Migrants, Calais, the British Eldorado, crossing the Channel

Traduction in  =>ICI This Friday, September 18, an excellent article on the subject appeared in the Voix du Nord by a "former Calaisian" journalist, Adrien Boussemart, who describes in a realistic and factual way (video in support) the conditions of crossing the thirty kms or so of the strait separating us from our neighbours as well as the problem of the maritime border. You will find the prices charged, the estimated number of successes, the attitude of the authorities monitoring our borders, etc... It is a factual revelation that reflects the truth of the day. I urge you to read it (see to view it: there is a video sequence) it will give you an insight into the problem.
At the same time I was interested in what makes the British territory the "promised land" for all these migrants. It seems that many factors are at play
- knowledge of the language (this is an important point). For these people who often have a native language and an official language, often English, it is a factor of integration.
- the possibility of meeting a community of the country or people (indeed, colonisation separated peoples with artificial borders between people of the same ethnic origins)
- the "trace of the path taken" by the previous ones who marked out the route and in return give it a halo of success
- the reception conditions in England for newcomers: housing, food, money (see below)
- the possibilities of finding work there (even if the authorities do not allow it), the low rate of deportation in the event of refusal of asylum and the ease of blending in (absence of an identity card)

But not all of these factors are as real as they seem:
- In discussions with people who help migrants, they praised the reception conditions of the British (see above). However, by delving into the subject we learn more.
- For example, that "accommodation, food, money" aid is subcontracted to private companies whose motive is not humanitarian, but rather the benefit, and that the conditions of aid are often immodest.
- That the right to detain people in an irregular situation is of indefinite duration and can be very long.
- That people without status, rejected asylum seekers are not entitled to care or social assistance, in short they are left to their own devices, to various schemes, prey to people in the shadows.
- that in terms of reception of immigrants, our Belgian neighbours have much more real and humane help without financial aid but with concrete actions of social workers dedicated to this subject: housing, food, access to care at least until the study of their files

So how can we ensure that Calais is not a hostile land for all those who are waiting for a better life?
- First of all, understand why some stay while others pass through. Here it is a financial question. The waiting depends on the price to be paid to the smugglers, the most destitute people (often from Africa) cannot pay for the passage.
- Then, in order to prevent a "new jungle" from setting up, the authorities make the stay "unliveable": no roof, insufficient food (regulation of the distribution areas by forbidding associations to distribute), no hygiene conditions (lack of showers in sufficient number, absence of toilets). Of course, elected representatives and the authorities are not monsters, but they have responsibilities towards their electorate and their supervisory authorities.
- And what do the voters ask for? "We are not against migrants, but not in front of my house. They are a nuisance. We are afraid. They make things dirty. They clutter up the emergency rooms. In short, they live as best they can. We don't want to hurt them, but don't let me see them!
- And what are the authorities asking for? "The policemen show up on the ground! Put an end to all squatting, all attempts to regroup, make order! »
And why? Because the fear of the elected representatives and the authorities are the same: to prevent this "good people" from turning to populists with rallying speeches advocating radical solutions, certainly effective in the short term, but so dangerous for everyone in the long term and not solving any of the problems.
A populist: "Your leg hurts, cut it off and put a good prosthesis on it, you'll see you'll be happy. Of course you will walk less well but at least I would have earned money by providing you with the material and after impossible to save you quickly, I would still have my hands on you".

So what to do?
       Listen to the aid charities. They have tried and tested solutions
Remove the "dublination".
Provide in kind decent conditions of "housing, food, health" reception by non-private state professionals (it is the role of a state to respect human rights).
Avoid overcrowding by scattering reception facilities in small structures.
Favour integration through education because these migrants are a source of vitality, generosity, intelligence (and if the future Einstein drowned in the Mediterranean or in the North Sea...). Contrary to what is often expressed, immigrants do not "steal bread and work" but it has been proved that immigration enriches the host country, exports wealth to the countries of origin allowing people to settle in the country by financing local initiatives through their direct investments in their families (no embezzlement of money by "France à fric"). This is what is shown by serious studies, it is true, reading a report is sometimes boring and listening to a "charismatic leader" promising you the Moon or Mars is so much more dreamy. One activity speaks to our intelligence, the other speaks to our instinct. Will we be the good guy, the beast or the bad guy? It's up to you to choose, but beware there is little chance of going backwards. A mobster belongs to the mafia. A beast that has "tasted blood" can hardly be tamed. As for the good one, he is often mocked as being naive, perhaps, but in our world only intelligence will save us whether it is naive or evil. Will we be Machiavelli, Gandhi, a righteous man or a collaborator? And who in the end won?