The migrant crisis in Calais ramped up in the last four days. One wonders if we could be reaching peak Calais.

On January 20, 2016, the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in London ruled that four Syrian males — three teenagers and a mentally-ill 26-year-old — can leave Calais to be reunited with relatives in the UK.

The Daily Mail reported:

It is understood that the court’s order will come into effect immediately meaning the four refugees can travel over from Calais now.

This is despite the fact that Home Office had fought the application and are said to be planning to appeal it.

The four have a legal entitlement to come to the UK to seek asylum because their relatives are already legally living here.

However, under EU law known as the Dublin regulation they would only be allowed to join their relatives in Britain if they had already applied for asylum in France.

But lawyers in Britain successfully argued that because of bureaucratic failings in France and the refugees’ entitlement to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, they should immediately be brought to Britain and their asylum applications processed here.

The judgment therefore means the French authorities will be effectively bypassed as the applications are handed over directly to the British.

Michael Fordham QC represented the refugees. He is one of Britain’s experts in immigration and civil rights law. He has won awards for his legal work in this area and also represents the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

On January 21, the unelected European Commission said it wants to implement a new quota system whereby some European countries would take in more ‘refugees’ than they had previously agreed to. Britain, for example, had agreed to take in 20,000 from 2015 to 2020. Under the new proposals, we would take in 90,000 in one year.

The Daily Mail reported that the British government ‘vowed to fight the proposal’. Conservative politicians and the head of the Road Haulage Association predict chaos if this goes ahead. They say there would be no end of migrants coming in to Calais to stay in the Jungle whilst they attempt to cross the Channel.

The weekend showed no let up.

On Saturday, January 23, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn — sometimes nicknamed Jezbollah for his empathy towards terrorist groups — visited the Calais Jungle as well as the migrant camp in Grande-Synthe near Dunkirk. He said:

These conditions are a disgrace anywhere. We as human beings have to reach out to fellow human beings.

Yet, as The Independent‘s readers said in the comments, no one forced the migrants to go to France in the first place. One wrote:

More quasi marxist drivel from Corbyn the appeaser.

Another pointed out:

Why is it always WE, the British, who must do this reaching out, as if we have the monopoly on morality?

As I understand it, the French have already tried to reach out, offering these people safe haven.

But no – these people in their disgusting conditions are there of their own choice, desperate to get to Britain because they know they’ll have an easier ride than in France, and our politicians and journalists are playing into their hands. They’ve fallen for the wiles of a bunch of parasites. It’s simply that.

Their sentiments are not misplaced, because, as Corbyn was walking around the migrant camps, chaos broke out in Calais and the port had to be closed.

The Daily Mail has dramatic photographs from Saturday afternoon. A group of British, German and other European anarchists from No Borders incited several hundred migrants to storm the city. A smaller group stormed the port, and 50 of them boarded the Spirit of Britain ferry.

Their trespassing and subsequent stand-off with police necessitated closing the port completely.  The port did not reopen until 10 p.m. that night.

Several arrests were made quayside. Six migrants and two No Borders activists faced immediate trial. If convicted, they could receive a prison sentence of up to six months and a fine of £2,800.

In and around Calais, the larger mob tore down security fences, threatened violence and painted an obscenity on the statue of Charles de Gaulle. I understand from French pundits on RMC that a French activist has been charged with the last offence. A police officer who was there said the British and German activists were the most aggressive.

That same day, The Guardian reported that Prime Minister David Cameron could cave in to pressure to accept more ‘unaccompanied migrant children’ into the UK. A number of Guardian readers who are either teachers or social workers said this was a highly dangerous thing to do. They have already seen adult migrant males deemed to be adolescents in secondary schools and care homes. They say that some are in their mid-20s. Their presence among minors poses a serious risk to those children.

Amazingly, the main editorial in The Observer (The Guardian‘s sister Sunday paper) said that the current immigration situation is unsustainable. Two brief excerpts follow:

The present situation is not sustainable – meaning, at most, a couple of months. Having thrown open Germany’s borders in an act of humanitarian goodwill, Angela Merkel is struggling to cope with 1 million new refugees, with an estimated, additional 1 million on their way this year. Fairly or not, reaction to the shocking events in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, when hundreds of women were abused by men with migrant backgrounds, has underscored how socially corrosive and politically divisive unstructured immigration can be.

If common ground cannot be found on effective, EU-wide migration controls, it seems inevitable Europe’s doors will start slamming shut – and the linked crises of a crippled single market, chronic eurozone weakness and a possible British exit will intensify.

In a highly interesting discussion which debated compassion versus reality and how the Left plays the argument, one reader summed up the situation perfectly:

In some cases, certainly we can put it down to naivety – disastrous consequences resulting from benevolent intentions. A lot of the time, however, the desire to bring in Middle Eastern/North African refugees en masse is due to (a) genuine admiration for Islam (here, for example), (b) intense dislike for English culture and Western society and (concomitantly) a love of all things foreign, (c) the likelihood that migrants, once citizens, shall vote for the left, (d) more migration means more of the kinds of jobs leftists do (local council administrator, primary school teacher, equality and diversity coordinator), (e) the failure to permit mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa would be racist, which in left wing ideology is the worst offence, and essentially (f) mass migration shall finally usher in a multicultural, left wing nirvana – a society in which the leftist fantasizes that he has the highest status in society.

The Observer is correct. If these events and EU diktats continue, it is increasingly likely that the British public will vote ‘Leave’ the EU in the upcoming referendum this year.

Meanwhile, the petition for actress Emma Watson to spend a week in the Calais Jungle unprotected has nearly 13,000 signatures. An Australian man from Melbourne initiated the petition in response to Miss Watson’s claims that migrants pose no threat to women.

Here’s what happened to two left-wing Dutch documentary makers — a man and a woman — who were making an independent film called Calais: Welcome to the Jungle. They were set upon by one group of migrants and, fortunately, rescued by another:

Activists in the Calais Jungle asked them not to post the mugging on YouTube because, in their words,

it would harm the cause.


This month has probably been a decider. We might not only be reaching peak Calais, but also peak migration in Europe.