This article skirts around the critical point that these are not actually refugees. They may have started their journey as a refugee, escaping some horrific conditions in their home country.
But then, they traveled through many European safe countries where they could (legally, should) have applied for asylum. And yet, they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason. Now that they are in Calais, they choose to stay there instead of applying for asylum in France. A refugee has no choice but to flee from where they are. These folk have had a choice for as long as their journey, and continue to do so as long as they are in France.
Side note: I do volunteer work for Syrian refugee children. There is a serious refugee problem in Europe, but this is not one of them. The UN quite rightly does not spend its limited resources here.
There is one problem with the whole story which is that from the viewpoint of a refugee it does not matter what agreements European countries make amongst each other if that knowledge does not make it to the intended recipients.
The various EU countries that agreed to this tried very hard to make the whole refugee problem 'somebody else's problem'. By making the Southern countries ('first country of contact') the ones where they should apply for asylum. But there is no mechanism in place that stops people from moving and of course - conveniently - it would make it a non-issue for any of the Northern countries since legally no refugees would be able to apply for asylum there (that didn't stop anybody).
The exception is the UK, and that's where this particular camp comes into play. If the UK would not be an island then this camp would not exist. The fact that so few people end up there shows that borders in the EU really are all about physical barriers. Once in the Schengen area nothing stops you from moving about.
On another note: not all those that land in the EU are aware of these agreements, it's nation states that agreed to this, but they forgot they needed the consent of the refugees themselves as well, who - smart move - do not necessarily want to overstay their welcome in Spain, Greece, Turkey and Italy but would rather spread out a bit. And those countries really are already stretched to the breaking point when it comes to their capacity to accept newcomers so it is actually a good thing that there is a natural tendency to spread out over a much larger surface area.
The Calais camp is a simple artifact of the fact that the North Sea exists, without the sea it would be gone in a few days and those people there have nothing to lose trying to get to the other side. They risked their lives to get there they likely will not stop simply because there is a bit of water.
See the daily run at trucks trying to hide on them to get to the UK.
There's also the matter of the differing social support offered in different countries, from what I've read. The migrants are looking to get to countries with the most generous benefits offered rather than stay in places in "the South" that offer less.
They're looking for places with jobs, and permission for them to exist.
Jobs provide the lowest common denominator social support system, which does not require extensive registration or a philosophy of charity or citizen status or a cousin on friendly terms or anything.
If there are jobs available, formal or informal, people will move.
There are no jobs available in the places they've been flooding into. They saturated the labor market. So they're trying to keep moving. Jobs are necessary to provide themselves with comfortable lives, rather than handouts that are limited in size and which could be snatched back at any point.
"I've heard there are jobs in California" during the Dust Bowl is a sentiment that would have made vast refugee camps if California had a moat around it and refused use of the bridges. Those people were not social parasites, they were fleeing exogenous conditions (war, drought) that destroyed their lifestyles, and they were seeking new ones.
Solitary asylum cases are a drastically different thing than mass movements of refugees claiming asylum. There is always an economic dimension to the latter; They have witnessed their whole society fall apart and spent or abandoned everything to escape, of course they're looking for jobs.
Not really. Availability of work seems to be a motivator, as well as familiarity and image.
"Why do the “migrants” in Calais want to come to the UK?
This being the real world, there is no easy answer to the question “why?” Work, friends, family, language, historical links to the UK and, ironically, the UK’s reputation for fairness, tolerance and welcome all play their role."
The French and UK governments are notoriously keen to bat this political ball aggressively back and forth. Any special agreement between them to cope with this specific situation will likely take months of negotiation.
Add to this that the UK government is posturing over seceding from both Europe and European Human Rights, and it adds up to a sorry situation.
Out of curiosity, what are the "obligations" on these asylum seekers? Should they seek asylum in the first country they can? Why are they not at liberty to travel as far as they are permitted? I thought in fact that this was encouraged by some nations, perhaps making them pawns in national border politics. Their situation feels like "kettling", with The Channel blocking further movement.
Also, what proportion of people fleeing Syria seek asylum in which nations? Is there really a preponderance of them at the French/UK border?
> Out of curiosity, what are the "obligations" on these asylum seekers?
By law, asylum seekers are obligated to register in the first EU country they arrive. Failing to do so results in illegal entry and/or stay and is grounds for deportation.
That's what the law says. Whether it's morally right or wrong is another matter.
You don't have to be sympathetic to be factual. It's not wrong to be unsympathetic and has no bearing of the person in question commenting the refugee situation.
Sympathy, like Willpower is a commodity that can run out. Be careful on what you use it on.
First of all, perceived lack of compassion and actual lack of compassion are two different things. Especially over the internet.
Secondly, judging comments solely by perceived compassion is obviously going to bias the decisions. Things like reason and scale easily get forgotten if compassion is the only criteria.
Thirdly blaming people for not feeling the politically correct emotions is some hardcore thought police shit.
Fourthly compassion is naturally biased towards obviously pathetic people who are physically close. Somebody coming from Uganda might consider Calais a complete non-problem. Someone living in Scotland might find local stray cats more compelling target for charity than any person anywhere.
And there are significant populations who could contribute to the discussion, but are unable to either feel compassion or express it. (For example high functioning autists.)
I really don't mind someone being compassionate while dealing with systemic human problems. But if it's somekind of requirement, it seems like really bad starting point.
Don't surgeons work best when they can treat their patient as an it instead of a person? One of the reasons behind banning someone from doing surgery on a loved one is because they have a strong pre-existing emotional connection that reduces their effectiveness, no?
They are people who have successfully made it to a safe country. They are not in the camp because they are refugees fleeing danger, but because they specifically want to get to the UK. Whether or not that is reasonable (e.g. because of family or other reasons) is beside the point of 'are they refugees fleeing danger?'
They become economic migrants at that point. They avoid a "safe" country in the hope of reaching one which suits them better in terms of economy/opportunities. The issue of migrants trying to illegally enter the UK via Calais has existed for decades at this point, any improvement to the conditions in Calais would encourage more people to try and make the journey so nothing is done for fear of turning a bad situation into an even worse one.
The UK public saw what happened when Mrs Merkel said there was no limits on the number of refugee's Germany would take, they are not in the mood for their politicians to make a similar mistake.
Every luxury you bought could have fed a poor starving family in India for months, maybe even years or decades. It could have funded live saving medical treatment for many people who could not afford it. And yet you chose to buy that iPhone6 or BMW or the bigger house. That's monstrous.
You're not morally superior to any of us first worlders. We enjoy our privilege.
I don't see how that is relevant to the comment you are replying to. His complaint is that he thought someone was saying that the people in need deserve what is happening to them and so should not be helped.
You are familiar with the concept of exchanging goods for money? Money that is used to buy luxuries for one person, could have been used to buy necessities for another.
Not quite. He said there are rules they should have followed, which might have lead them to resources available. Since they didn't follow the rules, there are not resources.
I don't think they can just go back to a previous country of entry into the EU and then get resources magically.
>they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason
This would imply that these people were fully aware of all of their options, which is probably not the case. Many languages are used in Europe and it is doubtful that the people in Calais know all or even most of those languages.
Deliberate choice requires full knowledge. The commenter did not establish that these people have full knowledge of their situation.
There are millions starving in Syria vs thousands who managed to get out of ISIS and Assads bombings into Calais.
Right now the UN is low on money.
What would you do? Keep in mind resources are finite and the resources to help per person is cheaper closer to Syria.
Also housing, feeding and clothing people in EU right now creates pressure for refugees. Which means means people drowning in Mediterranean.
Not taking incentives into account often results exacerbating the problem. Like in India children get their arms chopped off. So they would get more pity and money while begging for Mafia.
There are no good intentions causing problems here, Western governments are deliberately destabilising their country, we have a moral responsibility to help the refugees that escaped as a result.
I have similar feelings about the Grauniad. It's Fox News, albeit much better written and more journalistic, for the opposite side of the political spectrum.
I'll still read their food sections though, at least while they have Jay Rayner writing for them.
If you are talking about U.S. actually going into Syria, picking orphaned children and maimed people. Then fly them to U.S. proper, provide for them and educate them? I could not agree more.
And if U.S. does this to lets say 10k people, EU should take another 10K. This would not solve any real problem in the Middle east, but it would be very noble gesture.
But that would be pretty much opposite to what is happening in Europe right now. The people get help who prioritize themselves. Weak are left behind.
I'm saying that those in charge know that bombing the country is ineffective against ISIS, but they do it anyway. Why would they do it if they know it's ineffective?
As for flying in to save civilians, I'm all for it, but let's stop dropping bombs on them first.
It's not a refugee camp. Refugees go through the system fairly quickly and get all sorts of help. They definitely are not left destitute.
And I really don't see what's so special about them compared to people in similar conditions in India or Uganda or some other poor region of the world.
>> And I really don't see what's so special about them compared to people in similar conditions in India or Uganda or some other poor region of the world.
Or in developed parts of the world, for that matter. People are living on the streets sleeping under cardboard boxes or in the bushes in almost any major city in almost any developed nation, eating whatever they find in trashcans, with no access to healthcare or sanitation either.
Note that I'm not trying to downplay the misery the immigrants in Calais are in, or the terrible things they've endured. It just strikes me as odd that whenever some humanitary crisis occurs that attracts a lot of media attention, they forget about the misery they can find at home every day...
I think a distinct problem with the most recent flow of migrants into Europe is the idea of 'reliability' and how that effects feelings towards a migrant population.
In many previous migration movements in both Europe and the United States there was some rateable factor between the native population and the migrants. For example, people coming to the US from Cuba were seen as escaping communism for democracy and were seen as good. Similarly with Vietnamese immigrants for example. In Europe the same thing happened after 1991.
Conversely now, other than the fact that the migrants are of a different skin color and religious make up than the majority of Europeans, society does not have the same sympathetic view as compared to the past. There were not Cuban or Vietnamese terrorist strikes on American or European soil, and thus the new migrant wave is seen as a risk.
Also given that that fact that we are still at 'war' with the middle east doesn't lend any help. It is easier for a society to forgive a nation/ethnicity that they've been fighting after said nation has won than while they're still in conflict.
Overall I think the situation is very complex, and theres not a easy way to make Europe accept this wave of migration in comparison to similar waves in the past.
I agree and it scares the crap out of me to think about what might happen in the coming years.
Mostly I'm trying to think of the best course of action for me as an individual. Not doing anything seems like the worst option. But when it comes to doing something, should I:
1. actively fight right-wing sentiment, with probably little effect (mostly preaching to the choir, as most of my friends are highly-educated left-wing liberals).
2. volunteer in a refugee camp, which while personally more satisfying, might waste more 'valuable' things I could do.
3. become politically active in some way, but this would require a significant up-front effort in trying to untangle the situation.
4. try to find longer-term sustainable solutions for refugees who are likely to be here for a long time no matter what happens, faced with few good options (they can't work, can't study, and are often isolated).
5. something else?
I'm currently a bit paralyzed by the possible options, yet for various reasons feel a strong desire to contribute to the problem, perceived or otherwise, of the influx refugees. I'd greatly appreciate some concrete suggestions.
0. Stop the dogmatic multi-culti cult, accept human nature (= we prefer to live with our kind) and strive for a world in which every race and religious group is able to live peacefully and prosper, in its OWN LAND, with its own way of life.
Did I miss the part between the infighting amongst refugees of various religions/groups? That's a ticking time bomb ready to happen.
Talk to the refugees in Calais (and other places to) and you'll hear the same notion.
When the Hungarian revolution of 1956 against communism was knocked down, I didn't hear the refugees smashed truck windows, left tons of rubbish after themselves in foreign countries, neither attacked each other or raped women.
Sorry for the exception, I really hate when people starve or cold. I know there are good people there, kids and women as well, but their culture is just not fit in to Europe.
But then, they traveled through many European safe countries where they could (legally, should) have applied for asylum. And yet, they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason. Now that they are in Calais, they choose to stay there instead of applying for asylum in France. A refugee has no choice but to flee from where they are. These folk have had a choice for as long as their journey, and continue to do so as long as they are in France.
Side note: I do volunteer work for Syrian refugee children. There is a serious refugee problem in Europe, but this is not one of them. The UN quite rightly does not spend its limited resources here.