Calais port locked down as migrants break fences and board British ferry

originally posted by: paraphi
Clearly, up until now the French authorities have struggled. I agree with Corbyn that there needs to be a solution t this problem. My solution is to round them up and drop them off in North Africa, or their declared country of origin. Corby's solution is to open the doors, like a few thousand ignorant and uneducated young men are needed in the UK right now.

Stop the Corbyn fear mongering, we have enough of that from the Tories and the corporate owned press, what he actually said was...

"Ultimately, we deal with the situation by dealing with the problem at its source, which are the wars and conflicts."

"Also, there are the human needs of people. We have got people here who have been here for months, if not longer than that, with no proper education, no access to doctors, no access to dentists, limited access to food - in very cold, very wet conditions."

"These conditions are a disgrace anywhere. We as human beings have to reach out to fellow human beings."...

He called on the Government to accept more unaccompanied children immediately and join efforts to share refugees around the European Union.

news.sky.com...

Makes perfect sense to me.

None of those people needs to be there though.
At any time they can walk out of the gates and register as asylum seekers.
But they won't, they want to get to the UK where they think they'll get a house a car and loads of money.

It's not even corbyns problem, this is for Dave to sort out. I don't think we can blame the refugee/immigration crisis on Corbyn just yet. It won't be long though.

I honestly don't know what you are doing Europe. Why do you continue to just let EVERYBODY come into your countries? It's pretty obvious to everyone that you are letting some pretty scummy people in who want no part of integrating into European Society, yet you think it's your duty to let them in? You better start getting selective about who you let in. The problem is only going to get worse if you ignore it.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
None of those people needs to be there though.
At any time they can walk out of the gates and register as asylum seekers.
But they won't, they want to get to the UK where they think they'll get a house a car and loads of money.

There are all sorts of reasons they are there. I'm sure some are there for the reasons you state.

However, many living in the camps are actually claiming asylum in France due to France's inadequacy in providing housing and support for those claiming asylum there. Or they have been told they have to wait months for application papers and have nowhere else to go.

Others have family in the UK or know that they can better support themselves and/or their families as they speak English. Actually, since a French language class was set up there by volunteers many have decided to apply in France.

Some are there because they claim to have been racially abused/mistreated in France and they feel unwanted.

originally posted by: Scouse100


There are all sorts of reasons they are there. I'm sure some are there for the reasons you state.

However, many living in the camps are actually claiming asylum in France due to France's inadequacy in providing housing and support for those claiming asylum there. Or they have been told they have to wait months for application papers and have nowhere else to go.

Others have family in the UK or know that they can better support themselves and/or their families as they speak English. Actually, since a French language class was set up there by volunteers many have decided to apply in France.

Some are there because they claim to have been racially abused/mistreated in France and they feel unwanted.

Soooo, the refugees are twice time refugees because no one wants them in France and they think that the country that doesn't want them is doing a bad job giving those refugees FREE things and then complain about their living conditions?!!!? And the two time refugees solution is to riot and then try to storm a ferry to yet another Country that doesn't want them?

...... And you make apologies for that behavior. Wow.

Perhaps they really should go back to the regions they came from. Oh wait...... The government's there don't want them either. What happened to UN refugee camps near their home countries?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Scouse100


There are all sorts of reasons they are there. I'm sure some are there for the reasons you state.

However, many living in the camps are actually claiming asylum in France due to France's inadequacy in providing housing and support for those claiming asylum there. Or they have been told they have to wait months for application papers and have nowhere else to go.

Others have family in the UK or know that they can better support themselves and/or their families as they speak English. Actually, since a French language class was set up there by volunteers many have decided to apply in France.

Some are there because they claim to have been racially abused/mistreated in France and they feel unwanted.

Soooo, the refugees are twice time refugees because no one wants them in France and they think that the country that doesn't want them is doing a bad job giving those refugees FREE things and then complain about their living conditions?!!!? And the two time refugees solution is to riot and then try to storm a ferry to yet another Country that doesn't want them?

...... And you make apologies for that behavior. Wow.

Perhaps they really should go back to the regions they came from. Oh wait...... The government's there don't want them either. What happened to UN refugee camps near their home countries?

Nowhere did I make apologies for any behaviour. I was pointing out why they are there.

Let's put aside those that may not be genuine refugees for a moment, do you think it's OK that refugees fleeing oppression/war applying for asylum are left to live in these conditions bearing in mind they aren't allowed to work to support themselves?

a reply to: Scouse100

No it not nice they live in those conditions.

But neither can we afford economically or socially to give them a free house and welfare , free healthcare and education for life. We don't have the infrastructure in place thanks to the failure of the last successive governments of labour and conservatives to only help a few hundred or maybe a few thousand

originally posted by: crazyewok


USA made a mistake getting France and UK to give up its colony’s so early.

That's so funny but so true. The Yanks are pretty much to blame for the mass migration of illegals into Europe by forcing us to give up the Empires when the natives weren't ready for independence. We Brits knew independence was necessary but was expected to be around the 1990's if things were going to work out well like it did with Canada, Australia etc.

Nowhere did I make apologies for any behaviour. I was pointing out why they are there.

Let's put aside those that may not be genuine refugees for a moment, do you think it's OK that refugees fleeing oppression/war applying for asylum are left to live in these conditions bearing in mind they aren't allowed to work to support themselves?

It's been demonstrated time and time again that about 65% of these "refugees" are young single males. You let them in with the smaller minority of actual needy refugees. Your systems can't accommodate the numbers you let in. Respectfully, Europe, Germany and Sweden specifically, should have never said "Come here, all of you, we will take care of you" without PROPER screening of said refugees. How is it that the Palestinians can STILL have "refugee camps" 50 years old yet we can't setup refugee camps near the borders of where these "refugees" originate from? No offense but if you are going to take on so many refugees that is changes and lowers your society, I don't think you do that. How is that after almost 15 years of war, that all of sudden people from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan decided to basically Walk to Europe? A LOT of those refugees aren't even from there. Europe let everyone in without screening them, they will pay a huge price for that folly.

originally posted by: intrptr


Immigrants migrate, refugees flee.

Aren't the French getting tired of guarding the UK?

Why are they seeking refuge in the UK? They already have refuge in France, right?

The French don't want to touch those migrants because the authorities would then have to pay for their welfare, food, water, housing and everything else. The French could issue those migrants with temporary passports that would be valid for three months, but that would encourage more to come. So all they can do is corral them into somewhere away from the rest of the population and turn a blind eye to them trying to get onto trucks and lorries.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

Just thought, why don't we allow them to jump on planes too since we're allowing them on boats unchecked? It's not like any of them are potential terrorists right, intrptr?

Stop helping my country to bomb their homelands.

Since bombs miss, causing collateral murder, each time making not less, but more terrorists that want to come to your country.

How stupid is that?

We are bombing savages that love to stone, dismember, behead, drown/ burn people alive....including children whenever it's useful.
More their own people than anyone else.

They are trying to send these same savages into whatever country is moronic enough to accept them with weepy, huggy, smoochy blubbering.

That's the long and short of it. Not very intricate or deep.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Scouse100

No it not nice they live in those conditions.

But neither can we afford economically or socially to give them a free house and welfare , free healthcare and education for life. We don't have the infrastructure in place thanks to the failure of the last successive governments of labour and conservatives to only help a few hundred or maybe a few thousand

Who said anything about providing for them for life? Most immigrants/refugees come here to work and make a better life for themselves, the least we/France can do is offer asylum seekers even basic shelter and support while they are settling and their applications are being processed. Immigrants and asylum seekers can and do become valuable members of society, take my friend at school for example, a refugee from Iraq who is now a Dr and contributing more to this country (not just in tax) than I ever will.

I agree about infrastructure by the way, we are seeing too many cuts in the way of public spending in the name of austerity, which is a means to a political ideology - shrinking then state in my opinion, not a necessity.

If every town/city/borough/county council took just 10 families we can help 10,000 people, when you look at it that way it hardly seems a stretch does it?

And I don't propose this as any sort of long term measure as it is obviously not sustainable forever, the most important thing is to tackle the root causes of the exodus. Neither do I condone encouraging people use violence/risk their lives to get over here as we are doing at present with our policy of asylum only for those who reach the shore.

Short term action that needs to be taken in my opinion includes improving conditions and ensuring there is space in refugee camps all over, greater support for countries taking the brunt of the crisis, taking a larger number of refugees to 'share the burden', ensuring there is an efficient process in place and applicants are treated as humans while they wait (especially in France), a UK asylum application centre in France/the ability to apply from abroad, the offer of language lessons so arrivals know they will be able to settle and find work.

originally posted by: pavil

Nowhere did I make apologies for any behaviour. I was pointing out why they are there.

Let's put aside those that may not be genuine refugees for a moment, do you think it's OK that refugees fleeing oppression/war applying for asylum are left to live in these conditions bearing in mind they aren't allowed to work to support themselves?

It's been demonstrated time and time again that about 65% of these "refugees" are young single males. You let them in with the smaller minority of actual needy refugees. Your systems can't accommodate the numbers you let in. Respectfully, Europe, Germany and Sweden specifically, should have never said "Come here, all of you, we will take care of you" without PROPER screening of said refugees. How is it that the Palestinians can STILL have "refugee camps" 50 years old yet we can't setup refugee camps near the borders of where these "refugees" originate from? No offense but if you are going to take on so many refugees that is changes and lowers your society, I don't think you do that. How is that after almost 15 years of war, that all of sudden people from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan decided to basically Walk to Europe? A LOT of those refugees aren't even from there. Europe let everyone in without screening them, they will pay a huge price for that folly.

I don't propose we 'let everyone in' but the conditions those human beings are living in are unacceptable and shameful.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

Just thought, why don't we allow them to jump on planes too since we're allowing them on boats unchecked? It's not like any of them are potential terrorists right, intrptr?

Stop helping my country to bomb their homelands.

Since bombs miss, causing collateral murder, each time making not less, but more terrorists that want to come to your country.

How stupid is that?

We are bombing savages that love to stone, dismember, behead, drown/ burn people alive....including children whenever it's useful.
More their own people than anyone else.

They are trying to send these same savages into whatever country is moronic enough to accept them with weepy, huggy, smoochy blubbering.

That's the long and short of it. Not very intricate or deep.

I can't tell if you are in denial and believe the bombs only kill ISIS members or if you think that about everyone who lives there?

a reply to: Scouse100
On that note I would support calls for British funding to assist in providing shelter and food for those in France trying to enter the UK illegally.
Do a Merkel and shout that the doors are open though? Nope that would be madness as proven over the past few months.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Scouse100
On that note I would support calls for British funding to assist in providing shelter and food for those in France trying to enter the UK illegally.
Do a Merkel and shout that the doors are open though? Nope that would be madness as proven over the past few months.

I have already stated that I don't agree with that.

a reply to: Scouse100
So do you support UK financial assistance to France in order to improve conditions for these mostly single men in situ, and keeping them out of the UK?
Such an approach seems reasonable and humane to me.
*edit*
I'd be happy to pay an extra 1% in my income tax to assist these people in France, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. No need for them to come to the UK.

a reply to: intrptr

Our legal system has declared there's few lawful reasons as why someone can be detained for illegally entering or staying in the UK. Our immigration officials cannot process someone who doesn't have a passport or form of identification and so have to apply for deportation visas from the country of origin, that can take months. In the mean time they are arrested and then let go. Trying to find them again after you've got the correct documentation can take a decade in some instances and by which time if they've settled or made a life for themselves (own a domestic animal or had children who are UK nationals) then they can appeal quite legitimately to stay here. The UK upholds people's freedom's more than most and don't stick people in camps or behind fences - which can be exploited by those tossing away their passports.

originally posted by: Scouse100
Stop the Corbyn fear mongering, ...

Criticising Corbyn is not "fear mongering".

Corbyn's public view is that the current initiative to take refugees direct from camps and NOT participate in quotas is wrong. If the UK joined the quota scheme then the UK would have to take 100,000 plus migrants, mostly young men. Corbyn thinks we should "take our share".

The public don't want this. The country would not be able to cope.