nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Child refugees -majority to be males aged 17???

Confused mum84

Read that Children's minister Katherine Zappone has announced that majority of child refugees to be taken in by Ireland will be "males aged between 16/17. A couple of points on this :

1. Shouldn't we be prioritising the youngest & therefore most vulnerable of children ? Have seen reports of children as young as 12 being unaccompanied .

2. Why will majority be male? It's been well documented that unaccompanied girls faces huge risks of sexual assault & human trafficking . Again , shouldn't this young group be prioritised as much as almost adult males

3. It's well known that there are people in their 20's & well into their 30's claiming to be "17 year old children" . Why are we intentionally rewarding this decit by prioritising this age group..these people are stopping a genuine child from getting a proper place in a host country . Of course we need to include some 17 year olds but why prioritise this age ...

Makes me think it's all down to money & a box ticking exercise . The cost of "caring for a 17 year old child " is going to be far far less cheaper in the medium to long term for the government . Thus the government can get a "pat on the back " for doing their bit while keeping costs as low as possible

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get that some people believe that how deserving of human compassion a person is is a direct function of where they had the manners to be born, but not everyone feels that way.

Every civilised country has signed up to agreements that set out how refugees (the word doesn't need danger quotes - yes, I get that you're using them as a way of expressing your view that they're not genuine refugees without having to adduce any evidence for that belief) should be treated. If you believe that Ireland should renege on those agreements on the basis that Irish people are inherently more deserving, I guess you'll have to elect a government that agrees with you.

That's not how public policy works. If everyone got to opt out of a percentage of their taxes on the basis of government expenditure they disagreed with, the country would be in quite the state.

Would you be willing to accept figures from Frontex?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/six-out-of-10-migrants-to-europe-come-for-economic-reasons-and-are-not-refugees-eu-vice-president-a6836306.html

Dutch politician Frans Timmermans said the majority of migrants to Europe are from North African countries such as Morocco or Tunisia, where there is no conflict. “More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status... more than half, 60 per cent,” he told Dutch broadcaster NOS.

His said his statement came after viewing new figures from EU border agency Frontex which have not yet been officially published.

As I said, genuine refugees, who are willing to integrate, I have no problem with.

Wasting 11 million on 40 migrants, however.....

oscarBravo

Old Bill wrote: »

Its common sense...

That sounds like shorthand for "I don't need facts, I have an opinion!"

Irish people never sought "asylum" in the likes of Pakistan or Nigeria.

If an Irish person sought "asylum" in one of those countries we would be laughed out the door.

You're horrid fond of the danger quotes. I suppose you'd split your sides laughing at the idea of, oh I dunno, an Australian seeking asylum in Ecuador?

newacc2015 wrote: »

So how did a 16 year old get all the way from Turkey to France?

That was supposed to be an answer to my question?

Remove the incentive to move to Europe and the people will stop coming

Sure, and if the Irish navy had just strafed the feckers in their boats instead of rescuing them, that might have discouraged them too.

I really can't get my head around how some people think "if we refuse to acknowledge that they're human, they might just stay in the miserable shíthole countries where they belong" is an acceptable view to express.

Phoebas

Old Bill wrote: »

Anybody who advocates "Refugees" coming into Ireland should have to pay for it through increased personal taxation.

Of course. In this case, the State is advocating (deciding) that refugees will come to Ireland - and that will be paid for by taxation.

So I guess that satisfies your criteria.

dissed doc

newacc2015 wrote: »

That 10m could improve the lives of thousands of 16 year olds in Turkey instead of a few hundred in Ireland. That money would go so much further in the Turkey.

That €10 million will improve the lives of at least 10, if not 12 or maybe even 15 key people such as Peter Sutherland. It will create a steady income stream for the board members of several charities, refugee companies/orgs and NGOs, creating a safe exit from government for several politicians who offer very little in the way of useful ability.

They really need the cash! After the banking collapse, extracting money from taxpayers is harder. They need unilateral decisions to spend tax money in a way to move as much to the offshore bank accounts.

Someone's got to do the work! It may as well be you!

newacc2015

oscarBravo wrote: »

A question to anyone who believes this: if you had a 16-year-old son, would you be happy to leave him on his own in a refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan? Or in Calais, for that matter?

So how did a 16 year old get all the way from Turkey to France? It is amazing that despite Syria at war, that only guys ever seem to reach France in vast numbers as these people are often just economic migrants. Families send their young sons to Europe to find work and send money home. I imagine the taxpayer will shell out a few hundred thousand on these teenagers for them to flee to the UK to work a low wage job to send money home. But hey we made their life better?

That 10m could improve the lives of thousands of 16 year olds in Turkey instead of a few hundred in Ireland. That money would go so much further in the Turkey. A lone teenager in Calais is Frances problem not ours. When our economy improves are we going to starts supporting various unemployment Europeans and move them to Ireland too?

If I had a 16 year old son, I would not pimp him out by sending him to Europe on his own to earn money for us back in Turkey or Syria. If I knew European Governments would ship him back to Turkey or a camp in Italy, I probably would not send him.

Remove the incentive to move to Europe and the people will stop coming

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

222233

Sadly, we have neither the services nor the supports in place or available to give these "children" the best possible chance. We don't have the services for the children that are already here, whoever made the decision to add more children to the crisis in health care, mental health services, education support, employment opportunity, crisis intervention - the list goes on should really have a chat with themselves.

It's ironic the DAFM will make sure you don't have as much as one cow more than you can facilitate yet we can add potentially hundreds of vulnerable adults / potentially children into what's already a catastrophic mess of a system.

Old Bill

oscarBravo wrote: »

And they're genuine according to the officials who currently work in the Department of Justice. Why do you choose to believe this one person, other than the fact that he's telling you what you want to hear?

Its common sense we not near any of the countries they coming from.

Irish people never sought "asylum" in the likes of Pakistan or Nigeria.

If an Irish person sought "asylum" in one of those countries we would be laughed out the door.

Yet at same time we are suppose to take people in from those countries.

oscarBravo

Old Bill wrote: »

The vast "majority" of "Refugees" in Ireland are bogey according to an official who worked in the department of Justice.

And they're genuine according to the officials who currently work in the Department of Justice. Why do you choose to believe this one person, other than the fact that he's telling you what you want to hear?

Old Bill

oscarBravo wrote: »

A question to anyone who believes this: if you had a 16-year-old son, would you be happy to leave him on his own in a refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan? Or in Calais, for that matter?

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you know about them that the Department of Justice doesn't?

The vast "majority" of "Refugees" in Ireland are bogey according to an official who worked in the department of Justice.

oscarBravo

newacc2015 wrote: »

Syrians are safe in Turkey or Jordan...

A question to anyone who believes this: if you had a 16-year-old son, would you be happy to leave him on his own in a refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan? Or in Calais, for that matter?

Old Bill wrote: »

There is nothing bizarre about it these "refugees" are clearly economic migrants.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you know about them that the Department of Justice doesn't?

screamer

taylor3 wrote: »

In reality it seems most young male migrants are bringing trouble, which is of great concern to me. I live in Roscommon and am raising a young daughter. I really don't think our government will 'learn' anything from the mistakes already made by other EU countries. Genuine refugees yes not a problem but the rest troubles me.

Problem is there is no way to vet a genuine refugee. They can say they're running away from anything and be accepted and the water taxi that is the Irish navy and co keep on carrying them over by the thousands. We need to be careful as a country that we don't turn ourselves into a place where we are afraid to live as then we become the refugees. Difference is no one will take us in.........

Old Bill

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, that'll be the old "a genuine refugee would rather live in squalor in a refugee camp than move to country with prospects for improving their lot" canard.

I have no idea how people can persuade themselves of something this self-evidently bizarre, but I guess if you want to believe something badly enough, you'll find a way.

There is nothing bizarre about it these "refugees" are clearly economic migrants.

All notice how about 90% of them are young men where all the women and children and old people etc ?

taylor3

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I agree with this. As we watch from afar it seems some migrants are bringing trouble to many cities and there are serious cultural differences that are not even being considered. So far we have not really felt a huge impact from the migrant crisis and we should take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of other EU countries.

If most of the migrants coming here are unaccompanied males over 16 I would have serious concerns around their motivations.

In reality it seems most young male migrants are bringing trouble, which is of great concern to me. I live in Roscommon and am raising a young daughter. I really don't think our government will 'learn' anything from the mistakes already made by other EU countries. Genuine refugees yes not a problem but the rest troubles me.

newacc2015

Brian? wrote: »

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

Since when has Calais in France turned into a war zone or a such a horrible place that we cost on "each human life" is no longer relevant? The Government has done the math and the price is €275k per year.

Syrians are safe in Turkey or Jordan, there is just little opportunity there. So they are travelling in vast amounts to take advantage of the once in a lifetime opportunity to live in wealthy Europe. Yes Syria is in a civil war, but there is rich parts of Damascus where life goes on as if there is no war.

The vast amount of money that the state is going to waste on these handful of children is the only way to describe it would be better spent on making life in the camps in Turkey better to stop these people coming to Europe to seek better opportunities.

ChikiChiki

taylor3 wrote: »

I would have concerns based on what is happening in other parts of Europe. In the long term how will all of this pan out.

I agree with this. As we watch from afar it seems some migrants are bringing trouble to many cities and there are serious cultural differences that are not even being considered. So far we have not really felt a huge impact from the migrant crisis and we should take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of other EU countries.

If most of the migrants coming here are unaccompanied males over 16 I would have serious concerns around their motivations.

oscarBravo

Old Bill wrote: »

There are no legitimate "refugees" coming into Ireland because they had to travel through so many safe countries in order to get here.

Ah, that'll be the old "a genuine refugee would rather live in squalor in a refugee camp than move to country with prospects for improving their lot" canard.

I have no idea how people can persuade themselves of something this self-evidently bizarre, but I guess if you want to believe something badly enough, you'll find a way.

oscarBravo

Old Bill wrote: »

There needs to be a total shut down on "refugees" and asylum seekers coming into Ireland until our own people are looked after in terms of health, education and housing etc.

I get that some people believe that how deserving of human compassion a person is is a direct function of where they had the manners to be born, but not everyone feels that way.

Every civilised country has signed up to agreements that set out how refugees (the word doesn't need danger quotes - yes, I get that you're using them as a way of expressing your view that they're not genuine refugees without having to adduce any evidence for that belief) should be treated. If you believe that Ireland should renege on those agreements on the basis that Irish people are inherently more deserving, I guess you'll have to elect a government that agrees with you.

Old Bill wrote: »

Anybody who advocates "Refugees" coming into Ireland should have to pay for it through increased personal taxation.

That's not how public policy works. If everyone got to opt out of a percentage of their taxes on the basis of government expenditure they disagreed with, the country would be in quite the state.

taylor3

I would have concerns based on what is happening in other parts of Europe. In the long term how will all of this pan out.

Eoinmc97

Brian? wrote: »

"Our own people"? Who do you define as "our own"?

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

You missed the issue of "Who is a legitimate refugee?". As many have said here, it is not the refugees themselves, but those who scam the system and put legitimate refugees in jeopardy.
I personally see the issue being governments ignoring the democratic process, and ignoring what the citizens of their home country are saying. IMO, too much discussion and deliberation has been done in Brussels, and not enough in Ireland. We citizens have the rights to know and be informed actively;
Who is eligible?
For how long is the state to support them? Until the end of the conflict/famine/etc? Forever?
How is community/workforce/education integration going to be handled?
What if a community is unwilling to accept the refugee, and the refugee wants to move? Should their request be allowed, or denied under the idea of "Beggars cannot be Choosers"?
How is the cost per person per year higher than the average income?
Will their home country be subsidising this facilitation, or the welcoming country's tax payers?

All of those (and more) are serious questions to deliberate after all the facts have been given. Unfortunately, we do not have all the facts at hand.
There are even questions of 'morality' involved. Does one take a humanitarian response, or a nihilist view? Perhaps a justarian standpoint? The "value of life" throughout history has always been relatively little when viewed from the standpoints of monarchies, despots, crusades, comquerors etc. If viewed from a point of 'availability', world population is higher than it has ever been throughout the entirety of history, so from an economics of scale standpoint, the "value of life" is abysmally lower than ever. What about the 'condition' of the human? Does the "value of the person" depreciate when taking into consideration age, illness and health decline etc? (These are no doubt odd ideas, but I feel they are always interesting to ponder on)

So, if you value human life, you must value the fact that every human that lives will form opinion, often differing ones. All of the above have points of contention, so it is no longer as simple as "so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?"

Saipanne wrote: »

That opinion has not been approved.

Again, their opinion is just as valid and "approved" as yours.

Saipanne

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I do.

That opinion has not been approved.

Old Bill

Brian? wrote: »

"Our own people"? Who do you define as "our own"?

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

There are no legitimate "refugees" coming into Ireland because they had to travel through so many safe countries in order to get here.

Brian?

Old Bill wrote: »

When our own people fled Northern Ireland during the troubles they didnt seek "asylum" in Nigeria or Pakistan.

Yet we have do gooders telling us that its our "obligation" to take in "Refugees" from the 3rd world.

You couldn't make it up.

"Our own people"? Who do you define as "our own"?

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

Old Bill

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I do.

Anybody who advocates "Refugees" coming into Ireland should have to pay for it through increased personal taxation.

dissed doc

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I hope they won't be doing a runner as the government are spending €275k in year one on each of them.

There are a lot of hands out to get a piece of the pie.

Each illegal squatter from Calais is worth a lot of cash.

Calais is not a refugee site. It is an illegal settlement of squatters of no fixed abode, moving through Schengen zones.

Separately, each refugee (which is only a status granted after official recognition of that person's case) is also worth a lot of cash. The NGOs and other private agencies stand to make a killing on virtually blank chequebooks from the government. Remember: Goldman Sachs get UN contracts to manage these funds. The amount of hands out to get a slice of fat government contracts goes far beyond just food and board.

This is where the tax money is going.

Ferrari3600

Old Bill wrote: »

There needs to be a total shut down on "refugees" and asylum seekers coming into Ireland until our own people are looked after in terms of health, education and housing etc.

Agreed.

To quote Morrissey,

"Bengali, Bengali in platforms /
shelve your Western plans /
because life is hard enough when you belong here".

Ferrari3600

Rackstar wrote: »

I've no problem with them coming here, children and adults.

I do.

Old Bill

There needs to be a total shut down on "refugees" and asylum seekers coming into Ireland until our own people are looked after in terms of health, education and housing etc.

[Deleted User]

Genuine Syrian refugees, I have no problem with, provided the exercise is properly assessed, costed, and implemented.

I will freely admit to being utterly bewildered at the thought of one refugee costing €275,000 per year. Nor can I accept that extra funding is not being made available, thus stretching scarce resources even further.

Economic migrants from Calais are a different matter.

The truth is, many of them have been in Calais for a number of years, and weren't refugees to begin with.
Having viewed several videos of the antics of some of these lads in Calais, I have no hesitation in saying I hope the vetting procedure is very stringent.

I posted this link in Cafe, in a thread that has been closed pending mod review:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...women-children

Kurdish authorities have shut down a key charity that was supporting women and children from the Yazidi minority who survived Isis sexual slavery.
The decision to abruptly close Yazda leaves more than 1,200 women and children without material, psychological or social support, charity officials and human rights activists warn.
It may also complicate a programme to take some of the most vulnerable women and girls to Canada for resettlement, because Yazda was expected to be involved in the screening and identification of those in greatest need of protection, Canadian media reported.

You cannot possibly find anyone more vulnerable. These women and children, having been rescued from sexual slavery, are often turned away by their husbands or fathers.

The Yazidi are hated by their Moslem "neighbours" - hence the closing down of the charity, under the false pretence that their licence had expired.

It seems to me that, as a humanitarian exercise, €11m+ would be better spent on extricating these women and children, rather than on taking in 40 residents from the Calais jungle.

Think about it. Canada has agreed to take them, so, it's a one off cost to extricate 1200 women and children, vs. 40 residents of the jungle, with ongoing costs for support.

So, why would we take 40 from Calais, where they are not in any imminent danger?

Saipanne

Lux23 wrote: »

So are all those stories from Syria fake news?

So all the refugees are Syrian? Are we still going with that fantasy?