Opinion: Talking tough at migrants' expense

Britain's Daily Mail tabloid has compared migrants' attempts to stow away in the Eurotunnel to the feared German invasion of Britain during the World War II. Populist Nazi comparisons still go over well with the British, but, ultimately, they are outrageous and nonsensical. This week, an estimated 100 to 150 people have actually succeeded in stowing away on trains or trucks going through the Eurotunnel. When looking at these numbers, can one actually speak of "migrant madness" as some British papers do? Obviously not.

It is even more disagreeable to hear that the British prime minister reacted to the exaggerated reports by holding security Cabinet meetings and speaking of a "swarm of people" heading toward Great Britain. David Cameron should actually explain why his government stubbornly refuses to accept its European responsibilities and duly welcome more refugees as the number arriving in the EU continues to grow. Great Britain has initiated 24,000 asylum proceedings in the first six months of the year. In the same time period, 170,000 applications have been submitted in Germany and 60,000 in Italy.

The huge traffic backups at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel and the harbor of Dover in Britain are seldom caused by the intermittent closures of the shafts - the trains keep rolling. The traffic problems are mostly related to a strike by French ferry workers. Now, papers in Britain and other EU countries are calling on the United Kingdom to send the military to deal with migrants at the Eurotunnel. According to British government plans, the army is supposed to manage traffic in southern England and find temporary parking spots on barracks grounds for trucks stuck in the jams. The past week has brought new attention to the situation in Calais, and many different issues have been muddled up and amplified to support populist theories that serve to impress the British electorate.

If you get to the heart of the matter, however, you will find something else: Nobody knows how to defuse the tense situation in Calais. Neither the French nor the British governments - nor the European Union for that matter - has found a formula. Migrants who have traveled by land from Syria or crossed the Mediterranean from northern Africa know that the current system does not work. If the Dublin Regulation - which states that applicants for asylum must submit their petitions in their first country of entry into the EU - were feasible, then the migrants would not be in France. Thus, there is a pressing need to handle their movements realistically and not become fixated on the 2013 Dublin rule. Until now, EU interior ministers have failed to establish a new system of migration quotas and sensible allocation schemes - this is, incidentally, in part because of resistance by German and British officials.

So, in theory, the 3,000 to 5,000 people in Calais waiting for their chance to reach England would actually have to be deported to their home countries by French authorities, or they would have to apply for asylum in France. None of this has happened. French authorities have turned a blind eye to the situation for years. And, furthermore, it is rarely easy to determine where the refugees entered Europe or what country they actually come from.

An old problem

Since the 1990s, Calais has been a laboratory for everything that can go wrong in European asylum policy. Back then, the first camp for refugees from Afghanistan and Kosovo was set up. In 2001 und 2002, unrest broke out when migrants came to realize that they had no chance of crossing the English Channel. In 2002, Nicholas Sarkozy, then France's interior minister, had the camp closed. He managed to gain exposure for his political ambitions, but did not actually do anything about the problem. A year later, a new camp started growing in the eastern part of Calais, expanding as migrants continued to arrive. Only in 2014 did the French state build an official, but modest, reception center, which was, however, already too small at its opening.

Ever since then, the camp's growth has been unstoppable. In the summer, it is especially large as a result of an increased influx of migrants who have crossed the Mediterranean. The figures for the attempted border crossings at the Eurotunnel entrance in Calais have been overdramatized: Thousands supposedly wanted to storm the tunnel but this is not true. Only a few small groups repeatedly attempted to get past the fences to reach the trains, and only very few actually succeeded in doing so.

All of a sudden, the Eurotunnel has become a center of attention: The security systems, the fences and the number of guards are not sufficient. Until recently, trucks traveling by ferry were favored, but those are now more rigorously shielded and inspected and migrants at the harbor have moved to the Eurotunnel because they feel that there are more (actually quite unrealistic) chances of getting to Great Britain.

What can be done to alleviate the problems? Migrants will probably stop gathering in Calais when they know that they have little or no chance of reaching Britain. For the short term, strictly sealing off the area would make things easier in Calais, but other answers are needed in the long term. Migrants will surely head for other harbors or maybe even disappear into France's interior. Clearing the site would also show that it is useless to travel to Calais, but it would be difficult to force a closure for humanitarian reasons.

Nonetheless, the French government can longer go on as they have been, hunting for migrants on the Eurotunnel premises every night. France, the British government and European politicians face a true dilemma.

Have something to add? Share you views in the comments below.