French Migrant Camp Fire 4.10.2017

[whichphilosophy]

You are right. There are a bunch of illegal aliens here, many of them (further) criminal.

- - - Updated - - -



This is not a thread about Brexit. It's about a bunch of illegal migrants who like to stab each other and set their own camp on fire trying to invade UK.

Since it is about whether the UK can continue to export its apologies for concentration-camps to another country, from which, together with the rest of the world, the fatuities of Brexit will remove any obligation, so it manifestly is about this national suicide attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, I find it totally amazing that the Brexiteers are mostly so ignorant of the real world that they seriously suppose everyone is eager to make deals with a declining UK. What on earth is supposed to be in it for them, I wonder? The whole Brexit position has been based on total fantasy from the start.

The UK has been declining for the last 10 or so years or more. It is over its head in debt and hides unemployment with fake employment statistics like zero contracts. House building is hardly moving and the shortages increase each year. Quite a few countries went bankrupt and are now run by the banking system. This doesn't need BREXIT. Further the last thing we want, given our housing shortages are rejects from France who burnt down the houses built for them by the government. We don't want this to happen over here.

You better do something about it then. Why should France?

So if some burn their houses in France we should build houses for them in the UK? To topic refers to those who commit crimes in France or elsewhere (such as fighting and building down housing given to them). We don't need them in the UK. Let them stay and fight the gendarmes or let France deport them if their countries accept them back.

Refugees and asylum seekers who don't import their own wars are welcome. Economic migrants who are invited by contract are welcome.

 

[laughing dog]

So if some burn their houses in France we should build houses for them in the UK?

This not a difficult concept to grasp. If France does not stop them on their way to the UK, then the UK gets to deal with them once they arrive. How the UK deals with them is a different issue, but it will be more costly than it is now.

 

[Jayjay]

And it would clog up the canal tunnel. I don't see any way how letting UK deal with the problem would be preferable to France doing so, even from France's point of view.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So if some burn their houses in France we should build houses for them in the UK?

This not a difficult concept to grasp. If France does not stop them on their way to the UK, then the UK gets to deal with them once they arrive. How the UK deals with them is a different issue, but it will be more costly than it is now.

This was a question inviting an answer from others. The common sense reply is we should not let those who are criminals into the country or those who have seriously broken laws in host countries even before they arrive.

This is why we have borders, or should have borders and shared security more than we do with the EU most countries and the USA.

There are plenty of homeless people in the U.K. but while we are obligated to help refugees, we owe people who commit crimes nothing.

 

[laughing dog]

And it would clog up the canal tunnel. I don't see any way how letting UK deal with the problem would be preferable to France doing so, even from France's point of view.

Because they don't have to house, feed, protect or police the refugees. And there is no evidence that the tunnel would be clogged.

 

[Jayjay]

And it would clog up the canal tunnel. I don't see any way how letting UK deal with the problem would be preferable to France doing so, even from France's point of view.

Because they don't have to house, feed, protect or police the refugees. And there is no evidence that the tunnel would be clogged.

How else do you think they would get to UK? Already, they are an annoyance to the trucks going into the tunnel. Without any police enforcement it would become nearly impossible to get any trucks through, not to mention unsafe to the civilians walking their way through the tunnel.

 

[iolo]

Since it is about whether the UK can continue to export its apologies for concentration-camps to another country, from which, together with the rest of the world, the fatuities of Brexit will remove any obligation, so it manifestly is about this national suicide attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, I find it totally amazing that the Brexiteers are mostly so ignorant of the real world that they seriously suppose everyone is eager to make deals with a declining UK. What on earth is supposed to be in it for them, I wonder? The whole Brexit position has been based on total fantasy from the start.

The UK has been declining for the last 10 or so years or more. It is over its head in debt and hides unemployment with fake employment statistics like zero contracts. House building is hardly moving and the shortages increase each year. Quite a few countries went bankrupt and are now run by the banking system. This doesn't need BREXIT. Further the last thing we want, given our housing shortages are rejects from France who burnt down the houses built for them by the government. We don't want this to happen over here.

You better do something about it then. Why should France?

So if some burn their houses in France we should build houses for them in the UK? To topic refers to those who commit crimes in France or elsewhere (such as fighting and building down housing given to them). We don't need them in the UK. Let them stay and fight the gendarmes or let France deport them if their countries accept them back.

Refugees and asylum seekers who don't import their own wars are welcome. Economic migrants who are invited by contract are welcome.

Do what you bloody please - just don't expect the world to do it for you.

 

[laughing dog]

Because they don't have to house, feed, protect or police the refugees. And there is no evidence that the tunnel would be clogged.

How else do you think they would get to UK? Already, they are an annoyance to the trucks going into the tunnel. Without any police enforcement it would become nearly impossible to get any trucks through, not to mention unsafe to the civilians walking their way through the tunnel.

Your guess as to what may happen is purely a guess. Moreover, if the UK leaves the EU (i.e. once Brexit actually occurs), why should the French care at all?

 

[Jayjay]

How else do you think they would get to UK? Already, they are an annoyance to the trucks going into the tunnel. Without any police enforcement it would become nearly impossible to get any trucks through, not to mention unsafe to the civilians walking their way through the tunnel.

Your guess as to what may happen is purely a guess. Moreover, if the UK leaves the EU (i.e. once Brexit actually occurs), why should the French care at all?

Even if UK leaves the EU, it's not like it's going to just sail off to the horizon. It's still going to be next to France, there is goign to be traffic of people and goods between the two, and the canal tunnel is still going to be there as a bottleneck for the illegal immigrants. Whether UK is in EU or not is largely irrelevant to this issue.

 

[laughing dog]

Your guess as to what may happen is purely a guess. Moreover, if the UK leaves the EU (i.e. once Brexit actually occurs), why should the French care at all?

Even if UK leaves the EU, it's not like it's going to just sail off to the horizon. It's still going to be next to France, there is goign to be traffic of people and goods between the two, and the canal tunnel is still going to be there as a bottleneck for the illegal immigrants. Whether UK is in EU or not is largely irrelevant to this issue.

Once the UK officially leaves the EU, it is very likely there will be significantly less commercial traffic between the two (at least going into the UK). And there is likely to be less legal passenger traffic as well. Taking that into account, you have not given a convincing reason why the French would prefer to accept the costs of housing, feeding, protecting and policing any refugees while they stay in France over just letting them flow into the UK and letting the UK deal with it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since it is about whether the UK can continue to export its apologies for concentration-camps to another country, from which, together with the rest of the world, the fatuities of Brexit will remove any obligation, so it manifestly is about this national suicide attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, I find it totally amazing that the Brexiteers are mostly so ignorant of the real world that they seriously suppose everyone is eager to make deals with a declining UK. What on earth is supposed to be in it for them, I wonder? The whole Brexit position has been based on total fantasy from the start.

The UK has been declining for the last 10 or so years or more. It is over its head in debt and hides unemployment with fake employment statistics like zero contracts. House building is hardly moving and the shortages increase each year. Quite a few countries went bankrupt and are now run by the banking system. This doesn't need BREXIT. Further the last thing we want, given our housing shortages are rejects from France who burnt down the houses built for them by the government. We don't want this to happen over here.

You better do something about it then. Why should France?

So if some burn their houses in France we should build houses for them in the UK? To topic refers to those who commit crimes in France or elsewhere (such as fighting and building down housing given to them). We don't need them in the UK. Let them stay and fight the gendarmes or let France deport them if their countries accept them back.

Refugees and asylum seekers who don't import their own wars are welcome. Economic migrants who are invited by contract are welcome.

Do what you bloody please - just don't expect the world to do it for you.

Do what for me?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So if some burn their houses in France we should build houses for them in the UK?

This not a difficult concept to grasp. If France does not stop them on their way to the UK, then the UK gets to deal with them once they arrive. How the UK deals with them is a different issue, but it will be more costly than it is now.

The UK should not be expected to let them in and then spend tax payer money processing them out. We have enough people here in need who won't burn down their accommodation.

 

[Jayjay]

Even if UK leaves the EU, it's not like it's going to just sail off to the horizon. It's still going to be next to France, there is goign to be traffic of people and goods between the two, and the canal tunnel is still going to be there as a bottleneck for the illegal immigrants. Whether UK is in EU or not is largely irrelevant to this issue.

Once the UK officially leaves the EU, it is very likely there will be significantly less commercial traffic between the two (at least going into the UK). And there is likely to be less legal passenger traffic as well. Taking that into account, you have not given a convincing reason why the French would prefer to accept the costs of housing, feeding, protecting and policing any refugees while they stay in France over just letting them flow into the UK and letting the UK deal with it.

UK is already outside Schengen treaty, so leaving EU won't make an appreciable dent in tourism. Brexit might even boost it if the pound plummets. As for moving goods, there is always going to be trade and when you have exactly one road between the countries, it will have traffic on it. But even if there is less traffic, having fake refugees clog up the tunnel would bring it to a halt, because truckers can't have their trucks being boarded by stowaways, and they sure as hell don't want to watch out for pedestrians in the tunnel (who might even pose a security risk, imagine a terrorist sneaking into the tunnel and blowing up a bomb in there).

Second, "letting UK deal with it" could mean just having UK enact stricter border controls and turn most of them back to France similarly to how Norway won't let anyone enter from Sweden or Russia. And that would be at the cost of long lines and traffic jams for any legal travelers and cargo. UK leaving EU would actually make this easier, even if it at least two years away. It's a lose-lose situation for France.

Third, you are making a false dilemma out of France having to provide housing, feeding and protecting the refugees at a very high cost. They haven't done that until now, so if they want to save money France will just put most of its resources into policing them and letting them rot and die in shoddy camps. It's worked so far, and is politically far more likely in current climate.

 

[Derec]

Taking that into account, you have not given a convincing reason why the French would prefer to accept the costs of housing, feeding, protecting and policing any refugees while they stay in France over just letting them flow into the UK and letting the UK deal with it.

First of all, don't call them refugees. They are migrants.
Second, France should not be housing and feeding them either. Instead, France should deport them.

Over the Easter weekend another 8000 migrants have been "rescued" and brought to Italy. These migrants should be brought back to Libya. Knowing that they will be given a free ride to Europe just by floating 12 miles off Libya merely encourages hundreds of thousands more to make the journey, intenisfying the problem.
Thousands of migrants rescued from Mediterranean in three days

Only about 1% of these illegal migrants drown. 99% are pretty good odds for an all-expense paid European vacation of indefinite duration.

 

[bilby]

Because they don't have to house, feed, protect or police the refugees. And there is no evidence that the tunnel would be clogged.

How else do you think they would get to UK? Already, they are an annoyance to the trucks going into the tunnel. Without any police enforcement it would become nearly impossible to get any trucks through, not to mention unsafe to the civilians walking their way through the tunnel.

Dunkirk is nowhere near the tunnel. It's a major cross-channel ferry port.

 

[bilby]

Once the UK officially leaves the EU, it is very likely there will be significantly less commercial traffic between the two (at least going into the UK). And there is likely to be less legal passenger traffic as well. Taking that into account, you have not given a convincing reason why the French would prefer to accept the costs of housing, feeding, protecting and policing any refugees while they stay in France over just letting them flow into the UK and letting the UK deal with it.

UK is already outside Schengen treaty, so leaving EU won't make an appreciable dent in tourism. Brexit might even boost it if the pound plummets. As for moving goods, there is always going to be trade and when you have exactly one road between the countries, it will have traffic on it. But even if there is less traffic, having fake refugees clog up the tunnel would bring it to a halt, because truckers can't have their trucks being boarded by stowaways, and they sure as hell don't want to watch out for pedestrians in the tunnel (who might even pose a security risk, imagine a terrorist sneaking into the tunnel and blowing up a bomb in there).

Second, "letting UK deal with it" could mean just having UK enact stricter border controls and turn most of them back to France similarly to how Norway won't let anyone enter from Sweden or Russia. And that would be at the cost of long lines and traffic jams for any legal travelers and cargo. UK leaving EU would actually make this easier, even if it at least two years away. It's a lose-lose situation for France.

Third, you are making a false dilemma out of France having to provide housing, feeding and protecting the refugees at a very high cost. They haven't done that until now, so if they want to save money France will just put most of its resources into policing them and letting them rot and die in shoddy camps. It's worked so far, and is politically far more likely in current climate.

You appear to have a number of misconceptions about cross channel traffic, and specifically about the channel tunnel.

The channel tunnel is a rail tunnel. Trucks and cars are loaded onto special rail cars to make the crossing - nobody drives trucks through the tunnel.

In fact, there are three tunnels - two rail tunnels (one for each direction), and a small service tunnel in between them, used for maintenance and for emergency evacuations.

It's technically possible to walk through the service tunnel, or even to drive a small car or golf buggy through there; but it's impossible to do so without authority. The service tunnel is little used, closely monitored, and is both narrow and long, with no hiding places.

Refugees attempting to cross via the tunnel generally try to stow away on trains; or on trucks that are going to be loaded onto the trains.

But refugees in Dunkirk are nowhere near the tunnel, which runs from Calais to Folkestone.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you knew what you were talking about before talking about it? It would certainly improve your chances of not being hopelessly wrong.

 

[Jayjay]

How else do you think they would get to UK? Already, they are an annoyance to the trucks going into the tunnel. Without any police enforcement it would become nearly impossible to get any trucks through, not to mention unsafe to the civilians walking their way through the tunnel.

Dunkirk is nowhere near the tunnel. It's a major cross-channel ferry port.

The people and the buildings in Dunkirk are there partially due to the fact that "The Jungle" in Calais was bulldozed. If there was no police, why wouldn't the migrants wishing to go to UK all go to Calais? (Sure a few might take their chances with boats but even then, they're better off in Calais).

 

[Jayjay]

UK is already outside Schengen treaty, so leaving EU won't make an appreciable dent in tourism. Brexit might even boost it if the pound plummets. As for moving goods, there is always going to be trade and when you have exactly one road between the countries, it will have traffic on it. But even if there is less traffic, having fake refugees clog up the tunnel would bring it to a halt, because truckers can't have their trucks being boarded by stowaways, and they sure as hell don't want to watch out for pedestrians in the tunnel (who might even pose a security risk, imagine a terrorist sneaking into the tunnel and blowing up a bomb in there).

Second, "letting UK deal with it" could mean just having UK enact stricter border controls and turn most of them back to France similarly to how Norway won't let anyone enter from Sweden or Russia. And that would be at the cost of long lines and traffic jams for any legal travelers and cargo. UK leaving EU would actually make this easier, even if it at least two years away. It's a lose-lose situation for France.

Third, you are making a false dilemma out of France having to provide housing, feeding and protecting the refugees at a very high cost. They haven't done that until now, so if they want to save money France will just put most of its resources into policing them and letting them rot and die in shoddy camps. It's worked so far, and is politically far more likely in current climate.

You appear to have a number of misconceptions about cross channel traffic, and specifically about the channel tunnel.

The channel tunnel is a rail tunnel. Trucks and cars are loaded onto special rail cars to make the crossing - nobody drives trucks through the tunnel.

In fact, there are three tunnels - two rail tunnels (one for each direction), and a small service tunnel in between them, used for maintenance and for emergency evacuations.

It's technically possible to walk through the service tunnel, or even to drive a small car or golf buggy through there; but it's impossible to do so without authority. The service tunnel is little used, closely monitored, and is both narrow and long, with no hiding places.

Refugees attempting to cross via the tunnel generally try to stow away on trains; or on trucks that are going to be loaded onto the trains.

Point taken. But only point that it refutes is the one about pedestrians. Refugees would still be stowing away in trucks and messing up the traffic, and France would still have to police the service tunnels. And the trains. So how exactly do you envision that France could just let the refugees go to UK without shooting itself in the leg?

But refugees in Dunkirk are nowhere near the tunnel, which runs from Calais to Folkestone.

See above post.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you knew what you were talking about before talking about it? It would certainly improve your chances of not being hopelessly wrong.

I was right about the truck traffic. The refugees were starting to be a serious problem to the truckers, until the camp got bulldozed.

 

[bilby]

You appear to have a number of misconceptions about cross channel traffic, and specifically about the channel tunnel.

The channel tunnel is a rail tunnel. Trucks and cars are loaded onto special rail cars to make the crossing - nobody drives trucks through the tunnel.

In fact, there are three tunnels - two rail tunnels (one for each direction), and a small service tunnel in between them, used for maintenance and for emergency evacuations.

It's technically possible to walk through the service tunnel, or even to drive a small car or golf buggy through there; but it's impossible to do so without authority. The service tunnel is little used, closely monitored, and is both narrow and long, with no hiding places.

Refugees attempting to cross via the tunnel generally try to stow away on trains; or on trucks that are going to be loaded onto the trains.

Point taken. But only point that it refutes is the one about pedestrians. Refugees would still be stowing away in trucks and messing up the traffic, and France would still have to police the service tunnels. And the trains. So how exactly do you envision that France could just let the refugees go to UK without shooting itself in the leg?

But refugees in Dunkirk are nowhere near the tunnel, which runs from Calais to Folkestone.

See above post.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you knew what you were talking about before talking about it? It would certainly improve your chances of not being hopelessly wrong.

I was right about the truck traffic. The refugees were starting to be a serious problem to the truckers, until the camp got bulldozed.

The Calais camps and the Dunkirk camps are unrelated.

The camp in question is near Dunkirk; and was established to replace a camp (also near Dunkirk) that was bulldozed.

The earlier camps in both places had the same 'jungle' nickname; but they were and are not related.

The channel tunnel is an important freight link, but the majority of trucks still cross by sea; of about four million trucks making the crossing from France to England each year, around one and a half million use the tunnel trains, and the rest go by ferry.

There are a number of French ports involved, and each has its camp of refugees trying to find a way across. Bulldozing the camps did nothing to stop this; it just meant that the refugees were forced into less unsanitary camps. They are still there, and they are still trying to board trucks.

 

[laughing dog]

First of all, don't call them refugees. They are migrants.
Second, France should not be housing and feeding them either. Instead, France should deport them.

You should offer your consulting services to Marianne Le Pen.

Over the Easter weekend another 8000 migrants have been "rescued" and brought to Italy. These migrants should be brought back to Libya. Knowing that they will be given a free ride to Europe just by floating 12 miles off Libya merely encourages hundreds of thousands more to make the journey, intenisfying the problem.
Thousands of migrants rescued from Mediterranean in three days

Only about 1% of these illegal migrants drown. 99% are pretty good odds for an all-expense paid European vacation of indefinite duration.

Really, so you would take the following bet with the following odds: 99/100 on being placed in a minimum security camp for a couple of years with a chance to move on with your life or return to your shitty homeland and 1/100 chance of dying.