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

03-02-2017 12:52AM

This is very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/16/hundreds-calais-child-refugees-uk-asylum-claims-rejected-home-office

Hundreds of child asylum seekers in France who had been expecting to come to the UK have been told that the Home Office has rejected their claims. The children and teenagers dispersed from Calais in October have been advised to lodge their applications in France instead.
The Home Office confirmed that the transfer of children previously in the Calais camp and now in French reception centres had ended, and said those it had decided could not come to the UK had been given advice about how to claim asylum in France. A spokeswoman said more unaccompanied children were undergoing initial screening in Italy and Greece and may also be brought to the UK.

So, essentially, the UK have already assessed the Calais migrants for asylum and those who were considered eligible have already been transferred to the UK.

Meaning those remaining in France are not entitled to asylum in the UK.

So, why are they being given asylum in Ireland, and why have they been given advice about how to claim asylum in France?

Surely the requirements would be the same? (Apart from those who were attempting to gain asylum through family reunification).

Brian? · 03-02-2017 07:00AM

recedite wrote: »

Seem to be mainly Pakistan, Albania, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Afghanistan.
Places known more for gang wars than real wars.

The Dublin convention did not exactly say a refugee had to apply for asylum in the first EU country they encountered. They had to register in the first country, but another country could then offer the asylum, as Germany did in 2015.

On the other hand, the other country could also choose to send them back to the previous safe EU country, as the UK has decided to do here.

Can you quote directly from the regulation where it says that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Not from a newspaper article, the actual regulation.

03-02-2017 09:17AM

At last, even EU president is confirming that these people are not refugees.

Referred to "irregular migration" at the summit in Malta

alastair · 03-02-2017 10:00AM

323 wrote: »

At last, even EU president is confirming that these people are not refugees.

Referred to "irregular migration" at the summit in Malta

Nothing new in that. A migrant isn't a refugee until they attain refugee status. These people are a mixture of migrants and refugees. That's always been the case, and nobody has pretended otherwise.

recedite · 03-02-2017 10:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So, essentially, the UK have already assessed the Calais migrants for asylum and those who were considered eligible have already been transferred to the UK.

Meaning those remaining in France are not entitled to asylum in the UK.

So, why are they being given asylum in Ireland, and why have they been given advice about how to claim asylum in France?

None of them were entitled to apply for asylum in either Britain or Ireland. because so far they have only made it to France.
Any decision by Britain or Ireland to "send for them" is entirely a political decision based on certain politicians trying to appeal to a certain section of the vote.

Brian? wrote: »

Can you quote directly from the regulation where it says that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Not from a newspaper article, the actual regulation.

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2017 10:51AM

recedite wrote: »

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

No no no - you confidently stated what you claimed was an obligation imposed on refugees by the Dublin Regulation. Rather than demanding that others disprove your falsehoods, the onus is on you to support your claim.

Brian? · 03-02-2017 10:53AM

recedite wrote: »

None of them were entitled to apply for asylum in either Britain or Ireland. because so far they have only made it to France.
Any decision by Britain or Ireland to "send for them" is entirely a political decision based on certain politicians trying to appeal to a certain section of the vote.

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

Oscar Bravo already quoted the regulations. The point has been made.

The onus is not on me to provide evidence, I'm not the one making the claim repeatedly.

alastair · 03-02-2017 10:55AM

recedite wrote: »

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

There's nothing cryptic about it. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Dublin Regulations isn't applicable to refugees, it's for States and their arrangements between them on how to allocate asylum applications. There's nothing whatsoever in the Regulations that's binding on asylum seekers themselves.

Asylum seekers don't have to apply for asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. They can apply wherever they want. That doesn't mean they won't be then directed back to a different state; they may or may not, but it's not an obligation imposed on them.

rgossip30 · 03-02-2017 11:13AM

Brian? wrote: »

Can you quote directly from the regulation where it says that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Not from a newspaper article, the actual regulation.

They are not refugees until proven so one should refer to them as migrants or asylum seekers.

https://jrseurope.org/advocacy?LID=834

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

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/state-moves-over-pakistani-and-bangladeshi-asylum-seekers-1.2423258

These migrants who are shown to have made false claims on visa applicants , have a criminal record , a family member ,smuggled ,false passport etc they can however be sent back to the first country of entry.

A migrant can enter Ireland on a tourist visa and claim asylum provided they used their real name and nationality on the visa application and for their asylum claim .

Brian? · 03-02-2017 11:20AM

rgossip30 wrote: »

They are not refugees until proven so one should refer to them as migrants .

https://jrseurope.org/advocacy?LID=834

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

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/state-moves-over-pakistani-and-bangladeshi-asylum-seekers-1.2423258

These migrants who are shown to have made false claims on visa applicants , have a criminal record , a family member ,smuggled ,false passport etc they can however be sent back to the first country of entry.

A migrant can enter Ireland on a tourist visa and claim asylum provided they used their real name and nationality on the visa application and for their asylum claim .

So we're agreed. The migrants don't have to apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter. It's up to the member states to decide if they should be referred back to the first state.

rgossip30 · 03-02-2017 11:25AM

Brian? wrote: »

So we're agreed. The migrants don't have to apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter. It's up to the member states to decide if they should be referred back to the first state.

The only part I disagreed with is that they can be sent back for a variety of reasons despite the regulation .

recedite · 03-02-2017 11:26AM

alastair wrote: »

There's nothing cryptic about it. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Dublin Regulations isn't applicable to refugees, it's for States and their arrangements between them on how to allocate asylum applications. There's nothing whatsoever in the Regulations that's binding on asylum seekers themselves.

Right, but was there not an agreement between the states that migrants were to be registered on first arrival in the EU? So that it could be determined later which country they would be sent back to.

Anyway, this is a bit of a red herring, the rules and their implementation keep changing. And migrants are in theory free to wander through the Schengen area because "free movement of people". Except for "temporary border controls" which keep popping up, and get renewed for "just another few months". The whole thing is a mess.
None of it can work until the EU secures its external borders.

recedite · 03-02-2017 11:38AM

On the subject of the EU securing its external borders, has anybody noticed the Irish Navy seems to have quietly discontinued its Libya-Italy ferry service?
There has been no mention of another ship going out there after the last rotation. Have they run out of diesel?

Or maybe something to do with this....

European Union leaders are meeting in Malta to discuss how to stem the influx of migrants from North Africa.
Boosting the Libyan coastguard and tackling people smugglers are the main proposals.

Maybe somebody in Europe had a word with our navy; "Thanks lads, you've done great work, but I think we have enough migrants now. Haven't you got the Atlantic Ocean to patrol..."

alastair · 03-02-2017 12:09PM

recedite wrote: »

Right, but was there not an agreement between the states that migrants were to be registered on first arrival in the EU? So that it could be determined later which country they would be sent back to.

An agreement that has no legal bearing on where an asylum seeker might register.

alastair · 03-02-2017 12:11PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

A migrant can enter Ireland on a tourist visa and claim asylum provided they used their real name and nationality on the visa application and for their asylum claim .

They don't need a tourist visa. They don't need any visa. They can arrive entirely illegally and still attain refugees status. Most of them don't have any tourist visa. Clearly a real name and nationality need to be established before declaring someone a refugee.

recedite · 03-02-2017 12:30PM

alastair wrote: »

An agreement that has no legal bearing on where an asylum seeker might register.

So you admit that the Dublin agreement placed an obligation to register the asylum seeker on the first EU state they arrived in.

But you're saying the asylum seekers themselves had no legal obligation to comply with the Dublin agreement.

Its a very weasely argument. The asylum seeker is required to do what they are told by the host state, otherwise they don't get the freebies.
If unregistered, they become an illegal immigrant, not an asylum seeker.

alastair · 03-02-2017 12:34PM

recedite wrote: »

So you admit that the Dublin agreement placed an obligation to register the asylum seeker on the first EU state they arrived in.

ehh, I'm saying the agreement doesn't apply to asylum seekers. There's nothing in it for them to comply with.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2017 12:37PM

recedite wrote: »

So you admit that the Dublin agreement placed an obligation to register the asylum seeker on the first EU state they arrived in.

I see you're determined to keep peddling this lie.

If you were so convinced that it's true, you'd think that by now you'd have been able to find something in the text of the Regulation itself to back it up - but you can't, because it's not true.

Put up or shut up: quote the text of the Regulation that supports your claim, or stop lying about it.

alastair · 03-02-2017 12:39PM

recedite wrote: »

The asylum seeker is required to do what they are told by the host state

Within law, sure. But they don't have to make the host state the first EU state they arrive in.

recedite · 03-02-2017 12:44PM

alastair wrote: »

ehh, I'm saying the agreement doesn't apply to asylum seekers. There's nothing in it for them to comply with.

That's a ridiculously weasely statement.
The regulation applies to asylum seekers,applied by EU states.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2017 12:44PM

recedite wrote: »

That's a ridiculously weasely statement.
The regulation appliesd to asylum seekers by EU states.

Put up or shut up. Quote the Regulation.

alastair · 03-02-2017 12:45PM

recedite wrote: »

That's a ridiculously weasely statement.
The regulation applies to asylum seekers, by EU states.

It imposes obligations on EU states - not on asylum seekers. Nothing weasely about it.

rgossip30 · 03-02-2017 12:49PM

alastair wrote: »

They don't need a tourist visa. They don't need any visa. They can arrive entirely illegally and still attain refugees status. Most of them don't have any tourist visa. Clearly a real name and nationality need to be established before declaring someone a refugee.

They can provided they have not been fingerprinted in a visa application for an EU country . Ireland only requires fingerprints for applicants from Nigeria,Pakistan and China so its still open for them .You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you .
There are so many ways to scam entry hardly surprising many object to the present asylum process .

alastair · 03-02-2017 12:57PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

They can provided they have not been fingerprinted in a visa application for an EU country . Ireland only requires fingerprints for applicants from Nigeria,Pakistan and China so its still open for them .You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you .

Sure - you can only apply for asylum the once in the EU. Nothing to do with the Dublin regulations though. All asylum seekers are fingerprinted.

Of course you can be deported without providing a name or nationality. Literally thousands of false identity applicants are rejected and either deported or leave of their valition.

rgossip30 · 03-02-2017 12:59PM

alastair wrote: »

Sure - you can only apply for asylum the once in the EU. Nothing to do with the Dublin regulations though. All asylum seekers are fingerprinted.

Of course you can be deported without providing a name or nationality. Literally thousands of false identity applicants are rejected and either deported or leave of their valition.

Got a link and where would they deport them if authorities cannot find their nationality or their home country refuses to accept them .??

alastair · 03-02-2017 01:01PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

Got a link and where would they deport them ??

Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

rgossip30 · 03-02-2017 01:15PM

alastair wrote: »

Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

'You must be truthful at all times in the information you provide in connection with your application. If you are not, it may lead to a finding that your application is manifestly unfounded. In such circumstances, you would have a shorter period within which to appeal and any appeal you might make would be dealt with without an oral hearing.'

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/asylum_seekers_and_refugees/the_asylum_process_in_ireland/rights_and_obligations_of_asylum_seekers_in_ireland.html

Your link now .

alastair · 03-02-2017 01:19PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

'You must be truthful at all times in the information you provide in connection with your application. If you are not, it may lead to a finding that your application is manifestly unfounded. In such circumstances, you would have a shorter period within which to appeal and any appeal you might make would be dealt with without an oral hearing.'

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/asylum_seekers_and_refugees/the_asylum_process_in_ireland/rights_and_obligations_of_asylum_seekers_in_ireland.html

Your link now .

Ehh, that's nothing to do with what you've been asked for.

Again:

Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

rgossip30 · 03-02-2017 01:25PM

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, that's nothing to do with what you've been asked for.

Again:

Link to show procedure in Ireland or lack of .

http://www.nascireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Karen-Berkeley.pdf

http://brophysolicitors.ie/spotlight-on-irelands-flawed-asylum-and-protection-procedures-at-ucd-conference-for-world-refugee-day/

Links show procedure in the UK for stateless persons .

http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/proving-statelessness-evidential-issues-refused-asylum-seekers

The link below shows a case of an asylum seeker with 17 convictions who cannot be deported .

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1714137/asylum-seeker-convicted-of-17-offences-cant-be-deported-because-no-country-will-accept-him/

Those in the appeals process and such cases are not discussed in public media until an outcome .
They would have a better chance to fake their name and nationality .

alastair · 03-02-2017 04:51PM

rgossip30 wrote: »

Link to show procedure in Ireland or lack of .

http://www.nascireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Karen-Berkeley.pdf

http://brophysolicitors.ie/spotlight-on-irelands-flawed-asylum-and-protection-procedures-at-ucd-conference-for-world-refugee-day/

Links show procedure in the UK for stateless persons .

http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/proving-statelessness-evidential-issues-refused-asylum-seekers

Again - not what was asked for.

rgossip30 wrote: »

The link below shows a case of an asylum seeker with 17 convictions who cannot be deported .

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1714137/asylum-seeker-convicted-of-17-offences-cant-be-deported-because-no-country-will-accept-him/

Well I suppose this is something, even if it's a different State and a different context to the one you claimed. It's not really pertinent as the man's name and nationality are known. The issue in this case is a reluctance by his home nation to take him back. Nothing coming up in this State then? Seems pretty strange if it's as cut and dried a strategy as you suggested.

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

Comments