Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…2526283031…35

Comments

  • #812
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.

    So you are saying that even when fingerprinted they have no obligation to return . got a link .


  • #813
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    So you are saying that even when fingerprinted they have no obligation to return . got a link .

    He's not saying that.

    The Dublin Regulations are not for asylum seekers, they're for the States. Asylum Seekers can exercise their right to seek asylum anywhere, but it doesn't mean that they will have any certainty that they will be accepted. Seeking asylum in one EU state after registering for asylum in another EU state is one of those certain situations where an asylum claim will be rejected (and you'll be transferred back to the EU state you registered in).


  • #814
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    So you are saying that even when fingerprinted they have no obligation to return . got a link .

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604&from=EN

    I'm saying that the Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers. If you can point to where in the text of the Regulation you believe such obligations are imposed, please do so.

    If not, it wouldn't kill you to admit that you're wrong.


  • #815
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604&from=EN

    I'm saying that the Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers. If you can point to where in the text of the Regulation you believe such obligations are imposed, please do so.

    If not, it wouldn't kill you to admit that you're wrong.

    Well if the so called asylum seeker was fingerprinted in an application for a tourist visa in another EU country they will be returned .
    The UK was a prime example until they introduced fingerprinting of applicants for visas . There was a time when 2/3 of asylum applicants were visa over stayers from the UK .


  • #816
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    Well if the so called asylum seeker was fingerprinted in an application for a tourist visa in another EU country they will be returned .

    Not a tourist visa. An asylum application, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    Not a tourist visa. An asylum application, yes.

    Got a link to show that tourist visa over stayers from another EU country who come and seek asylum here are not returned .


  • #818
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    Got a link to show that tourist visa over stayers from another EU country who come and seek asylum here are not returned .

    A link? Where would you expect to find that? Asylum seekers are interviewed about their asylum cases individually. Same story with all criteria for positive or negative outcomes.

    A suggestion - why not actually inform yourself about the regulations before making erroneous claims?


  • #819
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    A link? Where would you expect to find that? Asylum seekers are interviewed about their asylum cases individually. Same story with all criteria for positive or negative outcomes.

    A suggestion - why not actually inform yourself about the regulations before making erroneous claims?

    What erroneous claim . You are trying to say that asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here .


    Here is a link you were reluctant to show . This is what I am referring to .Less remarks would be helpful and back up your claims !!

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-failed-asylum-seekers-had-used-false-identities-26855916.html


  • #820
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    What erroneous claim . You are trying to say that asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here.


    This erroneous claim: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102488882&postcount=807

    I'm sure less remarking on your falsehoods would helpful to your propagating them, but sorry, not going to oblige.

    I never said that "asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here". They might or might not, but it's not any certainty. That would be determined on the merits of their asylum claim. What's certain is that a prior asylum claim in a different EU state will disallow a second asylum claim, and result in transfer back to that state (or the applicant's home country, if it's safe).


  • #821
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hang on a sec. You said:
    rgossip30 wrote: »
    That's against the Dublin Regulation which is seek asylum in the first country you enter .

    Now, that's not true. When you admit that it's not true, there may be some point in discussing other aspects of refugee law with you. Until then, you're just flailing around, trying to find something to be right about, rather than accepting that you said something that wasn't true.

    So: will you accept that what I've quoted above isn't true, and that you were wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,690 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brian? wrote: »
    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.

    The "system" was bypassed the minute Frau Merkel issued her open invitation, then further bypassed the minute the Irish delegation went "seeking" unaccompanied minors.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/refugee-children-ireland-3066267-Nov2016/
    Children’s Minister Katherine Zappone has announced a three-day mission to Greece that will seek to identify lone children who wish to come to Ireland to restart their lives.

    It matters because there is a real question to be answered. If these people are genuine refugees - why haven't they gone through legal channels?
    Genuine refugees have nothing to hide, right?
    alastair wrote: »
    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'.

    Why? Britain is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, the only reason to avoid entering by legal means is if you have reason to believe your application will be rejected, no?


  • #823
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why? Britain is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, the only reason to avoid entering by legal means is if you have reason to believe your application will be rejected, no?

    Clearly simple facts are not registering.

    The only way to attain asylum in the U.K. is to apply for asylum in the U.K. That requires entering the UK, and if that requires illegal entry, then that illegal entry cannot be penalised. You point out successful asylum cases in the U.K. that didn't involve illegal entry as part of the process. Then get back to me.

    https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees


  • #824
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hang on a sec. You said:



    Now, that's not true. When you admit that it's not true, there may be some point in discussing other aspects of refugee law with you. Until then, you're just flailing around, trying to find something to be right about, rather than accepting that you said something that wasn't true.

    So: will you accept that what I've quoted above isn't true, and that you were wrong?

    yes that was changed in the Dublin regulation 3 .


  • #825
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    This erroneous claim: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102488882&postcount=807

    I'm sure less remarking on your falsehoods would helpful to your propagating them, but sorry, not going to oblige.

    I never said that "asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here". They might or might not, but it's not any certainty. That would be determined on the merits of their asylum claim. What's certain is that a prior asylum claim in a different EU state will disallow a second asylum claim, and result in transfer back to that state (or the applicant's home country, if it's safe).

    The Dublin 3 regulation changed it so that asylum seekers are not obliged to return to the first entry .
    You are trying to dodge the point about visa overstayers from other EU countries claiming asylum here which is what I am now referring to .


  • #826
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    yes that was changed in the Dublin regulation 3 .

    I don't think it was, but I guess it's a tiny step forward that you've grudgingly accepted that you were wrong.


  • #827
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    The Dublin 3 regulation changed it so that asylum seekers are not obliged to return to the first entry .
    You are trying to dodge the point about visa overstayers from other EU countries claiming asylum here which is what I am now referring to .

    I'm dodging nothing. I was very clear in responding to that point.

    I hope you now have the decency to admit you are propagating erronous claims?


  • #828
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm dodging nothing. I was very clear in responding to that point.

    I hope you now have the decency to admit you are propagating erronous claims?

    What erroneous clam ? I already cleared that unless you want to keep driving on about it .
    You should apoligise for interrupting my conversation with another user .I don't need you to repeat it .


  • #829
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,690 ✭ [Deleted User]


    alastair wrote: »
    Clearly simple facts are not registering.

    The only way to attain asylum in the U.K. is to apply for asylum in the U.K. That requires entering the UK, and if that requires illegal entry, then that illegal entry cannot be penalised. You point out successful asylum cases in the U.K. that didn't involve illegal entry as part of the process. Then get back to me.

    https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

    Correct. It can't. So, why aren't they presenting at UK airports or ports, and claiming asylum there? Perhaps because they know they would be turned back?

    Can you point out to me how many of the successful asylum cases in the UK over the years involved illegal entry by massing on the Borders of another Country for extended periods, and damaging lorries, and their contents, in order to execute that illegal entry? Or terrorising the local residents, damaging their business prospects, and indeed, terrorising random traffic?

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/681614/Calais-migrants-refugees-Britain-UK-EU-referendum-Brexit-Euro-2016
    HUNDREDS of migrants shouting "f*** the UK" have stormed the roads in and around Calais and hurled rocks at British motorists in a desperate attempt to reach the UK before Britons decide whether or not to leave the EU.


    French police battled around 300 migrants in the lawless port town this afternoon after huge mobs targeted England and Wales fans returning across the Channel after cheering on their teams at Euro 2016 and motoring enthusiasts driving back from the Le Mans rally event.
    Gangs of migrants ran out onto the motorway and brought traffic to a standstill outside the port, so that they could break into lorries and stow away in an attempt to sneak across the Channel.
    A British football fan caught up in the chaos reported that gangs of migrants were shouting "f*** the UK" as they hurled rocks at his car, posting photos on social media of clouds of tear gas fired by embattled police.
    While you're at it, you might explain how helpless unaccompanied minors are so knowledgeable about asylum legislation?

    They don't exactly portray themselves as helpless refugees, who are just seeking a peaceful existence, do they?


  • #830
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't think it was, but I guess it's a tiny step forward that you've grudgingly accepted that you were wrong.

    if you looking for a grovel post forget it .


  • #831
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    if you looking for a grovel post forget it .

    I'm not looking for a grovel post. I'm trying to determine whether you're interested in an actual conversation - whether you're willing to accept that some of your views are based on incorrect assumptions, and to reconsider those views as a result - or whether you're just here to drive an agenda, and are happy to peddle falsehoods as a means to that end.

    For example: you've claimed that the obligation on asylum seekers to claim in the first country they arrived in was removed in Dublin III. That's a marginal improvement on claiming that such an obligation currently exists, but it's still untrue based on my reading of the Dublin II Regulation, which also imposed no such obligation.

    If you believe that asylum seekers ever had such an obligation, feel free to support that view with reference to the text of the Regulation itself. If you can't, maybe you should accept that this is something that you're just wrong about, and stop using it as a stick to beat refugees with?


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not looking for a grovel post. I'm trying to determine whether you're interested in an actual conversation - whether you're willing to accept that some of your views are based on incorrect assumptions, and to reconsider those views as a result - or whether you're just here to drive an agenda, and are happy to peddle falsehoods as a means to that end.

    For example: you've claimed that the obligation on asylum seekers to claim in the first country they arrived in was removed in Dublin III. That's a marginal improvement on claiming that such an obligation currently exists, but it's still untrue based on my reading of the Dublin II Regulation, which also imposed no such obligation.

    If you believe that asylum seekers ever had such an obligation, feel free to support that view with reference to the text of the Regulation itself. If you can't, maybe you should accept that this is something that you're just wrong about, and stop using it as a stick to beat refugees with?

    #
    You want to dispute these links .Irregular entry ,criminals , visa applicants . The asylum system is dysfunctional and a disgrace .
    The reason why so many object to it .

    http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/scrapping-the-first-country-of-entry-rule-for-asylum-seekers-how-big-of-a-deal-would-it-be/

    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants_en

    http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/news/tenth-anniversary-of-european-asylum-law-agreed-in-dublin-is-not-a-reason-for-celebration-says-irish-refugee-council/1803


    http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/IRELAND-UK%20ACCORD%20TO%20FURTHER%20SECURE%20THE%20COMMON%20TRAVEL%20AREA


  • #833
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    #
    You want to dispute these links .Irregular entry ,criminals , visa applicants . The asylum system is dysfunctional and a disgrace .
    The reason why so many object to it .

    ...or, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you can move the goalposts and change the subject.

    I guess when I asked whether you're interested in an intelligent conversation or blindly pushing an agenda, I've got my answer.


  • #834
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...or, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you can move the goalposts and change the subject.

    I guess when I asked whether you're interested in an intelligent conversation or blindly pushing an agenda, I've got my answer.


    I was moving on and maybe an intelligent conversation can . The issue of return to first country of entry is not now disputed so what agenda am I blindly pursuing .


  • #835
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Correct. It can't. So, why aren't they presenting at UK airports or ports, and claiming asylum there? Perhaps because they know they would be turned back?

    They don't present at airports because they can't get tickets. Airlines are fined for all rejected asylum seekers they carry.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33139


  • #836
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Deleted User wrote: »
    While you're at it, you might explain how helpless unaccompanied minors are so knowledgeable about asylum legislation?

    They don't exactly portray themselves as helpless refugees, who are just seeking a peaceful existence, do they?

    Just because they're minors, it's not required that they also be uninformed. There's ample information freely available, and it's obviously pretty important for someone in their position to be aware of their rights and responsibilities.


  • #837
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    They don't present at airports because they can't get tickets. Airlines are fined for all rejected asylum seekers they carry.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33139

    They can with a false passport or visa .Do they have computers yet at the immigration counters in Dublin airport ?


  • #838
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,690 ✭ [Deleted User]


    alastair wrote: »
    They don't present at airports because they can't get tickets. Airlines are fined for all rejected asylum seekers they carry.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33139

    Ports? Roads? Other routes? Are you suggesting that every successful asylum seeker who reached Britain massed at Calais?

    Further, are you suggesting that Britain is refusing to meet it's obligations under the Geneva convention?
    alastair wrote: »
    Just because they're minors, it's not required that they also be uninformed. There's ample information freely available, and it's obviously pretty important for someone in their position to be aware of their rights and responsibilities.

    Indeed. So, again - why are these asylum seekers not availing of those rights?


  • #839
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ports?
    Thats where the lorries are going.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Roads?
    You must know of some bridge that the rest of us are unfamiliar with.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Other routes?
    Like Hook of Holland and Zeebrugge - where attempts are made from?

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that every successful asylum seeker who reached Britain massed at Calais?
    Why would you suggest such a bizarre misreading of straightforward posts?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Further, are you suggesting that Britain is refusing to meet it's obligations under the Geneva convention?
    Again - bizzaro misreading.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Indeed. So, again - why are these asylum seekers not availing of those rights?
    They are.


  • #840
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    They can with a false passport or visa .Do they have computers yet at the immigration counters in Dublin airport ?

    Ahh, the false passport strategy. That's your preference? It's equally illegal, so not too sure what recommends it to you. They can of course with a tourist/transit visa, but getting approved for a visa if you're suspected of not intending to leave the UK is another matter.


  • Advertisement
  • #841
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,787 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    They can with a false passport or visa .Do they have computers yet at the immigration counters in Dublin airport ?

    Is this a joke? Of course they do, they've had them for as long as I can remember. My wife is an immigrant, so I'm probably more aware of than most. Don't worry she's not brown or Muslim, so I'm safe.

    It's shocking that you won't admit you were incorrect about seeking asylum in the first EU country you land in.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement