World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

The Big Question: Why is the UN setting up in Calais and can it resolve the refugee problem?

By Robert Verkaik

Why are we asking this now?

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is formally establishing a full-time presence in the French port. The agency's staff will help migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers negotiate the French and British immigration systems. But the focus will be on assisting those who want to request asylum in France. The UN has had a part-time presence in Calais since early June and, as of yesterday, that has been increased to five days a week. The UNHCR says it is important that those people fleeing persecution and war have free access to "unbiased" information so that they know they can claim asylum in Calais. Part of the purpose of the renewed mission is to protect migrants and asylum-seekers from the misinformation given to them by traffickers.

How many refugees are living in Calais?

An estimated 1,600 refugees and migrants are camped outside Calais, a fifth of them children. But the current situation in France is a far cry from the Sangatte encampment, which saw 68,000 people pass through its vast halls between 1998 and 2002. The camp was designed to hold about 900 refugees, but the Red Cross said numbers peaked at about 2,000. Sangatte was closed in 2002 after a deal was struck by the then home secretary, David Blunkett, and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, who is now the President.

What are the conditions like in the camps?

Pretty squalid. There is no proper provision of even basic facilities, and refugees scavenge or rely on charity hand-outs. On 13 June, a young Eritrean drowned in a Calais canal after he went there to wash. Most of refugees live in appaling conditions in a shanty town constructed in the woods near the Channel Tunnel, commonly known as "The Jungle". Last month, two of the camps, which had been used by 100 migrants, were levelled by French bulldozers.

Who is living there?

According to the international charity Médecins Sans Frontières, the majority arrive from countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia or Palestine and are fleeing war, violence, hunger and extreme hardship. The recent unrest in Pakistan and Iran has also increased numbers. Many have made long and perilous journeys. In a desperate bid to escape their plights, some have paid money to traffickers to get them to Britain, where they may have relatives. The traffickers often lie about the true legal position in France and Britain.

What do locals think of the camps?

The sentiment in Calais could be best summed up as "not in my back yard". The local tourism industry and many businesses are opposed to the camps because there is a strong perception that the refugee problem deters people from visiting the French port. They blame Britain for not doing enough to discourage asylum seekers. The UNHCR describes relations between the refugees and the people of Calais as "tense". Recent years have seen protest marches about the situation.

What would happen if the French authorities were to close them?

The lesson of Sangatte shows that emptying the camps would not stop immigrants and refugees coming to stay at the French ports. When Sangatte was shut, it took only a few months before more refugees came back to the town to find makeshift, alternative accommodation. Closing the camps would simply result in a displacement of the immigrants, making it even more difficult to monitor them. The job of policing the immigrants is made much easier by having a designated refugee camp.

Why don't the refugees want to stay in France?

There is a perception that the French immigration rules are much stricter than the British ones, and so some refugees pin all their hopes on applying for asylum in the UK. But many more refugees want to come to Britain because they believe they have a genuine claim for asylum. Some are Iraqis or Afghans who have worked with British forces during the occupation of their countries and now fear persecution because they are treated as collaborators. Others have been tortured or raped. A study by Smain Laacher, a French sociologist, found that nearly 90 per cent of the Iraqi Kurds and Tajiks or Pashtuns from Afghanistan were reasonably well educated and had saved the equivalent of several years' wages to pay for the journey. It begs an obvious question: what terrors did they leave behind to prefer to spend their lives in a makeshift camp with no sanitation?

What does the law say?

Under the Dublin convention, a refugee is supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country through which he or she travels, and an EU member state may return an asylum seeker to that country. The convention is a treaty between EU members which came into force in September 1997. Under the treaty, a member state is responsible for handling an asylum application if a member of the asylum-seeker's family has been given refugee status in that country, or if a refugee has been granted a visa or residence permit for that country. A member state is also responsible if the refugee has been able to enter its territory because of poor border controls or has been allowed to enter without a visa.

What are Britain and France doing to stop immigrants from crossing the Channel?

The two governments are currently discussing the creation of a new immigrant holding centre within the British side of the Calais docks. This would be more institutionalised than Sangatte and would allow both immigration authorities to send illegal immigrants home more easily. Nearly 20,000 illegal attempts by immigrants to enter Britain were thwarted by the UK Border Authority in Calais last year, compared with 7,500 in 2004. A further 9,000 were stopped in Coquelle, Paris and in Dunkirk, Belgium. It is not known how many more immigrants succeeded in outwitting border guards. Phil Woolas, the Border and Immigration minister, says: "Last year alone, UK Border Agency staff at our French and Belgium controls not only searched more than one million lorries but also stopped 28,000 attempts to cross the Channel illegally. The illegal migrants in France are not queuing to get into Britain – they have been locked out."

What are the alternatives to the current policies?

The options tend to fall between two extremes. One is to open up Europe's borders, forcing other European states taking their fair share of immigrants, so that there is a free flow of immigrants. After several years, migration across continents and countries might even out. In Greece, for example, 99.9 per cent of all asylum claimants are rejected, with similarly high rejection rates in Slovenia. With such low refugee recognition rates across parts of southern and eastern Europe, there is little incentive for persons who think they may have legitimate asylum claims to break off from the people traffickers and claim asylum while en route. The other extreme option would be to stop all immigrants from entering Britain. This would contravene EU and international law and end Britain's long and proud record as a place for those seeking sanctuary from all kinds of persecution.

Would closing the camps stop illegal immigrants from entering Britain?

Yes...

* The camps in northern France actually act as a magnet for illegal immigrants from across the world who want to come to the British Isles

* Human traffickers would not be able to trawl the camps for victims

* Without anywhere to live, the immigrants would soon enough return to their homelands

No...

* Closure would simply displace any illegal immigrants and refugees – the problem would not go away

* The majority of residents in the camps are genuine asylum-seekers and not illegal immigrants

* The best way to stop illegal immigrants is to tighten up Britain's border controls

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

'Asylum seekers' seeking to enter UK from France
[info]rhysburriss wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 12:09 am (UTC)
Nowhere in this article is the right question being asked:

viz - are these people legally entitled to be IN FRANCE ? If they are then the French authorities should do whatever is their legal duty to do for them according to French law.

If they are not entitled to be in France why are the French authorities not using their own court and legal systems to deport them to the countries from which they entered France in the first place ?

This is not essentially a British problem. It is obvious that France is a civilized country and anyone genuinely fleeing persecution can apply for asylum there. And if refused France is entitled to deport them ( but not to Britain ! ).
Re: 'Asylum seekers' seeking to enter UK from France
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:45 pm (UTC)
rhysburriss, easier said than done i am afraid.

Once they set foot in this treasured land of ours they can claim "asylum", even though they have gone through other EU countries first, and because of our appeals system, granting of legal representation, and counter appeals it can take years.

They then have to be housed, cared for regards to health, feeding, teaching, translation, cultural\religious needs, monitoring and reporting. And this is just the start process. And for many who fail asylum status they just vanish into the grey economy.

As was recently reported, the Government spent millions of pounds with the end result, one family was deported. The others had been here too long and were granted leave to stay, and a few families just refused, point blanky, to leave!
Re: 'Asylum seekers' seeking to enter UK from France
[info]fol2choco wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 10:24 am (UTC)
They don't want to stay in France. They want "England", the country they see on CNN and BBC.
Re: 'Asylum seekers' seeking to enter UK from France
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
So they want to come to Britain because on the BBC they have seen:

Huge redundancies and businesses closing

Mass unemployment

Factories closing down

Our currency devalued

Highest GDP debt ever

Housing provision at an all time low

Health service breaking under the strain

Education failing the children

Crime rates climbing

With all this, why do they bypass safe countries to come to Britain?
Re: 'Asylum seekers' seeking to enter UK from France
[info]fol2choco wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 06:46 pm (UTC)
For them is heaven. You don't know where they come from.
Re: 'Asylum seekers' seeking to enter UK from France
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 09:07 pm (UTC)
fol2choco, that is the point, I do know where many have come from and what they have left, i've seen it.

The question is still the same. Why pass through all the other EU countries if not for economic reasons?
THE MAIL THE MAIL THE MAIL IS GOING TO UN THAT IS WHY
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)
The Government is under pressure to explain how it will cope with the Royal Mail's Ł10bn pension fund deficit after it abandoned plans to sell off part of the service.
I got it at last
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
BRING THIS INVASION TO AN END
[info]ameliemaryann wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
Britain is bursting at the seams. We are a small island. How many can we, or should we, take? There are millions worldwide who would like 'a better life' here. We can't take them all. There has to be an end otherwise we will be shoulder to shoulder without a blade of grass to be seen. Is that desirable, for anyone? Yes, for the moment, we may be better off than a large proportion of the rest of the world but what is to be gained by destroying us as well as is inevitably the case when the masses who want to come here get here? Far better to have spent the money the despicable Brown has wasted on persuading people by economic means, or any means, to stay in their own countries otherwise, we're all doomed.
Re: BRING THIS INVASION TO AN END
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:53 pm (UTC)
ameliemarieann, one thing these reports fail to answer is where are we going to house all these new "citizens".

The PM announced a new construction phase for affordable housing, but the construction aside, what many have failed to realise is this. Over the past decade building construction has developed at such an extent that they have developed traditional flood plains land for construction, with the result that we are now experiencing flooding to a greater degree than ever before.

Economics are one factor of mass immigration, but the effect it has on our land is far more lasting. Once all that green land is covered over with concrete and tarmac, Governments are very reluctant to go back to reverse the damage!

We are now losing green belt land, farmers are selling off arable land, how long before we have run out of land to grow the products we need to sustain ourselves?
Stop the deluge
[info]gw1000 wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
This deluge of economic migrants will destroy our country if firm action isn't taken soon.
Re: Stop the deluge
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:28 pm (UTC)
gw1000.

Unfortunately with NuLabour in power, and their insistence of having us assimilated into the EU nothing will happen. Nu Labour are relying on the immigrant vote to get them back into power at the next election, hence the granting of 200,000 UK passports to immigrants, conveniently just before a general election is due.
OVER POPULATION
[info]pethow123 wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 11:35 am (UTC)
These people are only running from 1 thing over population Afgan avrage 7 child each Pac 5 and so on with the world pop increasing by 1 million every 4 days do you think theye can all come over here
You have to spend all over seas aid on family planing so people can live in there own countries SO SEND THEM ALL BACK with save lives with family planing handbook so they can educate there own people
Re: OVER POPULATION
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
Pethow, unfortunately, as good as your suggestion may be, many of the countries due to their religion, and the males especially will not use, or let their wives use family planning.

Here in the UK, the highest proportion born, according to ONS figures, were from the ethnic community, with many of them now having between 3 - 5 children. See, even in this country where family planning is available, the women appear to be reluctant or forbidden to take or use the facility.
Re: OVER POPULATION
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:08 pm (UTC)
Cut off their bollocks then send them back then...
Cross Border control
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:12 pm (UTC)
Mr Verkaik, an interesting article, but from a personal point of view there are many questions that still need to be highlighted.

The UNHCR have no dictate to setup permanently in Calais, as the people are not refugees, they are in a safe country.

The reality is these people have forgone protection within other countries within the Union to try and access Britain due to, as Ms Angela Merkels said "their (UK) overly generous benefits, housing, medical and teaching system". We have created a rod for our own back and the immigrants are now beating us with it.

My brother lives in Calais, and on very many occasions he has had his property stolen, damaged, broken into or "adhorned" with slogans from the immigrants and the Open Borders group.

The UE have created this problem with the erasure od all border controls, and now that a problem begins to get out of control in an area they ignore their responsibilities, refuse to move immigrants to other EU countries, yet expect Britain to swallow the influx.

A report out yesterday by the OECD, a nationally respected group, stated that 71% of new jobs created in the UK during 1997 - 2007 have been taaken up by workers from outside the UK. It is also reported that with the issue of 200,000 passports to make immigrants UK citizens, the situation will get worse.

At a time where we are in a Flu Pandemic, relaxing border controls even further and setting up a centre on this side of the channel is risky at best, deadly at the worst.

It is high time we withdrew from the EU, as this country will recover quicker, despite what the eurocrats would scaremonger against, as we can establish free trade as before, control our own laws, customs and borders.

We were denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, throwing all that is written in the Magna Carta into the bin, just so a few deranged people can go down "in history". The next general election will soon see this Government out of power, and if according to many of the blogs, Ireland will again reject the Treaty put back before them.

For too long now our Government have manipulated figures, gagged free speech, hindered investagative journalism and denigrated its own citizens to suit the Euro State they so desperately want to be part of to protect their OWN lifestyle, not the peoples.



Re: Cross Border control
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC)
Just a correction, the centre being set up is not on this side of the channel, just on the side of British customs in Calais. But if they wish to claim asylum as everyone points out they have invalidated a claim in Britain, but probably France too as these people have crossed many countries to get to France.
The rights to asylum of these people are often ropey at best - Jean-Charles de Menezes family summed up - their son had a right to be in the UK as he was from a poor country.
Re: Cross Border control
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)
Kuma2000, thank you for highlighting my error, the centre will indeed be built on the "British" side of Calais, my apologies if i have caused confusion to anyone.

As for your second point, it will not be long before international "ambulance chaser" lawyers descend on the centre offering immigration help, all at the British tax payers expense.

I really do find it frustrating that Brown and his co-horts are failing the country so badly on this issue.
Re: Cross Border control
[info]fol2choco wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC)
you're stupid, it's not because of EU this people came, it's because the myth you created with your country. It's your problem, don't blame France and EU because you can't take your own responsability.
Re: Cross Border control
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC)
fol2choco, I am not going to get into a personal slanging match with you, this is not what the forum is about. My family live in Calais, so i know what is going on.

FACT: The UNHCR have no mandate to set up at Calais. By offering permanent aid and advice THEY are encouraging more immigrants to the area.

FACT: The immigrants on the Calais Border are economic migrants, who have passed through safer countries to get to France.

FACT: As economic migrants it is upto YOUR country to repatriate these people, NOT THE UK, as they have forfeited the asylum offered by other safe countries, and France have that reason as justification to deport them.

FACT: Our Border Control Officers are employed to stop these illegal Financial Immigrants getting to the UK, that is our responsibility to our people and our country.

FACT: The UK have a very liberal system and lifestyle, but many of the laws and regulations revolving and immigrants have been forced upon us by the EU, with the result that as a country we are now, literally, swamped and in dire financial crisis, and i would even go so far as to say bankrupt.

FACT: We have taken MORE than our fair share of immigrants into the UK, yet when Sangat was set up, French Police and Officials would actively "turn a blind eye" to immigrants smuggling themselves into the UK. Word quickly passed how passive the harbour officials were and more immigrants swamped the area. So really this is a symptom created by the officials who betrayed your country by not doing their duty.

I will reply to any constructive commentary, but as i stated earlier, i will not enter into a personal slanging match.
Dunkirk
[info]fol2choco wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 10:19 am (UTC)
Dunkirk is in France, not in Belgium, learn geography.
Re: Dunkirk
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 12:49 pm (UTC)
What are you on anout?

We British know Dunkirk is in France, tens of thousands of our soldiers, and many other nationalities, lost their lives helping to liberate France and Europe.

The only difference is this time is it is the UK that is being invaded, by an economic enemy, and we need to put up our defences and repel the invaders.
Re: Dunkirk
[info]fol2choco wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 06:48 pm (UTC)
I speak about the article, I don't care about you and your war. Get a life.
Re: Dunkirk
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 09:10 pm (UTC)
France have caused this problem, France can sort it out.

Most popular in Europe

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date