France opens new refugee camp, amid protest



CALAIS: -- Monday was moving day for dozens of migrant families near the northern French city of Calais.

The country’s first international-standard refugee camp has opened in Grande-Synthe, near Dunkirk. Families are now being relocated there from a nearby shantytown where they were living in dire conditions.

This new camp lies around 40 kilometres from the largest refugee camp on the outskirts of Calais, nicknamed the “Jungle”, which is being gradually demolished by the authorities.

It features some 200 heated wooden cabins and proper toilets and showers, and was built by Doctors Without Borders (MSF) with the support of the local town hall — despite opposition from the French government.

Still, some were skeptical with the move. “This camp is not a solution,” said Belgian volunteer Margaux Desmet. “It’s only temporary, like a new beginning, but is this really a new beginning?”

In Calais, a dozen Iranian refugees have started a hunger strike and protested against the dismantling of the Jungle.

Many fear increased police presence and tighter security measures in the new camp might stop them from reaching Britain, where many hope to move on and start a new life.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-03-08

_{"In Calais, a dozen Iranian refugees have started a hunger strike and protested against the dismantling of the Jungle."}

_{Lets hope they successfully starve to death. Protesting what? Their right to invade another country? Iran is not at war and no reason for them to be refugees other than the purpose of illegal migration.}

Makes sense ,wouldnt you much prefere to live in squalor in a makeshift tent ,surrounded by sh-t and filth ,rather than move into a nice clean warm sewage free wooden hut . ? but then ,the original place i mentioned reminds them of home .

_{"In Calais, a dozen Iranian refugees have started a hunger strike and protested against the dismantling of the Jungle."}

_{Lets hope they successfully starve to death. Protesting what? Their right to invade another country? Iran is not at war and no reason for them to be refugees other than the purpose of illegal migration.}

Wishing that they starve to death because the gov't of the host country has chosen not to deal with them is a little OTT, IMO.

There are numerous groups from Iran that are persecuted. Unless/until they are screened, it's a bit unfair to think that refugees only come from countries that are at war.

If they are screened and determined not to be refugees then they can be returned to Iran.

_{"In Calais, a dozen Iranian refugees have started a hunger strike and protested against the dismantling of the Jungle."}

_{Lets hope they successfully starve to death. Protesting what? Their right to invade another country? Iran is not at war and no reason for them to be refugees other than the purpose of illegal migration.}

Wishing that they starve to death because the gov't of the host country has chosen not to deal with them is a little OTT, IMO.

There are numerous groups from Iran that are persecuted. Unless/until they are screened, it's a bit unfair to think that refugees only come from countries that are at war.

If they are screened and determined not to be refugees then they can be returned to Iran.

Agreed, however, many of these "refugees" have destroyed passports/identification and refuse to register or co-operate with screening processes.

They prefer to indulge in manipulative behavior (hunger strikes, lip sewing and living in unsanitary conditions) as they believe such behavior will result in their gaining entry to the UK.

Their "protests" must be ignored.

They should remember they are Refugees & not Immigrants.

If they wish to starve themselves then stopping them would be depriving them of their human rights.

I'm sure the ECHR would bear this out.

... refugee camp has opened in Grande-Synthe, near Dunkirk.

Something tells me that the British will not be sending an armada of little ships to the rescue this time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/765004.stm

'Many fear increased police presence and tighter security measures in the new camp might stop them from reaching Britain ...' Some hope. I've no doubt, one (legal) way, or another (illegal), they'll make it. Then they'll dig in, helped by every human rights collective and its dog.

_{"In Calais, a dozen Iranian refugees have started a hunger strike and protested against the dismantling of the Jungle."}

_{Lets hope they successfully starve to death. Protesting what? Their right to invade another country? Iran is not at war and no reason for them to be refugees other than the purpose of illegal migration.}

Wishing that they starve to death because the gov't of the host country has chosen not to deal with them is a little OTT, IMO.

There are numerous groups from Iran that are persecuted. Unless/until they are screened, it's a bit unfair to think that refugees only come from countries that are at war.

If they are screened and determined not to be refugees then they can be returned to Iran.

As has been pointed out, Iran is not at war. Perfect it might not be, but a democracy it is, and no Iranian can genuinely claim refugee status. They should be sent back, forthwith. With the U.K. their destination of 'choice', they are obviously no more than economic opportunists.

_{"In Calais, a dozen Iranian refugees have started a hunger strike and protested against the dismantling of the Jungle."}

_{Lets hope they successfully starve to death. Protesting what? Their right to invade another country? Iran is not at war and no reason for them to be refugees other than the purpose of illegal migration.}

Wishing that they starve to death because the gov't of the host country has chosen not to deal with them is a little OTT, IMO.

There are numerous groups from Iran that are persecuted. Unless/until they are screened, it's a bit unfair to think that refugees only come from countries that are at war.

If they are screened and determined not to be refugees then they can be returned to Iran.

As has been pointed out, Iran is not at war. Perfect it might not be, but a democracy it is, and no Iranian can genuinely claim refugee status. They should be sent back, forthwith. With the U.K. their destination of 'choice', they are obviously no more than economic opportunists.

There are currently about 5,000 Iranian refugees living in Turkey alone. There are a number of groups targeted by the Iranian gov't, including some religions, in particular the Ba'hai. Because a country is not at war does not mean that people cannot be refugees. North Korea isn't at war, yet few people escaping would not qualify for refugee status. Likewise, because a country is a democracy does not mean that people cannot be refugees.

Actually I don't know why at least half of them are not locked up warm and safe in a French prison.

Throwing debris on motorways, blocking motorways, blinding lorry drivers with flashlights to make them slow down, vandalizing lorries by breaking locks or throwing steel-bars or rocks at the driver cabins, destroying cargo, and trespassing on Calais private properties to steal more stuff they can throw on the roads all register as criminal offences in my book. There is just nobody going after that, they are just being chased off with batons and teargas now and again, as if that helped in the long run.

At the moment they are criminals staying in France without leave. Even if they have valid reasons to claim asylum, under the UN Convention they are required to reveal themselves to the French officials and state they are seeking asylum to remain legal. Given that some actually *have* the opportunity to get to the UK legally if they have an accepted reason by registering as asylum-seekers with France (even when it should have been Greece or Italy) and then applying for resettlement in the UK for family reunification, I don't see how they are entitled to try and force their way or even protest.

And I strongly suspect most of that protest has been instigated by criminal extremist campaign groups like "No Borders" and the UK is right going after them using terrorist legislation.

As has been pointed out, Iran is not at war. Perfect it might not be, but a democracy it is, and no Iranian can genuinely claim refugee status. They should be sent back, forthwith. With the U.K. their destination of 'choice', they are obviously no more than economic opportunists.

Ironically, a country being at war or in a civil war is NOT a reason to be able to claim asylum under the Geneva Convention, which is referenced in the European Charter of Human Rights (i.e. the EU treaties).

Reasons originally only included persecution for ethnic, religious, political reasons or against a social group. That was in most countries expanded to civil wars as those are very likely to be based on one of those reasons, otherwise epidemic violence in a country, i.e. general lawlessness can be a reason for a claim to asylum.

With a view to Iran... yes, there definitely is persecution both against ethnic and religious minorities, and political dissenters. So Iranians actually might have a better claim than most Afghans and a lot of Iraqis who could flee inside their country.