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

jmayo · 31-01-2017 05:27PM

bubblypop wrote: »

'Quote: bubblypop
Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?

At this stage probably the Americans since even way before Trumps arrival they have had very strict vetting procedures in place.'

Enough said, you would rather let a country miles away from us to get the people we let into our country?
Ridiculous.

How many terrorist attacks have been committed in Ireland? ( not by the ira I mean)
Seems to me vetting is going better then the Americans

And, FYI you have no idea how the vetting is done in this country.

So just because nothing has happened here yet that means we are better at security.
And because nothing has happened in an environment where we have had shag all undocumented muslim migrnats/refugees then we will forever be immune from islamist terrorist attacks. :rolleyes:

If this is the mindset of some then we are truly fooked.

I wonder is that how the Spanish thought pre 2004.
Perhaps that's how the Australians thought before someone with a makeshift ISIS flag wandered into a cafe one day.

We are not so special that we are somehow immune from the real world.
We are seen as being one of the hosts of some of the USA biggest and most prominent companies.

The Twin Towers were attacked for their symbolism.

Why don't you fill us all in and how the vetting will be done.
Can you deny it is still down to subjective feeling of interviewers if there is no document trail available to disprove or prove an applicants bona fides ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the same justification used for "stop and frisk", and it doesn't work. By far and away the most effective consequence of racial profiling is the creation of simmering resentment. Fast food restaurants.

It's a glib answer, sure: but the average westerner is several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by terrorism of any stripe, let alone by a Muslim immigrant. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by your lawnmower, or by your TV falling on you, than by Islamist terrorism. If you can find a reference to me or anyone else talking about warm fuzzy feelings, please cite it. OK, let's apply that philosophy more broadly: we had a great deal of hysteria earlier in the thread about how those nasty foreigners were going to rape us all. But the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by members of the victim's own family, or a close acquaintance.

Is anyone advocating that the police in every European country should operate on the assumption that everyone is a rapist? That nobody should be left alone with another person until an exhaustive background check has proven that they're not going to rape that person?

Of course not: that would be an unforgivable intrusion on people's civil liberties. But it's OK to operate on the assumption that people from certain countries or adherents to certain religions are potential terrorists, because they're somehow less deserving of civil liberties than the rest of us. What group should we deprive of civil liberties as a result of Dylann Roof's actions? I don't recall you advocating for strong background checks of Norwegians as a result of Breivik's rampage. Actually, I'll point out that the percentage of refugees that are terrorists is zero, to a useful approximation. Oh, they reckon, do they? Well, I don't know how to counter that sort of hard-and-fast evidence. ...and still statistically less likely than being hit by lightning. It's funny how you're happy to invoke statistical likelihood when you think it supports your argument. Countless? Seriously?

I see what you are trying to do.

BTW why not look up comments by German security officals and NATO generals to see their opinions on terrorists coming into Europe as refugees.
But of course you probably know better what with all the information you have access to surfing the web in Westport.

To me countless dead is when we are talking about hundreds of people although with your love of statistics and percentages you will probably only take it seriously when thousands are slaughtered.
Lets hope their aim of attacking nuclear facilities is never successful or you will then be worried. :rolleyes:

To you what is a few hundred people killed in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder if I said who gives a sh** about 6 dead muslims in Qeubec, after all that is so statistically small, more people were killed by lightning in the last few days, hell more people were probably killed falling down the stairs in one day in the USA.
I wonder how many people including yourself would claim I was a callous bast*** and be running to your ex colleagues the mods to have me banned?

BTW 6 dead innocent muslims at prayer is too much and hundreds of dead innocent people in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin is too much.

Ash.J.Williams · 31-01-2017 05:31PM

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.

you're not comparing NI to the "troubles" of the Middle east are you? None of our cities were wiped off the map.

oscarBravo · 31-01-2017 07:08PM

jmayo wrote: »

I wonder if I said who gives a sh** about 6 dead muslims in Qeubec, after all that is so statistically small, more people were killed by lightning in the last few days, hell more people were probably killed falling down the stairs in one day in the USA.

But nobody - nobody - has said "who gives a sh** about" the victims of terrorism in Europe.

Those six Muslims in Québec were apparently murdered by a Canadian. Nobody is demanding that we ban Canadian immigrants; nobody is calling for extreme vetting of Canadians; nobody is shrieking hysterically about how we're all going to be raped in our beds by those nasty Canadians.

Some Muslims are terrorists, but almost all Muslims are not terrorists. Some Canadians (and Norwegians, and pretty much any other nationality you can name) are mass murderers, but almost all people from those countries are not mass murderers.

All I'm asking for is a sense of perspective. If you're going to demand that we keep potentially genuine refugees in limbo because of a threat that's statistically negligible, you really ought to have a decent reason for it.

jmayo · 31-01-2017 07:42PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

But nobody - nobody - has said "who gives a sh** about" the victims of terrorism in Europe.

Those six Muslims in Québec were apparently murdered by a Canadian. Nobody is demanding that we ban Canadian immigrants; nobody is calling for extreme vetting of Canadians; nobody is shrieking hysterically about how we're all going to be raped in our beds by those nasty Canadians.

Yes but if a Canadian turns up in Ireland they are probably showing their passport and if they are dangerous there is a good chance they are flagged somewhere.
It is slightly different, if as you want, some one turns up claiming to be a minor from Syria with absolutely no documentation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Some Muslims are terrorists, but almost all Muslims are not terrorists. Some Canadians (and Norwegians, and pretty much any other nationality you can name) are mass murderers, but almost all people from those countries are not mass murderers.

All I'm asking for is a sense of perspective. If you're going to demand that we keep potentially genuine refugees in limbo because of a threat that's statistically negligible, you really ought to have a decent reason for it.

BTW no matter how you want to spin this there have been far fewer people killed by Canadian terrorists than say Tunisian, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, Aghani terrorists, but you keep trying to equate the two.
BTW I must tell my Canadian friends how dangerous you rate them.

Even if we dismiss the chance as small of a muslim migrant with no proof of identity as being a terrorist, it has been shown in surveys that there is a larger chance that they would be supporters of fundamentalist terrorists.
Molenbeek was a stark reminder of how that is a huge problem within the immigrant muslim communities that already exist in Europe.

And then even if we discount all of that all we have to do is look at the failure of muslim integration in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Sweden.

They have ticking timebombs, they have muslim citizens going to join ISIS and seeking to kill their fellow citizens.
Hell some of them just stay at home and decide to hack the head off the nearest off duty soldier.

And yes we know Ireland doesn't have a problem with muslim immigrants and shure isn't the cafe in Clonskeagh great and doesn't a muslim play football for Mayo.

That might seem grand, but there already signs of the usual demands for special treatment which turns out to be thin end of the wedge.
We have the likes of Dr Ali Selim, a pominent muslim spokesperson and right hand man to Mr Muslim Brotherhood Hussein Halawa, who has refused to condemn islamist terrorism and has already been seeking segregation in Irish schools that would make the old catholic schooling system look tame.

In every country where the muslim population has grown the demands for special treatment outside the normal secular rules increases and it ultimately leads to antisocial behaviour and violence.

Ah but I suppose like the property bubble we are different.
Except this time it won't end in a soft/hard landing, but possibly a loud bang or the odd beheading.

oscarBravo · 31-01-2017 08:06PM

jmayo wrote: »

Yes but if a Canadian turns up in Ireland they are probably showing their passport and if they are dangerous there is a good chance they are flagged somewhere.

So Alexandre Bissonnette was on a no-fly list? Anders Breivik would have been detained at Dublin airport? Dylann Roof would have set off alarm bells?

BTW no matter how you want to spin this there have been far fewer people killed by Canadian terrorists than say Tunisian, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, Aghani terrorists, but you keep trying to equate the two.

What about Irish terrorists? Basque terrorists? German terrorists? Norwegian terrorists?

Or are you falling into the idiotic trap of believing that all terrorists are Muslims?

BTW I must tell my Canadian friends how dangerous you rate them.

My point - which I'm pretty sure you understand, because I know you're not stupid - isn't that Canadians are dangerous; it's that Muslims aren't. Sure, some Muslims are - but so are some Canadians.

I get that you've bought into the hysterical belief that the average Muslim is a seething pot of rage just waiting to explode into a rampage of homicidal terror at the slightest provocation, but the fact that you allow yourself to believe something so self-evidently ridiculous doesn't make it true.

Even if we dismiss the chance as small of a muslim migrant with no proof of identity as being a terrorist, it has been shown in surveys that there is a larger chance that they would be supporters of fundamentalist terrorists.
Molenbeek was a stark reminder of how that is a huge problem within the immigrant muslim communities that already exist in Europe.

I wonder what we could do to make Muslims less likely to sympathise with terrorists?

I know: let's treat them all as potential killing machines with no humanising features whatsoever. Let's tar them all with the brush of terrorism, and refuse to give them any benefit of the doubt.

If that won't win them over, I don't know what will.

For the avoidance of doubt: the above three paragraphs were sarcastic.

And then even if we discount all of that all we have to do is look at the failure of muslim integration in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Sweden.

They have ticking timebombs, they have muslim citizens going to join ISIS and seeking to kill their fellow citizens.
Hell some of them just stay at home and decide to hack the head off the nearest off duty soldier.

And yes we know Ireland doesn't have a problem with muslim immigrants and shure isn't the cafe in Clonskeagh great and doesn't a muslim play football for Mayo.

That might seem grand, but there already signs of the usual demands for special treatment which turns out to be thin end of the wedge.
We have the likes of Dr Ali Selim, a pominent muslim spokesperson and right hand man to Mr Muslim Brotherhood Hussein Halawa, who has refused to condemn islamist terrorism and has already been seeking segregation in Irish schools that would make the old catholic schooling system look tame.

In every country where the muslim population has grown the demands for special treatment outside the normal secular rules increases and it ultimately leads to antisocial behaviour and violence.

Quite the caricaturist, aren't you? You might enjoy some other works from the genre:

jmayo · 01-02-2017 12:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So Alexandre Bissonnette was on a no-fly list? Anders Breivik would have been detained at Dublin airport? Dylann Roof would have set off alarm bells?

BTW were these guys already appearing on the radar of police or security services for their far right views.
If so then they could have been put on no fly lists.
BTW were they trying to enter other countries with no identification documentation or even under false documents ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about Irish terrorists? Basque terrorists? German terrorists? Norwegian terrorists?

You really are big into the whataboutery.

There has been one Norwegian terrorist to the best of my knowledge, granted he killed 77 people in a mass slaughter, but I haven't come across others.

Are you trying to say all terrorists are the same ?
Are you trying to claim that for instance PIRA, UVF, ETA, ANC, etc are the same as al qeada, ISIS, boko haram, Caucasus Emirate's Riyad-us Saliheen ?

This is no way excusing the atrocities (Enniskillen, Warrington, Omagh, Loughinisland, Milltown cemetry, McGurk's Bar bombing, etc) carried out by likes of PIRA, RIRA, CIRA, INLA, UVF, ETA, ANC, etc, but those organisations had discernible goals and usually, not always, tried to avoid wholesale slaughters.
Yes some within the organisations were probably of that opinion, but it wasn't the goal of the organisations.

For example if PIRA were of the same mindset as al qeada they wouldn't have bothered calling in warnings of The Manchester Bombing in 1996, the London Docklands bombing in 1996, Bishopsgate bombing in London in 1993.
These bombs caused billions in damage and yes 3 people were killed.

If the PIRA hadn't called in warnings up to 90 minutes before detonation the number of dead wouldn't be so low and the numbers wounded would not be a couple of hundred, but probably on an even greater scale than of some of worst islamic fundamentalist attacks in Europe.

Also one set of Irish terrorists wanted British withdrawal and a united Ireland whilst another set wanted to stay part of UK.
Neither set wanted to wipe out the entire population of the other and neither set wanted to convert the other to a particular religion.
Most of them have agreed to a cessation of violence and to try and achieve their aims through more peaceful means.

Ever see that happening with ISIS or al qeada ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or are you falling into the idiotic trap of believing that all terrorists are Muslims? My point - which I'm pretty sure you understand, because I know you're not stupid - isn't that Canadians are dangerous; it's that Muslims aren't. Sure, some Muslims are - but so are some Canadians.

I get that you've bought into the hysterical belief that the average Muslim is a seething pot of rage just waiting to explode into a rampage of homicidal terror at the slightest provocation, but the fact that you allow yourself to believe something so self-evidently ridiculous doesn't make it true. I wonder what we could do to make Muslims less likely to sympathise with terrorists?

I know: let's treat them all as potential killing machines with no humanising features whatsoever. Let's tar them all with the brush of terrorism, and refuse to give them any benefit of the doubt.

If that won't win them over, I don't know what will.

Why is it always something we have to do ?
Why is it always our fault ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Quite the caricaturist, aren't you? You might enjoy some other works from the genre:

I find those cartoons distasteful and ignorant.
I do not like the people or given their content and age I would not have liked the people that created them.

The thing is I would not want to kill them and I would not condone the murder of the ones that created them.

See the difference there. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo · 01-02-2017 02:29PM

jmayo wrote: »

Are you trying to say all terrorists are the same ?

What I'm trying to say is that it's morally wrong, as well as stupid and counterproductive, to discriminate against identifiable groups of people because other members of those groups have done bad things.

If you could make a case that a member of such a group had decently high probability of also doing bad things, then we'd have the basis of an intelligent discussion. But nobody has made such a case. The chances of being killed by a Muslim immigrant in the US were recently calculated at one in over three billion. I wouldn't think twice about doing anything that carried those sort of risks, and neither would anyone else, which means that all the talk of risk is a fig-leaf for irrational dislike.

I find those cartoons distasteful and ignorant.

Me too. The difference between us is that I can't see any particular difference between those cartoons and the caricature of the refugee-as-sleeper-terrorist that's all too popular these days.

01-02-2017 04:03PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

But nobody - nobody - has said "who gives a sh** about" the victims of terrorism in Europe.

Those six Muslims in Québec were apparently murdered by a Canadian. Nobody is demanding that we ban Canadian immigrants; nobody is calling for extreme vetting of Canadians; nobody is shrieking hysterically about how we're all going to be raped in our beds by those nasty Canadians.

Some Muslims are terrorists, but almost all Muslims are not terrorists. Some Canadians (and Norwegians, and pretty much any other nationality you can name) are mass murderers, but almost all people from those countries are not mass murderers.

All I'm asking for is a sense of perspective. If you're going to demand that we keep potentially genuine refugees in limbo because of a threat that's statistically negligible, you really ought to have a decent reason for it.

Realistically, all any of us are asking for is a sense of perspective.

Personally, if someone arrives with identification, who is entitled to refugee status, then fair enough.

There is a debate to be had about whether that means they should have free high speed broadband, and an onsite swimming pool etc. There is a debate about affordability, the numbers we can successfully integrate, preference being given on social housing lists, etc., - and I'm fairly sure opinions on these issues would be many and varied - but very few of us would say we shouldn't take any refugees.

"Refugees" without identification are a whole other problem - purely because we have no means of assessing risk factors. I say that in the knowledge that most of these people are no security threat.

But some of them are - and there are valid questions to be asked about how we can identify those who are a threat.

Dismissing the fact that a threat - however small, or large - exists, is a recipe for disaster.

It hardens attitudes to those who have genuine reasons to be here, it enables illegal immigration, to the detriment of genuine refugees, and it will almost undoubtedly allow some ISIS militants access to Europe, which even the most idealistic "open borders" advocates should struggle to avoid.

rgossip30 · 01-02-2017 04:14PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the same justification used for "stop and frisk", and it doesn't work. By far and away the most effective consequence of racial profiling is the creation of simmering resentment. Fast food restaurants.

It's a glib answer, sure: but the average westerner is several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by terrorism of any stripe, let alone by a Muslim immigrant. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by your lawnmower, or by your TV falling on you, than by Islamist terrorism. If you can find a reference to me or anyone else talking about warm fuzzy feelings, please cite it. OK, let's apply that philosophy more broadly: we had a great deal of hysteria earlier in the thread about how those nasty foreigners were going to rape us all. But the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by members of the victim's own family, or a close acquaintance.

Is anyone advocating that the police in every European country should operate on the assumption that everyone is a rapist? That nobody should be left alone with another person until an exhaustive background check has proven that they're not going to rape that person?

Of course not: that would be an unforgivable intrusion on people's civil liberties. But it's OK to operate on the assumption that people from certain countries or adherents to certain religions are potential terrorists, because they're somehow less deserving of civil liberties than the rest of us. What group should we deprive of civil liberties as a result of Dylann Roof's actions? I don't recall you advocating for strong background checks of Norwegians as a result of Breivik's rampage. Actually, I'll point out that the percentage of refugees that are terrorists is zero, to a useful approximation. Oh, they reckon, do they? Well, I don't know how to counter that sort of hard-and-fast evidence. ...and still statistically less likely than being hit by lightning. It's funny how you're happy to invoke statistical likelihood when you think it supports your argument. Countless? Seriously?

You can argue all you want there is no logic for mass asylum seeking and the handout of welfare and houses .

Brian? · 01-02-2017 04:28PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

You can argue all you want there is no logic for mass asylum seeking and the handout of welfare and houses .

It's funny that you should say that in a thread about taking in a small amount of children. Is there any logical reason not to have limited acceptance of refugees admitted to Ireland? That's the actual discussion here, not some sort of open border welfare program.

rgossip30 · 01-02-2017 04:29PM

Brian? wrote: »

It's funny that you should say that in a thread about taking in a small amount of children. Is there any logical reason not to have limited acceptance of refugees admitted to Ireland? That's the actual discussion here, not some sort of open border welfare program.

Limited but this maybe the start of a more extensive program .

Widdershins · 01-02-2017 05:17PM

I have never heard that there's any limit on it, just that they commit to a set number of refugees at any one time. They have never said they'll limit their intake to that number, have they?

Brian? · 01-02-2017 05:35PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

Limited but this maybe the start of a more extensive program .

And if it is, where's the limit for you?

If people are afraid this is the thin end of a wedge that will bust open our borders to hordes of refugees, I can't see it happening. We can't support an large influx.

Geuze · 01-02-2017 05:49PM

Brian? wrote: »

It's funny that you should say that in a thread about taking in a small amount of children. Is there any logical reason not to have limited acceptance of refugees admitted to Ireland? That's the actual discussion here, not some sort of open border welfare program.

I would argue for the acceptance of genuine refugees from Syria.

The figure of 4,000 has been mentioned over the last year, and I would accept that.

The 80 people going to Ballagh, Co. Roscommon are "mostly Syrian", which is somewhat worrying, and possible misleading by the Govt.

However, I reject Zappone's plan to bring in 200 illegal immigrants from Calais.

alastair · 01-02-2017 06:00PM

Geuze wrote: »

However, I reject Zappone's plan to bring in 200 illegal immigrants from Calais.

They won't be illegal as soon as they're accepted. Just like all refugees are illegal until granted refugee status. Your rejection is noted. They're still coming.

Brian? · 01-02-2017 07:25PM

Geuze wrote: »

I would argue for the acceptance of genuine refugees from Syria.

The figure of 4,000 has been mentioned over the last year, and I would accept that.

The 80 people going to Ballagh, Co. Roscommon are "mostly Syrian", which is somewhat worrying, and possible misleading by the Govt.

However, I reject Zappone's plan to bring in 200 illegal immigrants from Calais.

So you feel that some refugees are more acceptable than others?

oscarBravo · 01-02-2017 07:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

"Refugees" without identification are a whole other problem - purely because we have no means of assessing risk factors.

I haven't seen any indication that the children we plan to take in have no identification. That aside, is it your position that someone who has lost their passport should be permanently abandoned?

enricoh · 01-02-2017 09:04PM

We spend e700 million annually on foreign aid at the same we are running a budget deficit. How much is enough ?

250k !! per child, the joke is on us. There was a woman on the six o clock news helping genuine Syrian refugees in atrocious winter conditions in turkey. I'd bet she could help thousands of kids out there with 250k. Instead of one of the 'mainly Syrian, mainly 17 year old ' chancers that have been hanging round calais

recedite · 01-02-2017 10:16PM

enricoh wrote: »

I'd bet she could help thousands of kids out there with 250k. Instead of one of the 'mainly Syrian, mainly 17 year old ' chancers that have been hanging round calais

Not even "mainly Syrian". Even Zappone admits her Calais group hail from various sub-saharan bandit countries such as Somalia.

There is a different group going to Ballaghadreen which are "mainly Syrian" and this other group actually includes women and children, so they probably are genuine refugees.

01-02-2017 11:23PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't seen any indication that the children we plan to take in have no identification. That aside, is it your position that someone who has lost their passport should be permanently abandoned?

My position with regard to the Calais residents is different to my position regarding refugees. My position regarding refugees is considerably more nuanced.

Let's be honest. The Calais "children" managed to make their way to Calais, refused to register for asylum in France, and massed at Calais in the hope of
sneaking into Britain. They did not apply for asylum in France, or, indeed, in Ireland.

If they had a legal right to enter the UK, it is not unreasonable to assume they would have entered the UK legally. Ditto for Ireland.

Accordingly, I don't believe these "children" have a legal right to asylum.
Neither do I believe people should be rewarded for either bully-boy tactics, or illegality. Certainly not to the tune of (something less than) €275,000 p.a.

oscarBravo · 01-02-2017 11:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Accordingly, I don't believe these "children" have a legal right to asylum.

As tends to be the case with personal beliefs, whether or not you believe it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true.

The legal right to asylum is determined by the appropriate authorities, not by randomers on the Internet without all the facts available to them.

01-02-2017 11:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

As tends to be the case with personal beliefs, whether or not you believe it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true.

The legal right to asylum is determined by the appropriate authorities, not by randomers on the Internet without all the facts available to them.

Indeed. Which brings us right back to the question of why they didn't apply for asylum in the first place....

oscarBravo · 02-02-2017 12:01AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. Which brings us right back to the question of why they didn't apply for asylum in the first place....

Presumably because they don't want asylum in France.

I get that some people think being a refugee means that you forgo the right to choose where to live, but again: believing something doesn't make it true.

02-02-2017 12:22AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably because they don't want asylum in France.

I get that some people think being a refugee means that you forgo the right to choose where to live, but again: believing something doesn't make it true.

Why did they not apply for asylum in the UK, or, in the case of the children recently admitted to the UK who have family there, family repatriation?

Or, to put it another way - if they could walk through Europe, and choose where to live - why can't/didn't they, as asylum seekers, enter the UK and request asylum if that is where they want to live?

Brian? · 02-02-2017 09:29AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why did they not apply for asylum in the UK, or, in the case of the children recently admitted to the UK who have family there, family repatriation?

Or, to put it another way - if they could walk through Europe, and choose where to live - why can't/didn't they, as asylum seekers, enter the UK and request asylum if that is where they want to live?

Why does it matter? The system will decide if they have a genuine case to seek asylum or refugee status. Their ability to walk long distances is pretty irrelevant to that.

rgossip30 · 02-02-2017 11:10AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably because they don't want asylum in France.

I get that some people think being a refugee means that you forgo the right to choose where to live, but again: believing something doesn't make it true.

That's against the Dublin Regulation which is seek asylum in the first country you enter .But when asylum laws are ignored its a reason for discontent .

oscarBravo · 02-02-2017 11:14AM

rgossip30 wrote: »

That's against the Dublin Regulation which is seek asylum in the first country you enter .

Nope. No matter how often that lie is peddled, it won't magically become true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

One of the principal aims of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state. The country in which the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting the claim, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.

[...]

Contrary to what is often stated, under the Dublin III Regulations, there are no obligations stated for asylum seekers themselves, and in particular no direct obligation for them to apply for asylum in the first EU country they entered.

rgossip30 · 02-02-2017 11:23AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. No matter how often that lie is peddled, it won't magically become true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Provided they have not been fingerprinted in another EU country .

'' However the regulations do set down allowable procedures for governments and the legal process for the transference of asylum seekers between countries, and in particular back to the first country they can be proved to have entered within the EU if that was within the previous twelve months, often by use of their fingerprints.''

oscarBravo · 02-02-2017 11:26AM

rgossip30 wrote: »

Provided they have not been fingerprinted in another EU country .

'' However the regulations do set down allowable procedures for governments and the legal process for the transference of asylum seekers between countries, and in particular back to the first country they can be proved to have entered within the EU if that was within the previous twelve months, often by use of their fingerprints.''

That allows a member state to transfer an asylum application back to another member state, if the applicant can be demonstrated to have entered that country first. It doesn't impose any obligation on the asylum seeker whatsoever, so what you said is still not true.

It wouldn't kill you to admit you were wrong, you know.

alastair · 02-02-2017 11:27AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Or, to put it another way - if they could walk through Europe, and choose where to live - why can't/didn't they, as asylum seekers, enter the UK and request asylum if that is where they want to live?

That's what they were trying to do. Entering the UK to request asylum however requires, as you've already pointed out, 'sneaking into Britain'.

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

Comments