A year ago, a young Syrian boy was photographed washed up dead on a beach in Turkey.
The shocking image prompted public demands to “do something” to alleviate the refugee crisis. David Cameron announced that the UK would take 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020.
For some, the obvious place to take them from would be Calais. This is because the “jungle” – the unofficial migrant camp that has been established there – is so close to the UK – just 20 miles from Dover.
Conditions there are squalid and overcrowded. It is estimated that there are as many as 9,000 desperate people there, squatting in tents in the former landfill site.
It’s a shanty town where the rule of law does not apply. Not all of the people there are Syrians – some are from Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea, and other countries.
However, really it is for the French Government to sort out this mess. They should process the asylum claims and deport those who are not judged to be genuine refugees.
Many of the asylum seekers would prefer to live in the UK rather than France. One makeshift road in the camp has even been named “Theresa May Street”. That is flattering but there is a well established international rule – the Dublin Regulation – that asylum should be sought in the first safe country that is entered by those fleeing persecution. Abandoning that rule would make it all the more chaotic.
Accepting asylum seekers from the Jungle to the UK to have their claims considered here might seem generous and caring. But it would be a disaster. It would boost the people smugglers and encourage more people to make the treacherous journey.
Of course, unaccompanied children are a particular humanitarian concern. In May the Government agreed to a demand from Lord Dubs that the UK should take in 3,000 from across Europe; where local councils in Britain agree to take them. The problem with this is that giving priority to those who have reached EU member states rather than those in the refugee camps of Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey is perverse.
Those in Europe are generally safer than those stuck in such camps. Again it also creates an incentive for the people smugglers, a win for the criminal gangs that attract the desperate.
Charlie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, is clear that the French authorities should have our full support to close the “jungle”.
He says: “Let’s restore order at the border by dismantling the Calais Jungle camp, smashing the modern-day slavery peddled by evil people smugglers, and protecting our truckers.”
This need not mean just sending in the bulldozers. The French authorities should talk to people; offer alternative accommodation; explain to the inhabitants their legal rights and responsibilities. The use of force should be a last resort.
A protest by truckers and farmers over the "Jungle" migrant camp brought roads in Calais to a standstill https://t.co/weKo4Ivi5i
— Sky News (@SkyNews) September 5, 2016
But a soft policy of just letting everyone stay is not, ultimately, a humanitarian policy. When Tony Abbott was the Australian Prime Minister he ensured that illegal boats were towed to an offshore centre, where migrants could make an asylum application. Those whose claims are rejected were free to return home, but not to enter Australia. That tough policy saved lives. From 2008 to 2013 there were 877 asylum seekers who drowned heading for Australia. Since then none have.
So the debate should not just be about numbers but about where we accept the refugees from. There is certainly an argument for saying we should take more than the 20,000 due under the Syrian Vulnerable Peoples Relocation Scheme.
French interior minister vows to destroy the Calais 'Jungle' camp https://t.co/ub4JPFnMay
— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) September 2, 2016
The cost to the taxpayer could also be reduced – for instance, by scrapping the rule that prohibits them from working for 12 months. There is also silly guidance that all accommodation must be self-contained – preventing the use of spare rooms.
There is a lot of virtue signalling in all this. A year ago Hammersmith and Fulham Council attacked the figure of 20,000 as too low. Yet that council has yet to accommodate a single refugee.
The British have a proud history of providing sanctuary to those escaping persecution, and it is right that we have a moral imperative to maintain that tradition.
That duty applies to those in the camps of Zaatari and Azraq in Jordan who didn’t have enough money for the people smugglers. They deserve to be treated fairly.
Calais may be easier to get to for a publicity stunt but giving preferential treatment to its refugees would further escalate the catastrophe.
