Close the tunnel for a few years. Problem solved!

I believe the problem belongs to the EU, we're just one of the few richest EU countries with the softest policies.
The way to stop economic migrants (if they were just avoiding death then Italy and Greece would be far enough to run, France certainly would be) is to do away with a few more of the benefits. The conservatives have already started, it's only a few extra changes and the UK won't be so attractive.

These refugees aren't bad people, please don't think the desperation they are showing to get to the UK is get on a benefits system. They might just want a chance at a life worth living.

Do P&O do a Calais to Cape Town service ?

Anyone who thinks this country needs another 3,500 here to pimp off the system, needs to think again. I quite like the idea of living in some exotic hotspot , but it won't do me any good camping out on their doorstep, gagging to get in. Even with trying to explain that Mr Cameron has made it very hard to survive in the UK with his austerity measures, I don't think they would listen. . Maybe I should tell the Turkish authorities next month that I fancy staying there indefinitely and see how they take that news.

Can't get all this "soft Touch" Britain nonsense.

The reason so many of them risk their lives to get to Britain is because they already speak ENGLISH. Most of the problem is our imperialistic past not the benefits system. We travelled the world and forced English upon the natives. When you are next on Holiday and get by perfectly without ever uttering a word of the language of your destination, you may like to realise just what that the negative aspect of that benefit may be.

So that's why they want to come to the UK - English, not benefits. The USA is having exactly the same issues, with south American migrants, at their borders.

It has also been shown that economically many of the EU migrants would actually be better off in say France or Germany, but if you don't speak the lingo you won't easily get a LEGAL job.

You do know alot of these people are from Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia which the west has not interference in . How do you explain that

English is the most commonly taught second language so is a logical choice for them.

European powers have interfered (as you put it) in the countries you mentioned.

Britain in Sudan in the 19th and 20th centuries ,although governed by Egypt which was at that time a British protectorate. became independent in 1956.

Italy in Eritrea until they were removed by the British in 1941, then annexed by Ethiopia prior to gaining independence in the late 20th centuary.

Italy, France and Britain in different regions of Somalia until late 20th century independence.

The view on here that carries the most weight is Jimbo's. Someone actually knowledgeable about refugees and their lives. The problem for many comfortable little Englanders is their total inability to understand what it means to live in the conditions that most people who flee their countries have to endure.
If you could imagine what it was like to genuinely fear for your life and safety every day, you might appreciate why they would risk their lives to find any alternative. Of course some of them will believe that the UK is the best option, but if you look at the figures EU-wide for the number of refugees accepted, we aren't exactly at the top of the list. If we were dealing with the same scale of issue as Italy, I think we might have a better idea of how few people make it to Calais.

Robcoupe20VT - To accuse Bob of Left wing spin then say Sky offers better coverage seems to mean "coverage that better reflects my right-wing views". Try Al-Jazeera's coverage if you want another, often more balanced view.