Why Should England Share France's Immigration Problem, Would They Ours?

[anotheoldgit]

/// Calais's immigration chief Philippe Mignonet called for the border to be moved from Calais to Dover, saying he wants Britain to share the burden of migration so it ‘understands how difficult the problem is’. ///

/// ‘What we want to do is buy the migrants ferry tickets to Britain and let them deal with the problem,’ he said, adding that more than 30 already make their way across the Channel every day. ///

/// ‘We want the border to be moved from Calais to Dover and Folkestone for one month so Britain understands how difficult the problem is.’ ///

Suggestions on the problem please?

[anotheoldgit]

jomifl

/// NJ, that was my point. ///

Not exactly you were criticising France's bordering countries for allowing the troublesome immigrant/emigrants into France, when it should be France's responsibility to control it's own borders.

[boxtops]

I am appalled at the whole suggestion from Philippe Mignonent. Living here in Dover, a tiny town with a population of about 40,000 people, I KNOW what a hideous thing that would be for us. It was bad enough when the first migrants came from the Balkans a while back and filled the town, loitering about because they weren't allowed to work, before they were moved on. No way can ordinary people cope with that - and our Border Force staff have been cut back on in recent years, so where would these camps on UK soil be? Don't make me laugh (hollowly) - once they got on UK soil, they'd be offski.

[anotheoldgit]

Where are all those tolerant ABers who generally welcome all and sundry to our shores?

Why are they not out in force, giving their reasons why should welcome all these from jungle 2?

[boxtops]

I welcome people who have applied from abroad for jobs, and who will put back into the UK economy. These guys are potential illegal immigrants, there's no reason for them to come to the UK other than that they want to.

[boxtops]

...and the grief and worry it causes to the incoming lorry drivers etc., who now dare not park up within many miles of Calais in case their trucks are invaded, hasn't been mentioned.

[Svejk]

they're still at it, AOG, on other threads.

[anotheoldgit]

After reading this, maybe all the asylum seekers will in fact head for Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28314513

/// The chief inspector's report highlighted one case where a claimant was paid £18,000 in asylum support over a period when they also received £74,000 in benefits, an NHS bursary and wages from working illegally.
Taxpayers' money ///

/// The claimant was given a 12-month suspended jail term in January last year after being found guilty of committing fraud and using false
documents. ///

/// Mr Vine found there was "no evidence" of any effort to reclaim the £18,000 of taxpayers' money, even though the offender had £10,500 in the bank. ///

/// The offender even continued to receive asylum support payments after their conviction, the report said ///

You couldn't make it up.

[ludwig]

I think they've got a point. If there was a load of foreigners camped out in Dover who only wanted to get OUT of england and claim asylum in France - surely we'd want to let them go?

[boxtops]

Yeah, we'd want to let 'em go, but only if they'd got proper papers - the 28 who tried to get out last week have all been brought back. Madness.

[New Judge]

That's quite true ludwig. But unfortunately France must be bound by the rules that state that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country that the applicant arrives in. In most cases that is not France but had the French not signed up to the Schengen agreement and continued to patrol their borders with the same vigour as the UK (which I know is still insufficient but a good bit more effective than France) they may not have such a problem. The migrants would most probably be in Germany or Italy. Had they, in turn, not signed up to the Schengen agreement (etc. etc.).

The root of this problem is twofold:

1. Whatever the reality, migrants believe that the UK is the land of milk and honey. If they were truly moving to escape persecution, oppression, war, torture or whatever they would be grateful to settle anywhere safe. The fact is many of them are doing no such thing. They are simply economic migrants who have left their homelands because they know that Europe has a lot to offer them and the UK has more than most.

2. Their assembly in the channel ports is in a large part down to the ridiculous free movement rules brought about courtesy of the EU. Once migrants get into an EU country it is impossible to stop them heading towards their chosen Utopia - the UK. Many of the eastern outposts of the EU have border controls from their adjoining non-EU neighbours which are, shall we say, none too robust. By its eastern expansion the EU has effectively provided France with a border with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Turkey. As well as this they have an unenforced border with Italy where large numbers of migrants land from North Africa. It is little wonder they are seeing huge numbers of migrants arriving at the channel ports. This is not the fault of the UK it is the fault of the EU and in particular those EU nations who are members of the Schengen agreement (though it has to be said that border controls on mainland Europe had all but disintegrated long before that agreement came into force).

There is no reason why the UK should "share" the results of this folly. The way for France to tackle the problem is to prevent the migrants entering France in the first place. But they cannot and that's their fault.

[New Judge]

And here's an article in today's Telegraph which emphasises what I've said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11013786/France-becoming-weak-link-in-European-migration-control-as-police-warn-of-alarming-rise-in-illegal-migrants.html

[Ric.ror]

I am curious as to why France don't deport back to the country of origin?

[Old_Geezer]

The cost/trouble of going through the procedure of proving they are illegal immigrants and not asylum seekers maybe ? Not to mention the cost of deporting them.

[New Judge]

In most cases, Ric/OG, because their country of origin is unknown (papers having been disposed of). You cannot blame the proposed recipient nations. After all, supposing France suggested that many of these people had originated from the UK?

No, it is simpler for France to lay the blame on the UK and expect them to take in the migrants just because they have stated an aim to get here. France needs to patrol its borders properly and stop them getting in, not expect other nations to help them out when they have been negligent.

[Ric.ror]

But don't the French have to give them benefits?

[New Judge]

I believe not, Ric.

In the UK whilst it's true that "illegals" are not entitled to benefits there are certain allowances that can (and usually are) made for them. Furthermore, once they become bona-fide "asylum seekers" (a term about as appropriate as that used to describe some so-called "Job Seekers") a whole panoply of assistance kicks in.

Of course they won't apply for asylum in France because once they do that any notion of heading to the UK goes out of the window.

[jomifl]

From my conversations with expats in France it is only possible to obtain benefits in France if you are registered in their social security by having had a job and having paid taxes. A hippy daughter of a friend abandoned france some years ago as soon as the French tightened up the rules and returned to UK as handouts were more accessible.

[boxtops]

NJ, thank you - your posts have explained the position so much better than I ever could.