I went to help at Calais’s Jungle refugee camp – and what I saw haunts me
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
Another reason would be speaking English and not French. I would really rather not have to apply for asylum in a language I don't speak.
And of course if they're fleeing danger and their asylum application is unsafe, then they are unsafe.
Just an aside: Only two countries on the top ten countries for asylum seekers have English as an official language[1][2].
[1] http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_...
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.
Sympathy, like Willpower is a commodity that can run out. Be careful on what you use it on.
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.
But, the term refugee has a very particular meaning and comes with a particular set of rights, re:the UN. See: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html
I have no expertise in policy-level decisions, my volunteer work is on a very local level. I do not know what should happen.
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?
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.
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.
"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."
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-do-the-migrants-in-calai...
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.
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8460/why-is-the-...
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...
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.
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.
And that includes Europe.
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.