Migrants aren’t stupid you know

In fact, to have crossed the Med and made it to Calais we might even say that they’ve been through a series of intelligence tests:

Despite millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money being spent on reinforced fencing, photographs taken by The Telegraph reveal how a group of 30 migrants breached security and simply walked inside the secure zone.
The men walked up to a gate about a mile from the Coquelles Channel Tunnel terminal near Calais and, within seconds, were inside.

They are believed to have guessed the security code by examining which numbers were dirtiest or most worn on the keypad.
A close examination of the keypad showed the numbers two, four and zero were clearly more worn than the other digits.

What’s the betting that gate didn’t autolock and need resetting after x number of incorrect numbers were entered?

33 thoughts on “Migrants aren’t stupid you know”

  1. The “millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money being spent on reinforced fencing” is of course nullified by the far greater numbers of millions spent by the Royal Navy helping migrants cross the Med. Migrants doubtless concluded long ago that the Brits are schizophrenic and thick as two planks.

  2. bloke (not) in spain

    As someone who’s used the Channel crossing with monotonous regularity – commuted at one time although I’ve usually preferred Dunkerque – the problem’s bloody obvious. On the French side, you have the ports besieged on every side by hopeful crossers. Anyone who lives in the Pas de Calais/Nord area will tell you the heroic efforts the French are making to prevent them succeeding. Even living 40km back from the coast, I lost count of the times I was stopped & checked. Bloody regular feature on the Meteren roundabout.
    Bump off the ferry in Dover – nothing. You just drive straight through the customs point & onto Dover front. I’ve never been stopped.*
    It is a truck problem. Unless car drivers are intentionally smuggling, it’s a bit hard to see how you could acquire the odd extra passenger without noticing. And supernumerary tinted types in the car waiting areas would stick out like a sore thumb.
    The solution would be to put the trucks through a checking procedure as they roll off. A secure fenced area & double gate exit where they’re given a check before being released. it’s not as if there’s inadequate area within the Port to do it. There’s loads of unused tarmac, although it would need some rearrangement of traffic routes & probably a flyover to create a secure exit channel. You’d then have the opposite of France. Instead of miles of perimeter with the hopefuls on the outside, you have a short fence with them all corralled on the inside. And you need to move the Border. Instead of it being in France, put it where it belongs. In Dover** And a little change in the law. If you don’t pass the Border, you haven’t entered the UK. Grab em. Ship em down to a fortified camp on the Folkestone road ( isn’t there some MoD land along there just right for purpose) to which there’s only one way out. Back where you came from.
    So now they don’t get a home run on landing & there’s no incentive to cross.

    *You don’t get stopped going France>UK. But the amount of times I’ve been stopped going the other way. Security check. The car gets redirected to the inspection area, get out, take all the metal out your pockets & go through the metal detector. Get back in the car. But they don’t check the car. WTF’s all that about? I could have an RPG on the back seat. And it’s every time. Three times in one week. I know why. The tasty little blonde one admitted it. Middle aged white bloke, traveling on his own. A lot less hustle than rousting the swarthy lot with a car full of kids, in the middle of the night. They just want the numbers of cars pulled for the records.
    ** Just for the trucks, if you like. Still do a passport check, French side, for convenience sake, but the actual frontier’s in UK. It probably technically still is, anyway.

  3. So you are joining the anti-waycists are you Biggie?

    Don’t esp care what colour they are and it wouldn’t bother me if the native British dyed themselves black–some long as they retain what little worthwhile there is left of my native culture. The Britain I knew as a boy.

    What I don’t want is endless 3rd world imports bringing their habits and culture with ’em. Corruption, thieving, begging, threats, intimidation and violence. And dodgy books that tell them they are entitled to take over other peoples countries by any means they can. And rape their women.

    And you –or any other sanctimonious, comfortably-off middle-class europrick–can piss up your leg and play with the steam. What you need Biggie is a move to somewhere that has lots of these lovely imports so you can gain some first hand experience of dealing with those who are used to and favour predatory lifestyles. If you hate the UK too much–try the naff end of Paris or Malmo in Sweden. They can tell you all about vibrant cultural enrichment.

  4. bloke (not) in spain

    Curiously, Mr Ecks, German cities aren’t exactly bastions of the master-race. Try Hamburg. But Germans have an amazing ability for not noticing what they don’t want to see. Lot of practice over the years, i suppose. I expect there’s a German word for it. It’ll be a very long one.

  5. Interesting how the debate is being molded. They are not refugees or asylum seekers, they are not even illegal immigrants, they are just migrants, just like that nice Australian family down the road.

  6. b(n)is,

    I came to the conclusion long ago that politicians in this country are not serious about illegal immigration.

    This scheme about landlords being prosecuted for letting to illegal immigrants was run as a pilot in the West Midlands and less than 1 person per month was caught, and landlords were fined, on average £800. That’s no deterrent to landlords shopping people they think are illegal immigrants.

  7. Mr E, well said. And bnis, isn’t the difficulty that we can’t ship them back to where they came from because a) our courts have said France is too dangerous, and b) the French won’t accept them?

  8. Migrants aren’t stupid you know

    No, but it seems the person responsible for spending British taxpayers’ money on secure fencing is stupid.

  9. Maybe we should just bite the bullet and introduce ID cards. No id card, no benefits. No ID card, no British bank account. No ID card, no NHS services except for basic A&E.

    When I was a student in France for a year I had to have a Carte de Sejour for which I had to present photos, my birth certificate and passport. You could not access government services without it.

    Of course we will not do it as Labour tried it and the collation government cancelled it.

  10. “Maybe we should just bite the bullet and introduce ID cards.”

    You mean just “give in”!

    We never needed them before?

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    I wasn’t suggesting shipping them back to France, Jeremy. It would be against the law & why dump the problem back on the French? But that would be the only exit from the camp & would be entirely voluntary.
    Look. These people are saying their escaping persecution back where they came from. OK. Now you’ve a bed to sleep in, three squares a day & even a TV lounge. You ain’t being persecuted. That’s what you say you wanted. that’s what you’ve got. Yes we will hear your appeals for permanent asylum but until we get round to you, this is where you stay. And, as we’ve only limited resources of translators & adjudicators, the more of you that come over the longer it’ll take to work through you all. . And no, you can’t have a lawyer because you still haven’t crossed the UK frontier & you aren’t subject to UK law. Ask the French.
    it’s all about incentives & we just removed them.
    But I reckon the Stig has it. UK Gov doesn’t have the stomach to confront the problem. They’re happy for these people to get past the point of entry because lorry stops etc happen on remote bits of road no-one sees. No protestors. No journalists. if they actually did anything about our leaky points of entry they’d have the full weight of the bleeding heart community camped outside the fences. Much better to fine some lorry driver who hasn’t spotted the bloke hanging under his rig. He’s got no constituency.

  12. Salamander: Sorry no.

    Why pay the states game? Create a problem and announce we have to have a police state to “keep us safe”.

    The state can insert the ID card sideways up its arse.

  13. We never needed them before?

    That was back when:

    a) there was a much smaller welfare state.

    b) you could pretty much tell who was British by looking at them and speaking to them.

    Once the government decided that anyone in the world could be British, ID cards were a foregone conclusion.

  14. Forgive me if I argue this point.

    I am British, many people who look remarkably unlike me are British. One of the points of being British is that we don’t do the “Papers please”. I value that: to the point that I’d rather that endless numbers of people very much unlike me get to share that part of Britishness, instead of us all losing it.

    Better 5 million undocumented immigrants than 50 million English having to prove who they are to the State.

    No. Fuck off.

    I will start to talk about dead bodies over ID cards. And it will only eventually be my dead body.

  15. And there in lies the dilemma. What some of the people who comment on this blog are arguing for is a kind of magic where people who are British are left alone but the people who are not British and do not have official leave to stay are easily identified and are removed to some other place, and that identification is done without identification documents and happens through some kind of magical mechanism. All very Harry Potter and quite frankly unrealistic.

    Time for a reality check. If you want to identify who is British or who has official leave to stay in the country then you have to have some kind of identity documentation. You might not have to carry it with you all the time but you have to have it. Birth certificate, passport, drivers licence, membership card of the magic circle, national trust card, whatever. Whatever it is, you will have to present it at some time to prove that you are British or have official leave to stay in the country.

    Now, if you do not want an official ID card system, then stop complaining about the immigration situation and the fact that no border is completely secure and that inability of the security forces to prevent people crossing the border and living in the black economy and living here without official status.

    We all have to deal with the world as it is and not how we would like it to be.

    And now I will fuck off to watch television. Good night.

  16. “One of the points of being British is that we don’t do the “Papers please”.”

    Interesting point. Perhaps we should deport all the people calling for ID cards for being insufficiently British?

    It would be a lot easier to identify them than by what pieces of paper they happen to own. Just engage them for ten minutes in a conversation about immigrants…

  17. Salamander: If you are willing to submit the state can tattoo its ownership of you on your arse mate. You can show that to the coppers whenever they demand. A suitable humiliation for all those who crawl to their masters.

    It isn’t too hard to tell who is British and who just arrived to take advantage. Talk to someone for 10 minutes and that will do it. If you need a translator there is your first clue.

  18. “Birth certificate, passport, drivers licence, membership card of the magic circle, national trust card, whatever.”

    Isn’t it the case that everyone with a legal entitlement to be in the UK would already have (or be provably entitled to) one of these documents? Namely one of the first two.

    So why add another thing into the mix?

    Why not just make everyone carry their birth certificate or passport around with them?

    Oh yes.. Because fuck off.

  19. I value that: to the point that I’d rather that endless numbers of people very much unlike me get to share that part of Britishness, instead of us all losing it.

    That ‘Britishness’ is what British people used to do, back when Britain was full of Britons. If the country is now filled with people very much unlike Britons, you can’t really expect Britishness to last long.

    After all, that’s one of the fundamental goals of the EU’s free movement of labour; to destroy national identities and create the New European Man who won’t object to Brussels telling them what to do.

    I never said I was in favor of ID cards. I said they were a foregone conclusion when you have a fat welfare state and uncontrolled immigration; sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare state will object to paying for those who have no right to use it. I suspect one of the reasons past governments have supported mass immigration is to deliberately destroy social cohesion, and give them an excuse to expand police powers.

  20. I never said that I was in favour of ID cards either. I was merely making the point that the more people cry into their beer about immigration the more likely it is that we will get ID cards.

    As for the idea that a ten minute chat with the police will work….

    How many people would be happy to be randomly selected by the police for a ten minute chat to determine their Britishness? Not many. People would start carry their passport or drivers licence with them just so they can flash it at the police to AVOID the ten minute chat.

    Well done Mr Ecks, you have managed to work out the perfect way of implementing an ID card system by stealth. Just get the police to annoy the country into submission.

  21. Well the coppers already hassle almost everybody. So 10 minute chats are already here. However you are correct that they are no more welcome than ID cards.

    The problem is numbers. A few hundred thousand migrants are not a problem. Unassimilated (and not going to be) millions are the issue. They have to be stopped from arriving legally. And booted out if/once caught. And no social at all. In itself a major step to stop numbers rising. The natives are hard pressed to support and raise two kids often with both parents working. Ensure that migrants also struggle. Anything that makes the UK less attractive to them.

  22. “sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare state will object to paying for those who have no right to use it.”

    Sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare will object to everybody using it.

    Why should I make any moral distinction between an undeserving English sponger endlessly sucking up welfare and a foreign one? National pride?!

    This sort of nationalism is basically an attempt to set up a labour union with a closed shop. Only union members can work here, which means high wages and poor-quality work. Illegal immigrants are scabs trying to cross the picket lines.

    Either welfare is moral and sustainable or it isn’t – irrespective of the nationality of the people receiving it. If welfare was to the net benefit of society, then expanding its scope would yield a bigger benefit. If it’s a net cost, then it is just as much a cost when paid to Englishmen as when paid to Johny Foreigner. If inexperienced and low-skilled youngsters joining the workforce are an asset to the economy when they’re English, they’re an asset when they’re foreign, too.

    The best, and in the long run the only effective way to stop them coming is to offer a better service for less. Find out what enables the foreigners to offer the level of service they do, and survive on the wages they do, and teach the British kids to do better. Then there’ll be no spare jobs here, and they’ll stop coming.

    Or better, bring them over, teach them the British way of doing things, then send them back to make their own countries as prosperous. Then they’ll have no need to come over.

    But as soon as you start trying to build barriers to trade, you create a market in getting round those barriers, which funds corruption and crime, and then triggers the inevitable rise of state power to control and enforce the restrictions. It’s stupid! You know that’s how it works when it comes to every other form of trade – why would you not recognise the same familiar principles applying to the international labour market?

  23. NiV

    People have done this argument to death before now on here. The differences between people and products and all that. You were on the thread at the time – I remember clearly.

    Also – “national pride” or “your own people” or whatever you want to call it?

    Yes.

    Get over it.

  24. Apols. Don’t get me wrong, you make some perfectly good points re trying to keep up and technologically ahead of the game and all that.

    But, we do instinctively prioritise (as people), and it’s not completely irrational, it’s proven to be a good survival measure.

  25. PF,

    No offence taken. I just regard it as part of the robust debate to be enjoyed here.

    “People have done this argument to death before now on here.”

    And yet people here keep on saying this stuff. You could say exactly the same thing about socialism, or the greens, or Ritchie…

    “Also – “national pride” or “your own people” or whatever you want to call it?”

    Don’t misunderstand. I’ve got no problem with national pride – there are many reasons to be proud. But am I really supposed to be ‘proud’ of our British culture of scummy council estate dole scroungers? There’s plenty in British culture that’s unwelcome, too.

    “But, we do instinctively prioritise (as people), and it’s not completely irrational, it’s proven to be a good survival measure.”

    I agree it’s not irrational – socialism makes a very persuasive argument, and it’s a fact that far more people subscribe to socialist thinking than to libertarian free-market lassez faire. On a superficial level, it seems to make a great deal of sense. You’re low paid and losing your job because the bosses can bring in cheaper workers? Bring in a law to ban them! Problem solved.

    It’s exactly the same thinking, whether at the level of a company, or an industry, or a country. If you can’t compete, ban the competition. It makes perfect sense!

    The problem with it is all the consequences that you don’t see, that aren’t obvious. Very few people learn any economics in school – which given the importance of the subject seems bizarre – so it’s not at all surprising that socialism should still be so popular. I can understand, and sympathise.

    But this is why I take every opportunity to explain why it isn’t so, why the superficial arguments of socialism and authoritarianism in general aren’t valid, and why we’d actually be better off if we switched to free markets. It’s about education, and spreading the word – you could even say evangelism – not putting anyone down.

    Free markets and liberalism are far from obvious or instinctive. Out of the 400,000 year history of humanity, we’ve probably had societies based on them for less than 200 of them. It’s actually an extremely sophisticated and delicate invention, and should not be underestimated. Moreover, we could easily lose it again. That’s why I keep banging on about it.

    Apologies if it’s annoying.

  26. “But, we do instinctively prioritise (as people), and it’s not completely irrational, it’s proven to be a good survival measure.”

    I agree it’s not irrational – socialism makes a very persuasive argument

    I’m not sure what is socialist about prioritising?

    Family & kin first, then friends (usually!), then community (if it exists, and even grudgingly including the shitty scum bag at the end of the street, but because you know his family and he’ll get a kick up the backside if he doesn’t behave).

    Then something else, then “perhaps” people that speak the same language or bind us in some or other ways.

    And don’t forget the pets over those horrible squirrels and pidgeons.

    Then earthlings (and wherever they are in the galaxy / whatever colour etc) over those funny lizard shaped thingies, and then maybe our fellw Milky Wayans over Tony and Gordon…

    I got a bit confused – which was the nasty evil socialist bit..:)

  27. Trust me, for all that you may regard as flippancy, I do understand where you are coming from with all of this.

    But – in pursuit of what might lead us on to whatever the possibilities of tomorrow may comprise, I simply don’t believe you can ride rough shod and / or ignore / discard what makes a species successful, however many years are involved, and hence where we are (and how we got to) today.

    Leadership?

    Two pennies after a glass or two..

    It’s not annoying, even if I might disagree and / or interesting.

  28. “I’m not sure what is socialist about prioritising?”

    It’s socialist when the prioritising you’re talking about is:

    “sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare state will object to paying for those who have no right to use it.”

    Only a socialist would thing *anyone* has a “right” to welfare.

    Charity isn’t charity if it’s not voluntary – it’s theft.

    “Trust me, for all that you may regard as flippancy, I do understand where you are coming from with all of this.”

    Believe me, I enjoy the debate. I like people to argue with me. I’d much prefer you to be flippant than that you get all serious and upset. It’s pretty rare that I get genuinely upset about anything people say to me on the internet – and I frequently talk to people for who I am the running capitalist pigdog devil incarnate! – and I sometimes forget that what for me is just a debate is to others their mission, their religion, their self-image and self-respect, the logical foundations of their very universe. Smashing their comfortable illusions is like stealing a teddy bear from a 3 year old toddler and burning it in front of their eyes. They might be wrong. They might be being childish. But you’d have to be a real bastard to enjoy doing that to someone who is borderline mentally ill, like an enviro-Malthusian vegetarian communist. And I don’t like being a bastard.

    So “flippant” I’m happy with. It means I’m not upsetting you too much.

    The main thing is – is my argument persuasive? I need to ask myself whether your objections are valid – in which case I’ve just learnt something. Or do I think perhaps you misunderstood something I said – in which case how can I make myself clearer? Debate is a learning process for me as well. But one not to be taken too seriously.

    I cannot praise a fugitive and cloister’d vertue, unexercis’d & unbreath’d, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortall garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.

    Milton, Areopagitica, 1644.

  29. “I’m not sure what is socialist about prioritising?”

    It’s socialist when the prioritising you’re talking about is:

    “sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare state will object to paying for those who have no right to use it.”

    But, but, but… that’s a straw man, I never said that!

    I said “Family, Friends, Countrymen, fellow Milky Wayans”…

    I continue to maintain most vociferously: “I am not an evil, nasty, wicked socialist”.

    Burning teddy bears in front of little children. I really don’t know why people do that.

    Is my argument persuasive?

    I don’t need or want completely unfettered freedom of movement of people. Not creeping back onto planet earth by Tony or Gordon, nor uninvited into my house by the little toe rag at the end of the street?

    The welfare discussion is scheduled for next week.

    I know I’m not doing proper justice to your response but I’m excusing myself as part of your response was mis-aimed through the window of the house next door..:)

  30. “But, but, but… that’s a straw man, I never said that!”

    That’s true. The conversation, as I read it, went as follows:

    Ed Grant: “sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare state will object to paying for those who have no right to use it.”

    Me: “Why should I make any moral distinction between an undeserving English sponger endlessly sucking up welfare and a foreign one? National pride?!”

    You: “Also – “national pride” or “your own people” or whatever you want to call it? Yes. Get over it. […] But, we do instinctively prioritise (as people), and it’s not completely irrational, it’s proven to be a good survival measure.”

    Me: “I agree it’s not irrational – socialism makes a very persuasive argument […] You’re low paid and losing your job because the bosses can bring in cheaper workers? Bring in a law to ban them! Problem solved.”

    You: “I’m not sure what is socialist about prioritising?”

    Me: “It’s socialist when the prioritising you’re talking about is: “sooner or later, the people paying for that welfare state will object to paying for those who have no right to use it.” “

    Does that help?

    “I continue to maintain most vociferously: “I am not an evil, nasty, wicked socialist”.”

    Good! So you don’t agree with labour union closed shops, prioritising union members over scabs, right? 🙂

    You might have noticed, I can do flippant too.

  31. OK, then let me more serious!

    I don’t agree with your analogy.

    The reason I don’t agree is because welfare is only partially different to all sorts of things that we may (or may not) be more passionate about. And once we prioritise, at all, then “what” we prioritise is a detail, and is in some respects personal to each of us.

    In terms of “who”, prioritising my family over the urchin at the end of the street (or any of the other examples, and yes including prioritising country over foreign) is *not* the equivalent of a closed shop – it just isn’t – sorry..:)

    Or perhaps to reword that – would you personally, NiV, prioritise your own family over others, and if you do are you operating an evil socialist closed shop?

    And, once you prioritise, at whatever level that takes place, the argument surely falls, ie it simply becomes one of degree. BTW, prioritising does not have to be “for self”, it can be on behalf of and for others instead?

    btw, although I have nothing against Union crushing scabs, Tony and Gordon are still not welcome back…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *