An interesting interview with Paul Collier in de went, that although not directly related to Calais is along the lines of this thread
Translation here because I don't think some users use google translate.
DIE WELT: Currently, 60 million people are on the run, as many as never before since the Second World War. Nevertheless, to warn you that this exodus may be only the beginning. Why?
Paul Collier: One has to distinguish clearly. In this refugee crisis, we on the one hand deal with failed states like Syria. The people who flee from there, it's about survival. Here we are talking of about 14 million people. And then there are those who live in poor countries and make their way to the rich western world, in order to find their happiness. These are hundreds of millions of people. A huge mass that once on the move is hardly controllable.
DIE WELT: We have to face that half of Africa gets on the move?
Collier: The chaos in many African countries increases definitely. The former World Bank economist Serge Michaïlof presents the thesis that the region south of the Sahara could be the next Afghanistan. There live about 100 million people, and especially in Mali and Niger, the situation is already very unstable. And then there comes the German chancellor and says that Europe's doors are open. Think about it just once, how these people perceive that.
DIE WELT: You mean Angela Merkel is to blame for the refugee crisis in Europe?
Collier: Who else? Until last year refugees were not a big issue for Europe. I still do not understand why Mrs Merkel has acted that way. She has so definitely imposed a huge problem on Germany and Europe, which now also no longer is so easy to solve.
DIE WELT: Will the cost Merkel chancellorship?
Collier: That I can not answer with the best intentions. But what I can say: Through her communication she has turned refugees into migrants.
DIE WELT: That means?
Collier: It's simple: Germany obviously likes the savior role. But it does not border any of crisis or war countries. All these people who have come to you made it from safe third countries. Germany has saved not a single Syrian. On the contrary, Germany, despite your best intentions rather is responsible for deaths. The matter has gone completely out of hand. Many people understood Merkel's words as an invitation and then made it to the dangerous path, sacrificed their savings and entrusted their lives dubious thugs.
DIE WELT: Then Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's right, if he wants to protect Europe by fences and walls from the onslaught of the masses?
Collier: I'm not interested in any way what individual politicians say. But borders and fences are certainly not the solution to the problem.
DIE WELT: But?
Collier: There must be a radical shift in the communication. Europe must make it clear that want-to-be migrants into affluence do not need start the journey. And the refugees who want to get to safety, can not do that in Europe, but in the neighboring countries, just as it is defined in international law. The principle that safe littoral states to provide protection must necessarily apply for two reasons: Firstly, the refugees come to security the neighboring country in the simplest, without getting themselves unnecessarily in danger. And when there is peace again in their homeland, the refugees can also easily go back and help rebuild.
DIE WELT: However, many refugees in Germany seem to want to settle down here in the long term.
Collier: This is too often forgotten in the whole discussion. Mainly the comparatively well-educated and relatively prosperous start the journey of immigration. Exactly these people will not go back again, once they have taken root in the West. The crisis countries are then missing precisely those people who they need most urgently for a stable future.
DIE WELT: But Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan can no longer shoulder the load.
Collier: I've been to one of those refugee camps in Jordan. Life there is not great, but bearable. And just that is what counts. We need to help the people who have left their homes unvoluntarily. But they are not not entitled to a place in the affluent European sky.
DIE WELT: To make it but very simple.
Collier: No, not at all. Of course, the emerging markets should not sit on the costs of refugees. It's definitely a matter for the rich countries to compensate them for it adequately.
DIE WELT: Then do you like Schäuble's proposal of a Marshall Plan for the countries bordering safe?
Collier: Absolutely, that's exactly the right approach. Lynchpin however, it is to bring all these people back into jobs. Currently the refugees have no real perspective in the large refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey. If you get them in jobs on the spot, disappears the incentive to move to Western Europe. Who creates jobs also has some control over the refugees. Fences or other hand, protection money for Turkey are less effective.
DIE WELT: Who's going to create those millions of jobs in Jordan?
Collier: The German economy is virtually predestined. German companies have en masse shifted jobs to Poland or Turkey. So why not to Jordan?
DIE WELT: Because it lacks the necessary infrastructure, among other things, market outlets and trained personnel?
Collier: Jordan has even specially established economic zones, which are well developed. You also need not be a nuclear physicist to work in a factory. The Syrians are no worse qualified than the Turks.
DIE WELT: If it is so easy, then why argue about Europe border security and refugee ceilings?
Collier: Europe leads the completely false debate. The European Union is not responsible for the reception of refugees. However, it is responsible for securing its own borders, either jointly or, if that does not work, then just every single state of their own. I do not understand is why this is controversial at all.
DIE WELT: Because the Schengen Agreement, one of the key achievements of the internal market, would inevitably be carried to the grave.
Collier: Schengen's long been dead. And you know what: This does not matter. My native Britain is not part of the Schengen Agreement. I can not see that that would have any disadvantage. Schengen is only as a theatrical symbol of Brussels politicians. They want to pretend something like a European state. But Schengen has nothing to do with Europe. What matters is that we can travel to the other of a country. And that goes without Schengen.
DIE WELT: Exporters within the EU disagree. They fear enormous rising costs when border controls are in place again.
Collier: I do not believe that argument. When I travel to continental Europe, before I show my passport that lasts ten seconds and more effort is not. It is important that you can travel freely, and for that you do not need Schengen. It is quite simple: Each country is responsible for securing its own borders. You cannot just enter Botswana as well. Why should it be any different in Europe?
DIE WELT: So will Europe not break on a possible end of Schengen?
Collier: Europe will not break. That's all an exaggeration. The problem will be solved. Either by the States or by common national solutions
DIE WELT: In your book, you have warned that too many immigrants endanger the social fabric of society. Especially after the attacks of Cologne, is this danger becoming reality now?
Collier: I do not think so. People will realize that the influx was only the consequence of a major policy error that will be corrected. But surely it will be difficult with the integration. This is more difficult the more migrants are in one country and live together in a confined space. Because then decreases the need to really culturally and linguistically to open up for the host country. As a result, hard to control parallel societies emerge.
DIE WELT: Examples abound. But which countries that have well solved the problem, Europe could take as a model?
Collier: The US have used immigration for their advantage. Also Canada and Australia are examples of good integration. Both countries pursue a highly selective immigration policy. Canada taking about only 25,000 Syrians - and only families, no unaccompanied young men. That way, many of the problems Europe complains about now do not arise.