Channel tunnel problems! caused by the illegal migrants.

[retep]

1) Where exactly would you like to see them deported to? It's a well known fact that the majority do not have passports, either because they have been stolen or destroyed.

 

2) If, by a miracle, you can identify their country of origin how would you fund the massive exercise needed to capture, contain and transport those captured?

 

3) How do you force the countries to where you've transported them to take them back?

 

4) What has it to do with the EU?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"A senior Labour MP has called on French authorities to “deport [migrants] back to their countries” as the crisis in Calais continues.

 

With migrants continuing to die as authorities struggle to deal with the situation, Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "At the end of the day although we can commend the incredible work of the Kent Police, I went there on Tuesday, and the work of social services in Kent, this is something that can only be resolved by a face-to-face meeting between David Cameron, Francois Hollande and the EU commissioner.

 

"What has to happen is the French authorities once they discover migrants who have arrived illegally in Calais, they need to deport them back to their countries rather than do what they have done which is to release them back into the countryside."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/calais-migrant-crisis-deport-them-back-to-their-countries-says-senior-labour-mp-10429664.html

[drummonds]

 

 

Shahin, the Afghan physics graduate in the same oiece has something to offer.

 

if he fills in an application to emigrate to the uk his application will be considered just like everyone else who uses the proper system.

[L00b]

So you'd push the whole problem onto France, Italy, Germany and Sweden. Pretend that we have no obligation to the people fleeing wars that we helped to create. And that we have no obligations to the other members of the EU to share the load when it comes to people seeking asylum.

That's the galling thing, once you realise that the said countries (France, Germany and Sweden, minus Italy) were all against the 2003 Gulf War re-run that arguably created the politico-religious void and imbalances at the root of the current problems throughout the Middle East and the consequent refugee crisis.

 

And, in 2003 already, warned precisely about the current, predictable outcome:

A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs -- in Iraq, it would require time, a strong presence and a strong committment.

 

We also worry about the region -- considering that no peace process is at work for the moment in the Middle East, that none of the great powers seem able to foster one, and that a war in Iraq could result in more frustration and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

 

People in France and more broadly in Europe fear that a military intervention could fuel extremism and encourage Qaeda recruitment. A war could weaken the indispensable international coalition against terrorism and worsen the threat of Islamic terrorism.

(source) (non-exhaustive example, by far).

[Zamo]

So you'd push the whole problem onto France, Italy, Germany and Sweden.

Pretend that we have no obligation to the people fleeing wars that we helped to create. And that we have no obligations to the other members of the EU to share the load when it comes to people seeking asylum.

 

Yep, about sums it up.

 

Each country experiences pro's and con's by virtue of its' geographical location. One of the pro's we have is that we are an island nation and can control the coming and going of people more effectively than other nations. It is a gift of nature that we should not refuse to exploit just because others don't have it.

 

Frankly your attitude is abhorrent to me, you come across as entirely lacking empathy and deceny and humanity.

 

You'd let people die rather than give them minimal assistance in the UK.

 

Your heart is bleeding for those migrants in France but what about those left in war torn countries? Why isn't your heart bleeding for those who are really suffering and really facing death? Why aren't you arguing for rescue missions to fly them out of there and provide the refuge they need? I'm interested, when does it become too many, or cost too much, even for the morally superior like yourself? Where is your line for stopping the assistance and letting people die?

 

Climb down off that high horse Cyclone.

[Chelle-82]

My Mum and Dad have got to come back through the channel tunnel on Wednesday! I hope they will be OK and not held up for too long. They're getting on a bit now and wickle a lot

[Zamo]

That's the galling thing, once you realise that the said countries (France, Germany and Sweden, minus Italy) were all against the 2003 Gulf War re-run that arguably created the politico-religious void and imbalances at the root of the current problems throughout the Middle East and the consequent refugee crisis.

 

I don't think the US will be accepting its' 'fair share' of migrants on this basis and I don't think we should either. Our pond may be smaller than the Americans but we can still use it the same effect.

[L00b]

I don't think the US will be accepting its' 'fair share' of migrants on this basis and I don't think we should either.

Colour me entirely unsurprised, considering the extent of your moral compass as demonstrated in here

Our pond may be smaller than the Americans but we can still use it the same effect.

...so long as France keeps doing the UKBA's job under the 2003 Dublin agreement, that is.

 

Careful what you wish for, I've known a socialist or ten out-'rethoricalise' the populists to curry political favour: tearing up that agreement (and all the other little bitty ones associated with it) and kicking the small UKBA contingent and border crossing back over to Kent is far from beneath them

Edited August 4, 2015 by L00b

[Zamo]

I think Sarah needs asylum, don't you? From the Guardian article I linked to further up the page - ''Through the line of men queueing for a meal, Sarah, an Eritrean in her 30s, wheeled her one-year-old asleep in a pushchair. When pregnant, she and her husband, “escaping violence and rape”, had paid €2,500 (£1,825) each to board boats to Italy. He had drowned.

 

She had been trying and failing to board lorries to Kent at night and hide among merchandise, with her child in a sling under her jacket. She was now sleeping at the new Jules Ferry centre but said she still did not feel safe. Other women said walking through the nearby camp of men scared them.''

 

I think she did need asylum and should have asked for it when she got to Italy. Since then she has been on a journey driven by economics not fear.

[lazarus]

Didn't it say on the news yesterday that each asylum seeker that arrives in England get £90 plus another £35 on the top plus help with rent per week. This cash is probably what most of them earn in a year but they don't come here for benefits do they?? The ones that are plucked from the sea from the and taken to Italy should be rested and put back in a boat and taken back to the African coast and left there. It's amazing that they are destitute but they have the where withall to pay thousands to traffickers but then again they will get that back in no time from this easy touch country of ours. I do not feel sorry for any of them.

[Zamo]

Colour me entirely unsurprised, considering the extent of your moral compass as demonstrated in here

 

We have no moral obligation to offer people asylum from France.