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…2931333435

Comments

  • #902
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    Again - not what was asked for.



    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.

    The cut and dry remark was about the Dublin 3 regulation remember pay attention ,as you can see from the links it is not and exceptions are made . You want to ignore the links , why are they even discussing if its not a problem ? No links are available to actual cases in Ireland at present . I said before one would reasonably assume that if its happening in other EU countries why is Ireland different . .I would not expect there to be given that it would encourage others . I fail to see any reason to continue with this . I suggest you continue yourself if really interests you that much .


  • #903
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    The cut and dry remark was about the Dublin 3 regulation remember pay attention ,as you can see from the links it is not and exceptions are made . You want to ignore the links , why are they even discussing if its not a problem ? No links are available to actual cases I said that before .I would not expect there to be given that it would encourage others . I fail to see any reason to continue with this . I suggest you continue yourself if really interests you that much .

    Oh, I'm paying attention alright. I'm ignoring the links that have nothing to do with the claim made:
    You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you

    To which I asked:
    Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

    Now, unless you can find an instance of that 'refusal to give name or nationality, and yet won't leave the state' asylum seeker, I think it's fair to say that you've been caught out in a bit of interweb bluster.


  • #904
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh, I'm paying attention alright. I'm ignoring the links that have nothing to do with the claim made:



    To which I asked:


    Now, unless you can find an instance of that 'refusal to give name or nationality, and yet won't leave the state' asylum seeker, I think it's fair to say that you've been caught out in a bit of interweb bluster.

    You need a link to prove the contrary . You are fully aware at this time no cases are public in Ireland but are in the EU . Please stop pestering !


  • #905
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    You need to prove the contrary .

    No I don't. You made the claim. Up to you to prove it on the basis of evidence.

    None so far.

    The reason? It's a nonsensical claim.


  • #906
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    No I don't. You made the claim. Up to you to prove it on the basis of evidence.

    None so far.

    The reason? It's a nonsensical claim.

    A link which refers to the EU problem of returning African migrants with no passports and countries that refuse to accept them .
    The numbers are far greater .No it could not happen here ! You give a false name and say you are from a country that does not accept asylum seekers .

    Do you think you could stop now !


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315183/Migrant-summit-chaos-African-countries-REFUSE-Europe-s-failed-asylum-seekers.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html


  • Advertisement
  • #907
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    alastair wrote: »
    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.

    That's not entirely true.

    There are countless debates on Boards where various people initially claimed all these people were refugees.

    And, no, I'm not trawling four or five different threads to find the relevant posts.
    I haven't heard that claim in quite some time, apart from the claims re. Calais residents.
    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.

    I agree about the political decision.

    However, I've actually been trying to find out whether all these Calais jungle residents could have initially applied for asylum in Britain from Calais, since Britain has a Border force in Calais which regularly stops migrants from entering Britain.
    The Border Force is a subdivision of the Home Office, and clearly operates Immigration control from Calais.

    Now, we know that Britain has given asylum to some of the Jungle residents, meaning the Border Force presumably assessed these people in Calais. Meaning it was possible to apply for asylum from Calais.Which begs a whole lot of questions.....


  • #908
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's not entirely true.

    There are countless debates on Boards where various people initially claimed all these people were refugees.

    And, no, I'm not trawling four or five different threads to find the relevant posts.
    I haven't heard that claim in quite some time, apart from the claims re. Calais residents.

    That's not particularly persuasive tbh. I can certainly recall threads where it was claimed none of the people travellling through Europe were refugees, on account of illegal entry, trying to get to Germany, etc, and there were people, like myself, who were pointing out that they were just as legitimate asylum seekers as the people stuck in Turkey, a Jordan etc. I don't recall anyone insisting that every migrant was likely to attain asylum status.


  • #909
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    Deleted User wrote: »
    However, I've actually been trying to find out whether all these Calais jungle residents could have initially applied for asylum in Britain from Calais, since Britain has a Border force in Calais which regularly stops migrants from entering Britain.
    The Border Force is a subdivision of the Home Office, and clearly operates Immigration control from Calais.

    Now, we know that Britain has given asylum to some of the Jungle residents, meaning the Border Force presumably assessed these people in Calais. Meaning it was possible to apply for asylum from Calais.Which begs a whole lot of questions.....

    I saw a TV program on the border force in Calais about the migrants they find in the lorries . When they don't give name and nationality they are sent back to France . When they do give name and nationality they are treated as asylum seekers .The officer interviewed said most likely they are deported so the reason for not disclosing nationality .


  • #910
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    I saw a TV program on the border force in Calais about the migrants they find in the lorries . When they don't give name and nationality they are sent back to France . When they do give name and nationality they are transferred to the UK as asylum seekers .

    Thanks. I've read articles about how the French police take them off the lorries, and let them go. I've read that the Border force takes the illegal migrants, and deposits them at a bus stop or train station.

    What I cannot find is evidence of when when, exactly, the Border Force was able to grant asylum in Britain to the jungle residents.

    I'd love to watch that program. PM a link, if you have one, please?

    Because I have a horrible suspicion that a lot of the Calais "refugees" that we are taking are not "refugees" as per the Geneva Convention - especially since the Border Force compound is legally British soil, as I understand it....I'm open to correction on that, but that's the impression I get...


  • #911
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thanks. I've read articles about how the French police take them off the lorries, and let them go. I've read that the Border force takes the illegal migrants, and deposits them at a bus stop or train station.

    What I cannot find is evidence of when when, exactly, the Border Force was able to grant asylum in Britain to the jungle residents.

    I'd love to watch that program. PM a link, if you have one, please?

    Because I have a horrible suspicion that a lot of the Calais "refugees" that we are taking are not "refugees" as per the Geneva Convention - especially since the Border Force compound is legally British soil, as I understand it....I'm open to correction on that, but that's the impression I get...

    I found this, its the same program but is possibly a shorter version .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6Jjat9iD8


  • Advertisement
  • #912
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    I found this, its the same program but is possibly a shorter version .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6Jjat9iD8
    It all seems very polite. I suppose if there is a roughly 50% chance of getting caught inside the lorry, then statistically they would expect to get through on the second attempt.


  • #913
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    recedite wrote: »
    It all seems very polite. I suppose if there is a roughly 50% chance of getting caught inside the lorry, then statistically they would expect to get through on the second attempt.

    The links I have looked at show a lot of disagreement on the Le Touquet treaty and nothing recent .

    The links below are recent and show a limited number of minors were accepted by the UK .



    http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Migrant+Crisis/Calais+Migrant+Crisis

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11179302/French-riot-police-in-battle-with-Calais-migrants-in-pictures.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/09/home-office-transfers-of-calais-child-refugees-to-uk-cease


  • #914
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    A link which refers to the EU problem of returning African migrants with no passports and countries that refuse to accept them .
    The numbers are far greater .No it could not happen here ! You give a false name and say you are from a country that does not accept asylum seekers .

    Do you think you could stop now !


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315183/Migrant-summit-chaos-African-countries-REFUSE-Europe-s-failed-asylum-seekers.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

    Still no joy then?


  • #915
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    Still no joy then?

    I have now asked you to stop pursuing this for the purpose of tormenting .


  • #916
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    I have now asked you to stop pursuing this for the purpose of tormenting .

    Just waiting for the retraction of an unfounded claim then, and we can all move on.


  • #917
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    Just waiting for the retraction of an unfounded claim then, and we can all move on.

    .I just said it was likely given that other EU countries are experiencing the problem .This was shown in links .
    I fail to see why I should retract on an issue that's a possibility in Ireland .
    That no publicity exists on this at present does not make it ridiculous .
    You have not shown a link to show otherwise .
    You seem determined to harass on this .I can move on .


  • #918
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    .I just said it was likely given that other EU countries are experiencing the problem .This was shown in links .
    I fail to see why I should retract on an issue that's a possibility .You have not shown a link to show otherwise .
    You seem determined to harass on this .

    Because it's nonsense, and nonsense deserves calling out. I'm sure you're a lovely fellah, but the claim is ridiculous.


  • #919
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    Because it's nonsense, and nonsense deserves calling out. I'm sure you're a lovely fellah, but the claim is ridiculous.

    That is your opinion and you are welcome to it .Now can you stop the repeated harassment .


  • #920
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    alastair wrote: »
    Because it's nonsense, and nonsense deserves calling out. I'm sure you're a lovely fellah, but the claim is ridiculous.
    rgossip30 wrote: »
    That is your opinion and you are welcome to it .Now can you stop the repeated harassment .

    Mod note:

    Please stop this off topic low standards bickering.


  • #921
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    I found this, its the same program but is possibly a shorter version .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6Jjat9iD8

    Thank you very much. I'll take a look at it tomorrow.


  • Advertisement
  • #922
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

    See below .

    There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

    However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

    All the best,
    Cathal

    Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
    51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie |


  • #923
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

    See below .

    There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

    However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

    All the best,
    Cathal

    Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
    51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie |

    Well done on trying your best. This doesn't do a thing to support your claim however:
    You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you


  • #924
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

    See below .

    There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

    However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

    All the best,
    Cathal

    Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
    51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie |
    alastair wrote: »
    Well done on trying your best. This doesn't do a thing to support your claim however:


    Mod note:

    I warned you both that this was bickering and off topic. The thread is about the age of the child refugees i.e. whether they are children or not. This issue you are arguing over, i.e. whether someone can avoid deportation by refusing to give their name or nationality, is neither here nor there.

    Final warning. If either of you posts in this off topic way any more it will be a ban.


  • #925
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

    See below .

    There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

    However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

    All the best,
    Cathal

    Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
    51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [[URL="http://www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie"]www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie[/URL] |

    Fair play to you. At least you got a reply, even if it wasn't comprehensive, or informative. I've yet to receive an acknowledgement, much less a reply, from Katherine Zappone.


  • #926
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Fair play to you. At least you got a reply, even if it wasn't comprehensive, or informative. I've yet to receive an acknowledgement, much less a reply, from Katherine Zappone.

    The shroud of secrecy still would like to see how these 'children ' develop after 10 years .


  • #927
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    The shroud of secrecy still would like to see how these 'children ' develop after 10 years .

    Tbh, I'd be more interested in finding out how we managed to get 200 children, out of a total of 1600, somewhere between 320, and 640 of whom are likely to be granted asylum in the UK.

    If we split the difference between the Home Office, and the various charities estimates, since one is likely to be overestimating the numbers, and the other is likely to be a conservative estimate, we come to a figure of 500, likely to be granted asylum in the UK.

    That leaves 900.

    Meaning we're taking 22% of the remainder.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/last-group-of-calais-refugee-children-evacuated-from-camp/
    Nearly 700 child migrants from the now-demolished Calais migrants camp could be given asylum in Britain, according to charities. Four in 10 of 1,600 children bussed out of the remains of the camp yesterday[wed] say that they have relatives in the UK, and Whitehall sources suggested that as many as half could successfully claim asylum.
    Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has said that "several hundred" will come but Home Office sources denied that Britain will take half of them.
    The other interesting little nugget is a census, taken in June 2016.

    http://www.helprefugees.org.uk/news/new-calais-census-released-700-children-in-calais-78-on-their-own/
    Help Refugees and L'Auberge des Migrants conducted a recent census on the Calais "Jungle" and found that there are currently 6,123 people living in the refugee camp, with numbers constantly rising.

    We found that 700 are children, 78% of whom are unaccompanied. The youngest child in the camp is just four months old and the youngest unaccompanied minor is ten years old. The 544 unaccompanied children in the camp are now eligible for resettlement in the UK under Dubs Amendment
    There are over 20 different nationalities in the refugee community. The largest groups are from Afghanistan (36%) and Sudan (32%), with 5% coming from Ethiopia and 3% from Syria.
    So, between June and November, numbers of children in the camp apparently rose by 900, an increase of over 128%.


    Even more to the point, if there were only 544 unaccompanied children in June - how many of the 1600 who were removed from the camp in November were unaccompanied minors? Because taking the original census figure of 78%, in the absence of any more recent information, that would be 1248.
    Take approx. 500 out of that figure for those who will gain asylum in the UK, and there are 748 remaining.
    Even if we accept the most conservative home office figure of 320, we're still left with 928 unaccompanied minors.

    So how, in the name of God, did we end up with 200 of them?

    The other very interesting nugget was the fact that there were over 20 Nationalities in the camp.
    Yet we are expected to believe, or blindly accept, that each of these Nationalities qualify for refugee status?

    Does. Not. Compute.


  • #928
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    I wonder how many will look for family reunification when they have refugee status . ?


  • #929
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    I wonder how many will look for family reunification when they have refugee status . ?

    It's a pretty narrow window of opportunity for most of them, if they're 17. You can only apply for reunification with your parents if you're under 18 and have your refugee status confirmed (a process that's still taking at least a year). So, unless they're married minors or have kids, there's not much chance that they have qualifying family.


  • #930
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    alastair wrote: »
    It's a pretty narrow window of opportunity for most of them, if they're 17. You can only apply for reunification with your parents if you're under 18 and have your refugee status confirmed (a process that's still taking at least a year). So, unless they're married minors or have kids, there's not much chance that they have qualifying family.

    Got a link for your claim ?


  • Advertisement
  • #931
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    Got a link for your claim ?
    (9) In this section and section 57 , “member of the family” means, in relation to the sponsor—

    (a) where the sponsor is married, his or her spouse (provided that the marriage is subsisting on the date the sponsor made an application for international protection in the State),

    (b) where the sponsor is a civil partner, his or her civil partner (provided that the civil partnership is subsisting on the date the sponsor made an application for international protection in the State),

    (c) where the sponsor is, on the date of the application under subsection (1) under the age of 18 years and is not married, his or her parents and their children who, on the date of the application under subsection (1), are under the age of 18 years and are not married, or

    (d) a child of the sponsor who, on the date of the application under subsection (1), is under the age of 18 years and is not married.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/66/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement