Had to truncate the title due to the 80 char limit. And the island where the second body was found (Texel) is actually part of the province of Holland (North Holland) so it's perfectly correct.
I don't think this was mentioned in the article, why would refugees have a better life in England than France? So much better that it's worth risking their lives over.
Family ties are mentioned at few times, including the case of the protagonist of the story. This article[0] expands on it:
> For most, the attraction of Britain lies in family ties, the English language and the UK's reputation as both generous to asylum-seekers and – at least until recently – economically successful. Around a third have already spent time in the UK and are making their second, third or even fourth clandestine crossing of the Channel.
And further from [1]:
> The migrants in Calais all have one thing in common: they come from countries that were colonised by Britain. There are almost no refugees in Calais from former French colonies. The British empire is not old history, it still shapes people’s lives today. Many people have friends and family already in the UK. Many speak English, which is often the main language taught in school. There is still the myth of Britain as the ‘mother of democracy’, a safe haven of human rights. People are keen to start a new life as quickly as possible, so coming to a country where you know the language makes much more sense.
The migrant environment is dramatically more benign in the UK, driven by the briefly mentioned almost Utopian stories told in migrant communities round the world. I'm not sure reality quite matches the stories told but it is well documented that it is easier to remain in the UK.
There is a show called UK Border Force which shows how almost trivial it is to evade deportation (destroying documentation is key and claiming to be from a country on poor-ish terms with the UK - e.g. Iranian, Chinese etc. which refuse to provide travel documents to undocumented people). I have no idea why the UKBA allowed the show to be made as it makes them look like gullible chumps most of the time. I recall one clearly 30+ man being allowed entry as he claimed to be 13-14 years old and a refugee. The nice voiceover simply stated he disappeared from the hostel within 24 hours and was not heard from again. The border guards had clearly caught him out on his age and story but had to go along with it since he stuck to his ridiculous story and refused to admit it was nonsense. It seemed that easy.
I entered the UK at Gatwick a few months ago and a woman in front of me was registered asylum seeker from France (i.e. she somehow arrived in France and claimed asylum, receiving a letter confirming receipt of her claim from the French authorities). She had flown to Vienna and been refused entry as she had no other forms of documentation (i.e. NO PASSPORT, just that 1 page letter in French). The Austrians let her choose where she wanted returned to and she picked England, so was on the same flight as me. She was well versed in the UN convention on refugees to the point of arguing particular sub-clauses of one article which she was using to travel document-less and which gave her, she claimed, rights to enter the UK. After around 15 minutes of arguing on convention details, she was allowed entry to the UK. Either she had failed to convince the Austrian border guards or she had simply gone there in order to be deported to the UK as a mechanism to get entry. Whichever it was, she got to the UK with just that 15 minute discussion. We schmucks behind her took longer to get in with our passports.
It seems vanishingly unlikely that this story is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Argument from authority is daft, so instead take this merely as context: I'm a lifelong UK citizen with friends who have worked as volunteer translators on the UK border for asylum seekers. Their stories do not chime with this whatsoever.
People in dire circumstances, or otherwise, don't make decisions based on fact -- if fact can even be established. We're all influenced by stories from our peer group, regardless of our background.
Who says it's any "better" in the UK? Does that even matter? Not a jot.
13 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] threadWhat's tragic is the lengths some people have to go for a better life.
Being from the UK I have mixed feelings about this.
> For most, the attraction of Britain lies in family ties, the English language and the UK's reputation as both generous to asylum-seekers and – at least until recently – economically successful. Around a third have already spent time in the UK and are making their second, third or even fourth clandestine crossing of the Channel.
And further from [1]:
> The migrants in Calais all have one thing in common: they come from countries that were colonised by Britain. There are almost no refugees in Calais from former French colonies. The British empire is not old history, it still shapes people’s lives today. Many people have friends and family already in the UK. Many speak English, which is often the main language taught in school. There is still the myth of Britain as the ‘mother of democracy’, a safe haven of human rights. People are keen to start a new life as quickly as possible, so coming to a country where you know the language makes much more sense.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/08/asylum-france-s...
[1] https://leedsnoborders.wordpress.com/faq-on-migration-asylum...
There is a show called UK Border Force which shows how almost trivial it is to evade deportation (destroying documentation is key and claiming to be from a country on poor-ish terms with the UK - e.g. Iranian, Chinese etc. which refuse to provide travel documents to undocumented people). I have no idea why the UKBA allowed the show to be made as it makes them look like gullible chumps most of the time. I recall one clearly 30+ man being allowed entry as he claimed to be 13-14 years old and a refugee. The nice voiceover simply stated he disappeared from the hostel within 24 hours and was not heard from again. The border guards had clearly caught him out on his age and story but had to go along with it since he stuck to his ridiculous story and refused to admit it was nonsense. It seemed that easy.
I entered the UK at Gatwick a few months ago and a woman in front of me was registered asylum seeker from France (i.e. she somehow arrived in France and claimed asylum, receiving a letter confirming receipt of her claim from the French authorities). She had flown to Vienna and been refused entry as she had no other forms of documentation (i.e. NO PASSPORT, just that 1 page letter in French). The Austrians let her choose where she wanted returned to and she picked England, so was on the same flight as me. She was well versed in the UN convention on refugees to the point of arguing particular sub-clauses of one article which she was using to travel document-less and which gave her, she claimed, rights to enter the UK. After around 15 minutes of arguing on convention details, she was allowed entry to the UK. Either she had failed to convince the Austrian border guards or she had simply gone there in order to be deported to the UK as a mechanism to get entry. Whichever it was, she got to the UK with just that 15 minute discussion. We schmucks behind her took longer to get in with our passports.
Argument from authority is daft, so instead take this merely as context: I'm a lifelong UK citizen with friends who have worked as volunteer translators on the UK border for asylum seekers. Their stories do not chime with this whatsoever.
Who says it's any "better" in the UK? Does that even matter? Not a jot.