of certain countries will have to also apply for clearance to arrive in the UK. And yes, say, for example, Libya, is such country.

So, that's why they do not simply acquire a visa and fly over, but instead cross the pond on half-baked ships, rafts and other contraptions.

a reply to: halfoldman

And speaking of the UN, here are a couple of their definitions:
UNHCR

The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom.

UNHCR

The terms asylum-seeker and refugee are often confused: an asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated.

None of those in the shanty camp at Calais have claimed asylum in France, yet they are in a safe country and are no longer fleeing oppression or risk of death.
They put themselves in the category of migrant because they are in a safe country and choosing to live in one which they think will offer improved prospects for their lives.

I would like to live in New Zealand because I believe the country offers improved prospects for my life compared to the UK, that would put me in the migrant category.
So, if I choose to ignore their immigration application process and enter the country illegally, should New Zealand accept me with open arms like the bleeding hearts in this thread advocate Britain should do for those in Calais?

If they are genuine refugees then they should apply for asylum in France.
It is their choice not to, and their choice to live in a shanty camp with no state support.
The UK is not obliged to take non-EU migrants from safe EU countries.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
So, that's why they do not simply acquire a visa and fly over, but instead cross the pond on half-baked ships, rafts and other contraptions.

Yep, and they can only apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is not the UK, so if you have any issues perhaps you should take it up with the UN.

The UK is luckily still able to have some control over our border, and is fully complying with all international obligations by lawfully protecting it and keeping economic migrants out.
You welcome them with open arms, that is your choice, the UK chooses not to. If that upsets you, well, to be frank, tough luck fella.

originally posted by: grainofsandYour nation gave up it's border control, that's fine, if it makes you feel warm inside I am happy for you. I am glad the UK government did not join the open borders to illegal immigrants club.

Actually, in my neck of the woods we hardly ever see illegal immigrants. There are some people living here that came from Nigeria and Somalia, a fair number of Chinese, lot's of Poles, Bulgarians and others from East Europe. Never had any trouble with them. Sure enough, there are criminals amongst them, but there are criminals amongst Dutch people too.