Said Pierre-Henri Dumont, a French legislator, quoted in "France and Britain spar over illegal migration, after at least 27 drown in English Channel" (WaPo).
He also rejected the offer of help from Britain, because it's a "question of sovereignty — I’m not sure the British people would accept it the other way round, with the French army patrolling the British shore."
Posts
34 comments:
I’m not sure the British people would accept it the other way round, with the French army patrolling the British shore.
First, save lives. Second, worry about whose shore it is. These are not cattle. This is not a war.
One solution to the illegal immigrant problem is to end welfare for those present illegally. California passed a proposition to enact this law but it was struck down by a leftist judge and Jerry Brown, who was AG at the time, did not appeal this decision. The decline of California followed.
The illegal immigrants are quite open about their reasons. "The salary (welfare) is better."
The solution is to pick up the people in the boats and return them to France. This isn't hard to do, but it requires the cooperation of both countries and some political will. What isn't moral is doing nothing or pretending nothing can be done.
"I’m not sure that having more police officers or more materials on the French shore will help to stop these crossings..."
What about...?
Is 180 miles really that hard to patrol? The U.S. border with Mexico is 10 times that long.
"Is 180 miles really that hard to patrol? The U.S. border with Mexico is 10 times that long."
Of course not. It isn't actually hard to patrol the US Mexico border, it is a lack of political will that makes it "difficult".
Ask the Germans about guarding the French coastline.
It isn't 180 or even 120 miles: if you look at a map, the English Channel narrows to about 20-25 miles along a very short part of the French coastline, between Calais and Dunkirk. The migrant camps are in this zone and that's from where the launches take place. If you drive along the motorway in that area, all the areas you can pull off to take a break ("aires" as they are romantically called in French) are closed off, so that they cannot be used as marshalling points for boats and people (and so that migrants cannot clamber aboard UK bound lorries), but they are not closed further down the coast, say, around Le Touquet.
Also, the British Government has been paying the French ever increasing amounts to cover its costs in securing its coastline, now up to £50m a year. You can patrol 20 miles of coastline for £50m a year.
"What isn't moral is doing nothing"
Correct, provided the something is forcing would-be boat people to stay on land in the first place and forcibly returning any would-be invaders tout de suite. The lack of political will to defend actual borders and enforce actual laws is indeed immoral.
But neither France nor Britain has any moral obligation to rescue people who willingly risk their own lives for their own reasons to violate someone else's laws. Encouraging the criminal folly is itself immoral.
Mine the Channel?
Just thinking out loud...
The Germans couldn't invade because Britain had air superiority.
Is the French northern coast only 180 miles? Seems longer looking at a map.
'One solution to the illegal immigrant problem is to end welfare for those present illegally.'
This will not work, as everyone will be deemed here 'legally' pending some bullshit asylum claim.
How about cut off all welfare for all non-citizens.
And when a 'migrant' does manage to get citizenship, they must show a tax return before they get a dime.
This is not difficult, people...
camp of the saints, is not supposed to be a how to manual,
"Encouraging the criminal folly is itself immoral," says Sebastian@1121, and I agree.
Enough is enough, and will soon be too much.
Joe Smith said...
Mine the Channel?
Just thinking out loud...
***************
How 'bout taking some Spitfires and Hurricanes out of museums and using them to strafe the empty boats as they go over to "Frawnce"?
(a guy can dream, can't he?)
We have a moat with alligators in it. No illegal migrants yet…
"Encouraging the criminal folly is itself immoral," says Sebastian@1121, and I agree.
Enough is enough, and will soon be too much.
The Germans couldn't invade Britain because of the Royal Navy, even had they managed to defeat the RAF.
But none of the folks involved now are your father's Western Europeans.
Anyone arriving without permission is immediately sent far away - say, their country of origin, without appeal or asylum. Or is that too crazy an idea to try?
So we've gone from "I’m not sure that having more police officers or more materials on the French shore will help to stop these crossings because we have 200 or 300 kilometers of shore to monitor 24/7."
to
He also rejected the offer of help from Britain, because it's a "question of sovereignty — I’m not sure the British people would accept it the other way round, with the French army patrolling the British shore."
Well, let's try some logic here:
Either you're a sovereign country capable of monitoring your own borders, in which case you need to do that and stop whining about how difficult it is, or you're not a sovereign country capable of monitoring your own borders, in which case you should take the British help.
Pick one
Here's a simple solution:
Anyone caught attempting to get into the UK illegally immediately gets kicked out of the EU and returned to their home country?
They're going to die there? Tough shit, they shouldn't have tried to violate the UK border
As it is, I expect those who try to cross and get caught are simply returned to where they can try to cross again.
Actions should have consequences. Especially criminal actions
typingtroll: "This is not a war."
The hell it's not.
Althouse: "Is 180 miles really that hard to patrol?" Yancey: "Of course not."
Actually, many centuries of cross-channel smuggling says yes it is, and expensive to boot. Modern radar and other tools do shift the balance more in favor of the patrollers, but very much still not cheap.
'But none of the folks involved now are your father's Western Europeans.'
70 years ago the Brits and Aussies were some of the toughest bastards on the planet.
These days not so much...
Radar, helicopters, missiles can easily take care of invaders.
The last time the beaches of France were stormed by sea, it didn't go well for those controlling the land at the time.
The late Oriana Fallaci wrote several books on the arabificacion of Europe.
25 years old and a bit out of date. Still very much worth reading.
The EU didn't like her speaking out on this. They sentenced her to jail but she avoided it on a technicality. She died.
This arabificacion has been going on since the 50s.probably unstoppable at this point
That is weird- I was doing a Sunday NYTimes crossword earlier today and Ms.Fallaci was one of answers, at least her first name was the answer. I didn't know it, but filled it in by solving the surrounding answers.
“Actually, many centuries of cross-channel smuggling says yes it is,”
According to the literature smuggling in Britain was enforced weakly so that the elites could buy cheap wines and brandy form France and Portugal. The upper class got what it wanted while making it a bit difficult for the lower classes to consume European fare. I think you would be surprised how quickly migration could be stopped if there was political support for seeing militarized police corralling and returning migrant families, like in Australia.
The solution is easy: Deport!
It already sounds French.
If only the Rio Grande was as wide as the Channel.
Nobody's asking why people are so desperate to LEAVE FRANCE.
The answer to that question's why France doesn't want "help".
There was a better article in UnHerd on the same topic. As it turns out, the French have been extremely effective in blocking the other smuggling routes into Britain, leaving small boats across the Channel as the only available route. The number of asylum seekers making it to Britain last year was only about 29,000 according to the UnHerd piece, with about 80,000 staying in France. The scale is quite different than what's happening on the southern US border.
It's so odd that the large numbers make the whole thing so easy to dismiss. The author of the UnHerd piece (a British journalist living in France) has been covering the human tragedy in the Pas de Calais for decades, sees the many sides of the problem, much better than the French v. British angle of this WaPo piece.
Josephbleau,
You are right about the hypocrisy/inconsistent enforcement, but badly mistaken if you think there would be the slightest political feasibility of the UK using the same forceful measures that the Revenue agents did back then, when they did get around to enforcing the law.
Josephbleau,
You are right about the hypocrisy/inconsistent enforcement, but badly mistaken if you think there would be the slightest political feasibility of the UK using the same forceful measures that the Revenue agents did back then, when they did get around to enforcing the law.
Post a Comment