On air: So what’s the answer?

calais fireTo the right is one of the hundreds of refugees – mainly Afghans -camped out in a place called “the jungle” near Calais in northern France, hoping to make it across the Channel to Britain.

This week, French police broke up the camp- an operation criticised by refugee groups.

News bulletins have carried interviews with some of the people saying they will do everything to get to the UK – and nothing will deter them.

It’s one pressure point of many around the world  which highlights of dealing with a problem which is seemingly insoluble.

calais on the busBritain says it won’t take them.

Public opinion hardens towards the refugees, but nothing seems to stop them.

France intends to send them back to the European country of entry.

Tomorrow, WHYS comes from Calais. We’ll link up with our colleagues in the Pashto service to hear from the refugees themselves, residents of Calais and of course you.calais migrants

Madeleine, Krupa, James and Helena will post comments below on what people have been telling them. 

So, what’s the answer ?

61 Responses to “On air: So what’s the answer?”

  1. 1 Buffalo Rose in Stayton Oregon
    September 23, 2009 at 17:32

    As world population increases, this will continue to be a serious problem everywhere that a better living condition is available. Whether it will be active refugees running from certain death, or financial refugees running from starvation. Simple humanity decrees that we somehow assist our brothers and sisters. I think the United Nations should attempt a larger role in the so-called “jungles” of the world, where people wait and squat in near-inhumane conditions. Perhaps providing at least some supervision and seeing that basic hygiene services be made available. If the land in these areas is already occupied by refugees, why couldn’t it then be monitored by a branch of the U.N. or Red Cross? Obviously it was unoccupied when the refugees started waiting there. It’s a knotty problem that has to be solved or at least softened by more than the “occupied” country and the destination country.

  2. 2 Tom K in Mpls
    September 23, 2009 at 17:57

    The answer is in the actions of the immigrants. What is it that makes Britain more appealing than France? Britain needs to make a change to eliminate the desire. This is the only way to stop illegal immigration.

    The more difficult solution is to work to make their country of origin better. But then, what rights does one country have to enforce changes in another?

  3. 3 Lindsay
    September 23, 2009 at 18:25

    People need to ask themselves the question: why are the Afghans and other cultures leaving their home country? They are doing it because of the war, strife, and poverty in their homelands. They are looking for a better life and doing what all humans do, trying to survive. Just trying to eliminate the Jungle and ignoring the reasons why this exodus is happening is not right. The only way to stop Afghans from coming and living in places like the Jungle is to help them and help Afghanistan rebuild.

  4. 4 patti in cape coral
    September 23, 2009 at 18:31

    There is no answer. I won’t bother giving my opinion because I am biased, my husband having been here illegally at one point, and knowing what I would do if me and my family were starving or in danger. I think Tom K in Mpls’ more difficult solution is the correct one, but as he says how do you enforce changes on another sovereign country?

  5. 5 gary
    September 23, 2009 at 18:59

    The answer is simple. Humanity is a more important consideration than is ethnicity or nationality. We were tribal barbarians or we lived in city-states until challenges could not be met with such small organizations. Personal considerations were submerged in favor of national identity. Nation-states provided security for many years; but as with all human creations, their productive times may be nearing an end. Survival may depend upon accepting each person as a fellow citizen of Earth, and in striving toward the common good. The theory is simple; but the practical solution is difficult. We might “grow-up,” or we might not live long enough, and the wonder is; we get to choose.

    • 6 nora
      September 24, 2009 at 17:07

      Well said gary.

    • 7 Richard Posner
      September 24, 2009 at 19:09

      That’s a lovely sentiment, Gary, but I suspect the British Isles are going to get a bit crowded when you welcome the 5 billion downtrodden of the world to your shores. Or did you plan to just shovel your citizens’ money overseas until the world’s economic circumstances are equal?
      I believe everyone has the human rights as stated in the United Nations charter. I believe in supporting people who are fighting against regimes who deny those rights, with weapons and other means for them to liberate themselves. But I don’t believe the West owes the rest of the world its blood and treasure. Self-determination means its on the world’s poor to liberate themselves.

    • 8 Tom K in Mpls
      September 25, 2009 at 20:23

      gary, ethnicity and nationality are aspects of the combined emotions fear and pride. Both are aspects of humanity. To deny their reality and worth will prevent you from finding a workable solution. We must respect the needs others perceive or accept that they have the right to change use to achieve the goals you desire.

  6. 10 Jim Newman
    September 23, 2009 at 21:54

    Hello again
    The answer is to decrease the human population of the world to less than a half of what it is now within the next century. The other answer is extinction.

  7. 11 Josiah Soap
    September 23, 2009 at 22:12

    I think it was right to close the camp, efforts should also be made to repatriot these people back to their homelands. I am sure Europe has more to offer, but we cannot keep on taking on these people. It might sound heartless, but in Europe there is already unemployment and resources are stretched to their limits. If no one puts a check on uncontrolled immigration then resources will be used up, crime will become rife and Europe will be no better than the countries these people were trying to escape. One could argue that these people just want a better life and a better place to live. Well then I want a better place and life, I want to be out of my terraced house and move into a Hollywood stars mansion and eat nice food and wear fancy clothes. But that doesn’t give me the right to break the law and camp on their front lawn, before I illegally squat in their home. As the population of the world increases and climate change alters food production I think these problems will get worse. Its a tough decision to tear down the camp, but we need to send a firm message now before the problem gets worse – Europe is full up!

  8. 12 Jason O in Pittsburgh
    September 23, 2009 at 23:05

    Internationally displaced persons (IDPs) should be taken care of by the nations partly and currently responsible for the deterioration of security in their regions. In this case, all nations involved in NATO should accept a percentage of this group and accept them until Afghanistan is able to stand on its own. This was the case when we became involved in Kosovo. Many NATO countries accepted thousands of Kosovars and offered them services until they were able to return home. In some cases these IDPs were offered citizenship by the host country.

    What happened in France is a revolting display of inhumanity!

  9. 13 Jacqui Peacock
    September 24, 2009 at 00:32

    This country is no longer a place to rear a family in saftey, Education is worse now than ever, Homes are now in such short supply that tentsville is becoming an option. We do however have employers willing to use and abuse immigrants because they know that this goverment do not have the will power to stop them. They will be employed without full saftey issues taken into consideration they will have no comeback if they are injured. They will always be looking over there shoulders in case someone reports them The only thing is they may get away with it, in doing so they will make the living conditions for every other person living on this island worse. They will be resented silently until one day everyone will react to there being here. It will happen when i do not know I hope that I am not around then. I long for the days of my youth when we all liked our neighbours who ever they where. Now we close the door and shut our eyes and ears and ignore what we know is wrong. Thankyou New Labour they did not make it better

  10. September 24, 2009 at 01:49

    There is no smoke without fire. Previously there were no displaced camp in the jungle of Calais and now there are. What people should bear in mind today is that our world has and continues to be diverse. An issue in one area will easily become the issue of all. So I do not think it is time to lay blame at another person’s door. We have got to think about a durable solution to the plight of refugees regardless of where they come from. These are people have lost hope and desirous of living better like anybody else. Please let us do the little we can for people in these situations.

  11. 15 T
    September 24, 2009 at 01:58

    As long as many countries allow themselves to be dominated by corporations, this will only get worse.

  12. 16 scmehta
    September 24, 2009 at 07:29

    The question is not: how many people want to leave their countries and why; The question is: how many illegal migrants are you ready to accept and how ?

  13. 17 Alex Kiss
    September 24, 2009 at 08:44

    These people need to go home and fight to make their own country a place from which they have no need to flee. It is a kind of cowardice not to do so.

    What makes Britain so attractive is that throughout our history we have stood up against oppression, striven for equality, rejected intolerant religions and worked tirelessly for prosperity.

    But should we share some of the rewards with those in dire need? Of course, yes. And we should help (not force) those who want to improve their own country. That is part of the price we must pay for past exploitation of some of those countries. And our very humanity demands it.

    But to feed those that wont strive, to shelter those who wont fight, devalues and insults those in Britain who do. And we still have our own “poor”, our own needy, infirm, abused and oppressed.

    • 18 nora
      September 24, 2009 at 17:17

      The Irish diaspora is larger than the population of Ireland. There are enough Robertsons worldwide to make a medium sized country. The English seemed to have stopped and populated here and there….you should have room for some Afghans that might have been taken up Robertsons or Gilhooleys.

  14. 19 VictorK
    September 24, 2009 at 10:05

    So long as they’re unwanted (& UK public opinion is solid against their admission) the answer is to send them back as often as they come.

    @Tom & Lindsay: making their country of origin better is the responsibility of Afghans, not the UK or anyone else. If they’d worked with the coalition in their homeland they, like the Iraqis, would have had the better life that they demand as emigrants courtesy of other people’s labours. Some countries are destined to be poor and hopeless. It’s time we accepted that and dropped neo-colonialist schemes to forcibly improve places like Afghanistan.
    @Gary: do you have a practical suggestion? High-minded but wishful thinking that human beings will change their collective nature overnight helps no one. National identity is a reality. It’s a perfectly legitimate & natural expression of people’s history, circumstances, feelings and beliefs. Waving an humanitarian wand won’t make it disappear.

    • September 24, 2009 at 11:25

      Salaam VictorK… Are you suggesting by any means that the lives of us Iraqis who ”co-operated with the coalition forces??;)” are now BETTER ??!! ;)… OK, we all must have got it wrong then, after all, you do know pretty much better in this regard than I do eh ?! ;)… With my love… Yours forever, Lubna in Baghdad…

  15. 21 James Ian
    September 24, 2009 at 10:11

    This world needs to come to terms with its reckless and irresponsible human population growth. For all of Chinas faults I applaud them for their efforts in controlling population. It’s sad to see a child living in poverty but, the people to blame for that is the parents who bring that child into the world knowing they did not have the resource available to provide for it. I get so mad when I see poor people who are already unable to provide for themselves, having children. I think people who do that should be charged criminally with child abuse and have thier reproductive organs removed.
    But hey, that’s just my opinion. Call me crazy but I think most of the starvation, poverty, global warming and other issues we facing today could be resolved with a little prudence in reproduction. Having a child isn’t a right it’s a responsibility.

    • 22 nora
      September 24, 2009 at 17:38

      Tell the rape victims that come with every war that reproduction is a responsibility?

      • 23 Richard Posner
        September 24, 2009 at 19:20

        Oh please! your trying to say that the world population went from five billion to six billion in ten years because of rape? That’s ridiculous. What James said was that everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions…in resource use, in social action and, yes, reproduction. The countries that are starving are the countries that refuse to take any action to limit their family size. Anyone with even a casual knowledge of reproduction statistics would know this.
        Your response to James was completely specious.

      • 24 James Ian
        September 25, 2009 at 06:20

        I think you know what I was talking about. To go that direction with it is just silly.
        Obviously not their fault. However I do suport abortions in those cases.
        And before you say anything, I know there are restrictions on that in many cases due to superstitious religious beliefs and just availability of competent medical help.

    • 25 James Ian
      September 26, 2009 at 06:25

      Thanks Richard

  16. 26 VictorK
    September 24, 2009 at 11:59

    Hello Lubna.

    When Japan & Germany were occupied post WWII they had the option of co-operating with their occupiers with a view to aiding national recovery and eventually ending occupation, or – for the sheer fun of it – drenching their countries in blood. That’s what I mean by ‘working with’ or ‘co-operating’: collectively, as a nation, as a matter of the collective national will. Iraqis have never done this. Neither have Afghans (which is why theTaliban move freely amongst the civilian population, in a way that Government forces are afraid to).

    I think the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong; but the people of both countries had the option of making those occupations work to their advantage, rebuilding their countries, and finally giving the occupiers no reason for staying. Instead they chose blood and violence. It’s Afghans who produced Afghan refugees.

    September 24, 2009 at 12:43

    This issue is a paradox. We have been told that Afghanistan is far better than it was during former regimes. Obviously this observation makes that citation nonsense.

    On the other hand, what problem does an illegal migrant have if he can afford thousands of dollars to pay human traffickers? A good number of them are cheats and should be deported back.
    Illegal migration is unacceptable anywhere though some countries should take blame for making it difficult for others to settle within their borders while they want others to let them in freely. France of course is wrong with regards to the way it is handling this issue. Where does Britain come in?

  18. 28 Madeleine Morris
    September 24, 2009 at 12:53

    Hi everyone,
    We’ve been going around some of the areas where the migrants are now sleeping. It’s on the edge of the canal here – no tents, no protection. They are also sleeping in the scrub which covers the sand dunes just next to the ferry port.
    I’ll post a video very soon.

    Everyone is telling us that they are only here because they want to get to Britain. Nearly everyone says they’re under 18 – that’s because under law the state has to look after them if they are minors, but a couple of them don’t look very convincing as children.

    At the moment around 100 migrants are having lunch in a car park by the canal. A local charity is feeding them and a different one feeds them at night. It’s like that all day, every day. No work, nothing to do except wait for lunch and dinner and try to get to the UK at night times. Conditions are very bad.
    I’ll post more soon

  19. September 24, 2009 at 12:53

    Salaam VictorK,
    ”It’s Afghans who produced Afghan refugees”, and the coalition forces are totally innocent and have no fault what so ever in all of this mess and madness, oh right I forgot, they are good people stuffed with peace, warmth, and delicious dark chocolate ! ;)… As for the Iraqi situation, EVERYBODY has messed up in my Iraq and NO ONE at all is innocent, I guess that I have made myself very clear here so there’s absolutely no need to write more, is there VictorK ?! ;)… With my love… Yours forever, Lubna in Baghdad…

  20. 30 VictorK
    September 24, 2009 at 13:51

    @Lubna: trying not to get too far off-topic – Madeleine’s post states that most of the Afghans she’s come across claim to be under 18. If true, then it’s a deliberate attempt by Afghan families to secure a better life for their children (& future remittances), i.e. an attempt to gain asylum by cynically working the system. We in the UK should resist this. These are not genuine refugees (apparently no women & families – does the violence in Afghanistan only affect males in the age range 16-30, then?).
    *They want to get out of Afghanistan. Were the coalition to leave people like these would still want to get out of Afghanistan (I don’t blame them). After all, the entire country is not war-torn, though the entire country is maladministered…by Afghans.
    *And don’t forget, the British people never wanted anything to do with Afghanistan (or Iraq). The blunder of getting involved in that country is down to our elected, though unrepresentative, political elite. But don’t worry, they’ll be punished, severely, in next year’s election.

  21. September 24, 2009 at 16:09

    So whats the answer?

    Do what the Yoemen of England did,do what the Americans of 1776 did. Go and make your beloved country worthy of you. Stop looking for the easy way out and taking you leisure off other peoples backs.

  22. 32 Dave in Florida
    September 24, 2009 at 16:32

    These are the best and the brightest; the hard workers who want to be responsible for their families, and if you ask they will tell you they are proud of their country. They are exactly the people who need to remain in their dysfunctional countries and make it functional.

    By accepting these immigrants, Europe and North America are doing far more damage than good by keeping the countries of origin as basket cases living off remittances.

  23. 33 Nigel
    September 24, 2009 at 17:21

    Why aren’t these Afghan refugees heading to the US? The situation in Afghanistan is a direct result of a US invasion.

  24. 34 nora
    September 24, 2009 at 17:22

    Individuals are in danger individually. Often the best and the brightest attract the negative attention from people in power. Come on, come to California and go home when it is safe.

  25. 35 Dave in Florida
    September 24, 2009 at 18:00

    @ Nigel
    I beg to differ. The invasion of Afghanistan was directly related to the fact that Al Quida and the Taliban blatantly admitted to the 9/11 attacks on New York. Yes the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the attacks – which was completely justified.

    Now Iraq… That’s a different story.

    @ Nora
    Then it is up to the best and brightest to do what needs to be done to remove those in power — which isn’t always a pretty sight. Sometimes those in power only know one thing and are the first ones to cry like little girls when their own tactics are used against them.

    • 36 Nigel
      September 24, 2009 at 22:34

      @ Dave

      Not sure exactly where we differ…..we both seem to agree that the US invaded Afghanistan. I am not questioning the validity of that invasion but feel that the situation there is as a result of the invasion…..justified or not.

  26. 37 patti in cape coral
    September 24, 2009 at 18:09

    If the west opened its borders to various migrants, could we stop sending aid to those areas? Maybe with the loss of people AND money, those governments would be motivated to actually do something for their countries so starving masses wouldn’t have to look elsewhere to get their families out of poverty.

    The Afghan situation is different altogether, though.

  27. 39 Ian in Indiana
    September 24, 2009 at 18:11

    Most Europeans don’t want mass immigration, but their governments are using an ever-shifting series of rationales to force the issue and bypass the will of the people.

    I agree that the West has a moral obligation to help people around the world, but I don’t believe it has a moral obligation to commit ethno-cultural suicide.

    The answer is to help these young men form better lives in their own country, Afghanistan.

  28. 40 Sirajo
    September 24, 2009 at 18:23



  29. 41 Andy
    September 24, 2009 at 18:34

    These people should just be allowed to go to the UK and see that the situation there is exactly the same as in France and other EU countries. The more people will do that, the sooner this news will spread out among other potential immigrants.

  30. 42 Mike in Seattle
    September 24, 2009 at 18:34

    What ever happened to “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”?

    It’s a trivial exercise for nations like Britain and the United States to take in those who want to make better lives for themselves. The fact that we don’t take in all that we can is incredibly selfish and in many cases racist.

    It’s disgusting and we should welcome everyone who wants to make a better life for themselves and their families.

    • 43 Tom K in Mpls
      September 24, 2009 at 18:47

      The old quote still holds true. We encourage the immigration of top foreign nationals for economic gain. We encourage the immigration of unqualified foreign nationals in a lottery system to promote a diversity of foreign influence. We also have a quota for immigrants in extreme need ( famine, war, politics etc) as referred to in the quote.

      What you and others need to know and remember, is that we have limited resources. Trying to take in all that think they might like life in the US, and the UK for that matter, will dramatically overload the resources of the country. We would end up as bad off as the other countries.

    • 44 Christopher
      September 24, 2009 at 18:47

      I disagree, the world is much smaller then it was 20 50 and 100 years ago. I’ve traveled to several country’s in the middle east and to think that a few wealthy nations or even the world as a whole can support or sustain the life style that western people live is a bit ignorant.

      • 45 Tom K in Mpls
        September 24, 2009 at 19:36

        There are extremes in the world economies. World free trade will in general balance it out. We are seeing this now in the ‘economic crisis’. There will always be some doing better than others, but this will shift. Transportation and communications have only recently been good enough to make the global economy truly fluid. But look at what is happening in the US, China and Rwanda and you will see it is working.

  31. 46 Liz in San Jose
    September 24, 2009 at 18:39

    The issue of illegal immigration and the desire for people to find a better life is one of the more heartbreaking issues that faces the entire world today. What is a greater catastrophe is that the people smuggling operators continue to make money, continue to convince people to make the sometimes harrowing journey to a new country whose people in most cases do not want them. I would be happy to see more done “at the source” of this activity, with very harsh penalties imposed – people smugglers and those who take money from hopeful illegal migrants and their families are the real criminals. At the same time, the world should work towards helping these people find better opportunities in their own countries.

  32. 47 Lulu
    September 24, 2009 at 18:39

    I believe that if world powers stop waging war on different countries/cultures there would be no reason that people want to leave their home country in masses, leave all their families, their livelihood and come to another country where they don’t have anything, and as a matter of fact they face lots of discrimination.
    People coming from Afghanistan, Iraq are the direct result of us waging wars, and people coming from Somalia and Kenya and so on are the result of our wrong policies done on the other side of the world.

  33. 48 Christopher
    September 24, 2009 at 18:39

    From listening to the responses to Lee’s question about why the UK is the only logical and safe place for these refugees, it seems like more effort needs to be put in educating these refugees about their options. Human traffickers will most definitely say what they have to say to entice who ever in to giving them money. What ever the case is, refugees are do not have the information they need.

    • 49 Christopher
      September 24, 2009 at 19:03

      Refugee response to this question was basically that they get their information from the media…

      This is unacceptable. Clearly much, much more education is needed.

  34. 50 Lew in Ohio
    September 24, 2009 at 18:40

    If these men are mostly pashtun. Why can’t they try to get a spot in the middle east?

  35. 51 Lulu
    September 24, 2009 at 18:47

    These people they all have families, relatives who are worried about them. They face lots of problem to come out of their countries since they are illegal. We as upper hand people should try to find a way to end these immigrations, and to my opinion, that is to end the wars, help people for their education. Before all these wars, 60 – 70 years ago people would come to this side of the world only to study and then they would proudly go back to their own countries.
    We also should establish the human rights in the west and the other countries, not to teach them how to take care of their oppositions by torture and so on… this way there will left no reason for people to immigrate, because they will have the minimum of humanly possible life in their own country.

  36. 52 Richard Posner
    September 24, 2009 at 19:04

    I found it amazing that these men (mostly men on air) seem to think nothing of the money and resources they are going to receive when they arrive in their chosen ‘promised land’. They seem to willfully ignore the fact that other people have worked and saved, then been taxed by their governments to provide the housing, health care, and cash they receive when they reach the golden shores of England or America.
    I realize the conditions in their home countries are terrible. And I suggest to them that those conditions will continue until they, as a people, rise up against their warlords leaders and institute the sort of government they find in the western democracies. Then they’ll have social services and economic opportunities.
    Look, I’m not against people who are in trouble…but they can’t all move to my country to get away from it. They have to fight for their human rights in their own countries, not run away and suck on the public teat somewhere else.

    • 53 Kat in Vancouver
      September 27, 2009 at 00:06

      Richard, you make some great points. I am not sure that revolution in their home country is the best method as this might create more refugees fleeing a possible civil war.

      However, it seems as though they suffer from idyllic visions of the UK and the authorities should investigate and prosecute the human traffickers feeding them this inaccurate information. I would imagine that these migrants have paid lots of money for their passage.

      How come Interpol and the EU don’t seem to be investigating and cracking down on these illegal and exploitative trafficking regimes? Also, at a human level how come the European Union isn’t handling these refugee claims? These individuals definitely need to be given the change to have their day in front of a refugee board.

  37. 54 Hester in San Francisco, California
    September 24, 2009 at 19:04

    I can understand the resentment that some may feel being asked to help these refugees.

    But that resentment hits a wall when one takes the time to think as a member of the human race instead of a worried pocketbook. These people are guilty of nothing but wanting for their own lives and the lives of those they love the exact same things everyone wants everywhere. The difference between them and you — whoever you are resenting their presence and thinking they should just “go home” — these men could be any one of us. It is just a matter of fortune that one person is born one place and one is born somewhere else.

    You Frenchmen and Englishmen and my fellow Americans, it is easy to say that these people should overthrow their oppressive governments. It is unreasonable to expect people who are starving, who are being persecuted because of the tribe into which they were born or the color of their skin or the dialect they speak, to have the wherewithal to do that.

    If every country that has contributed to this horrid war would stop flushing that money down the toilet and instead help these people, who are made of the same flesh and blood the rest of us are, the solution to this dilemma would become instantly visible.

    Thank you,

    Hester Lox in San Francisco

  38. 55 margaret
    September 24, 2009 at 19:05

    What is the answer? Deal with the root causes. Fix the problems in the person’s country of origin so they don’t need to flee it! How to do it is the problem! This is a global problem–the world at large has to get involved. If the United Nations really worked properly, it could make huge strides in this arena as opposed to say, the USA in two wars (rightly or wrongly) and trying to “nation build” at the same time.

    Margaret Tacoma, WA

  39. September 24, 2009 at 19:34

    Hi WHYS, I guess the UK too, has some responsibility to let these people know that the country is not as rosy as the UK itself portrays itself to the rest of the world. I think the UK makes the rest of the world believe that everyone in the UK is better off than these illegal immigrants. I had the privilege to study in the UK, and I was really glad I had the opportunity to know that most British citizens were not better off than me and their way of lives were not any better than most people I knew in my home country. Show them those terrace houses and the drug dens around the UK in television programs that the UK uses to portray certain image and perceptions that all is well in their country. Tell them the truth and show them the truth.

  40. 57 James Ian
    September 26, 2009 at 06:33

    “In Malthus enormously influential book An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), imparted a tone of gloom to classical economics, arguing that hopes for prosperity were fated to founder on the rock of excessive population growth. Food, he believed, would increase in arithmetic ratio (2-4-6-8-10 and so on), but population tended to double in each generation (2-4-8-16-32 and so on) unless that doubling was checked either by nature or human prudence. According to Malthus, nature’s check was “positive”: “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” The shapes it took included war, epidemics, pestilence and plague, human vices, and famine, all combining to level the world’s population with the world’s food supply.
    The only escape from population pressure and the horrors of the positive check was in voluntary limitation of population.

  41. September 26, 2009 at 12:24

    I’m fed up with reading this toffee about “the jungle”. For a start it’s not a jungle. A jungle is good for the environment and helps reduce greenhouse gases. This camp is a slum rather akin to what the palestinians had to put up with under direct Israeli rule. There is nothing wrong with slum clearance as long as those affected are rehoused.

  42. 59 Kat in Vancouver
    September 26, 2009 at 23:56

    After listening to this program it is pretty clear that these individuals should go through the refugee process in the first safe country that they enter. The UK can only take so many just as each country in Europe can. After listening to the migrants themselves that their cases need to be brought in front of a court of law to decide wither or not they are indeed refugees in need of shelter.

  43. September 28, 2009 at 02:10

    flame throwers are quite good

  44. 61 John Corley
    September 29, 2009 at 01:26

    Sorry, resumitted due to finger problems –
    I’ve always been told that refugees were driven by desperation from their homes but the stubborn refusal of these people in the ‘jungle’ to accept asylum in the first country they come to and to wait until they can arrive at their country of choice belies any such claim to desperation. If they were truly ‘desperate’, they would accept asylum in the first safe haven they encounter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: