UK to accept children from Calais Jungle camp 'within days'

[halloween]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

An asylum seeker cannot be illegal .

Oh please! The west is flooded with illegal immigrants claiming to be asylum seekers and making it as difficult as possible to prove they are not. And the bleeding hearts swallow their sob stories and make interfere with the process as much as possible.

The only viable way to stop the flood and the huge waste of taxpayer's funds is tell them all NO - go home or be deported .

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

 

If those are"children" that are in the pictures ,then i am a young man again , they look older than my son and he is 24 .

Is it cosy in your alternate universe?

 

There is a legal definition of child.

 

If you are concerned about their ages, I suggest you cut a limb off and count the rings!

 

Nice people on here. You know who you are.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Of course you can screen people without paperwork, the sheer number of failed asylum seekers is testamount to the process.

 

And how many of those failed asylum ( economic ) seekers, have been deported from the UK?

[Fithman]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

And how many of those failed asylum ( economic ) seekers, have been deported from the UK?

 

I would suspect very few as they will have disappeared and are now being "sheltered" within their "communities". 

[Ireland32]

Any of them older than 6 , would be contaminated , 6 and under only...

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, SgtRock said:

 

Is there any chance that you could stop trolling.

 

You are way out of your depth and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/documents

 

You cannot claim Asylum in the UK without documentation. PERIOD.

 

Every single man, woman and child, without paperwork, who is trying to get to the UK from the camps in France without paperwork are / will be breaking UK Law.

 

 

1951 convention

Article 1 (2)

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term "the country of his nationality" shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.

Article 31

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx

http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html

 

Did you miss the part in brackets 'if you have them'

Edited October 16, 2016 by rockingrobin

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Under the Dublin regs ,if  the childs parents are in the UK and in  a position to care for them then the UK has the responsibility to process the claim 

 

And of course you can believe that parents would apply to move to the UK legally, abandon their children in their own country, then pay human traffickers to illegally smuggle them to a camp in France so they might then joint their parents in the UK.

 

They need screening properly. And where documentation can't prove or isn't available then maybe DNA testing to establish family links.

 

The "word" of people who break laws when it suits isn't good enough. Any found to be lying should face deportation.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Fithman said:

 

Please produce the evidence for what you claim. 

 

If true why trek across Europe when comfortable life can be had in Saudi or one of the very wealthy Gulf states? 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/05/gulf-states-refuse-to-take-a-single-syrian-refugee-say-doing-so-exposes-them-to-risk-of-terrorism/

Which part do you want proof, an examination of the 1951 convention and 1967 protocol will tell you who are signaturies 

[Fithman]

14 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Which part do you want proof, an examination of the 1951 convention and 1967 protocol will tell you who are signaturies 

 

 

Please stop the silly responses and detail how many 1000's of  people, driven from their homes by war or terrorism have found sanctuary in Saudi or the Gulf States. 

[Khon Kaen Dave]

These children will one day grow up,they will be adults,where will their loyalties lie then?

[jesimps]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Obviously someone fleeing persecution has the time, freedom and opportunity to collect their documents . 

They do have the time to request asylum in the first safe country. I think the UK has every right to ask why this wasn't done and tell France to accept them. Why does UK have to assume the moral responsibility just because it's the refugees' choice of destination. Also, why do they always show babies in the photos when most of them are really young men. Just the age to be causing the sort of trouble we've seen in UK and the rest of Europe. 

 

 

[Fithman]

2 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

These children will one day grow up,they will be adults,where will their loyalties lie then?

 

Some will become "home grown" threats to the country who offered them shelter. The remainder will support and fund their "brothers".

[rockingrobin]

28 minutes ago, Fithman said:

 

 

Please stop the silly responses and detail how many 1000's of  people, driven from their homes by war or terrorism have found sanctuary in Saudi or the Gulf States. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, jesimps said:

They do have the time to request asylum in the first safe country. I think the UK has every right to ask why this wasn't done and tell France to accept them. Why does UK have to assume the moral responsibility just because it's the refugees' choice of destination. Also, why do they always show babies in the photos when most of them are really young men. Just the age to be causing the sort of trouble we've seen in UK and the rest of Europe. 

 

 

Apart from there is no legal requirement to do so, the opportunity to seek asylum may not present itself. If a refugee is travelling has a stowaway in a lorry for example. 

[thaibeachlovers]

A large number of child refugees are expected to arrive in Britain within days, although those without relatives in the country will be subject to a seperate registration process.

 

Under EU legislation, unaccompanied children have the right to claim asylum in countries where family members are living.

 

EU-wide regulation stipulates that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country a person reaches, but minors can have their claim transferred to countries where they have relatives.

 

Hmmmm. So although EU legislation re unaccompanied children applies only to those that have relatives in the UK, the UK plans to take children without relatives.

A sure way to guarantee more unaccompanied children being trafficked to France.

 

The entire situation appears corrupt, given that none of them could have got to France without passing the border of the first safe country, and young children are incapable of crossing Europe without assistance.

 

While the transfer of children with relatives appears legal, it should have been done from the first safe country, and children without relatives should be cared for by whichever country accepts them- in this case France.

 

Obviously, the authorities think taxpayers are just fools to be exploited.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Apart from there is no legal requirement to do so, the opportunity to seek asylum may not present itself. If a refugee is travelling has a stowaway in a lorry for example. 

Then they have no right to claim anything and should be deported.

The authorities have been willfully disregarding their own rules by allowing illegals to remain.

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

I await the photographic proof with interest.

 

Saudi has the space and the money to shelter every Arab refugee, but I have yet to see a single camp in Saudi on Al Jazeera.

[SgtRock]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

1951 convention

Article 1 (2)

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term "the country of his nationality" shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.

Article 31

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx

http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html

 

Did you miss the part in brackets 'if you have them'

 

Why are you quoting conventions on refugees, which is not the same as claiming asylum ?

 

Let me reiterate for you

 

To claim Asylum in the UK

 

3 hours ago, SgtRock said:

3. Documents you must provide

You’ll need documents for yourself and your dependants (partner and children under 18) for your asylum screening.

Documents you should bring (if you have them) include:

• passports and travel documents
• police registration certificates
• identification documents, eg identity cards, birth and marriage certificates or school records
• anything you think will help your application

 

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/documents

 

There are laid down procedures for claiming asylum and paying people traffickers $ 1000's is not one of those procedures.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

An asylum seeker cannot be illegal .

Correct, but if you are an economic migrant you can not be an asylum seeker.

[Fithman]

30 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

 

Are you serious?  The Huff-Puff post ! 

 

Please try to do better .......................

[Fithman]

I have a friend who is a gifted linguist. She was born in Tanzania and grew up in Canada. She speaks several African languages, Arabic, a number of languages used in the Indian Sub-Continent as well as English and French. 

 

This lady is employed by the Home Office and is very skilled at identifying those who are not refugees. It is, of course, for others to determine the fate of these failed asylum seekers.

[rockingrobin]

24 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

Why are you quoting conventions on refugees, which is not the same as claiming asylum ?

 

Let me reiterate for you

 

To claim Asylum in the UK

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/documents

 

There are laid down procedures for claiming asylum and paying people traffickers $ 1000's is not one of those procedures.

 

A person seeking asylum is requesting sanctuary, and if the reason falls within the definition of 1951 convention then that person is a refugee. This does not give refugee status that is still to be determined.

The UK is a signatory to the convention and thus bound.

The following document  acknowledges this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-and-asylum-act-and-the-refugee-convention-process

Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 6. Section 31 affords a refugee, who has presented himself to the UK authorities without delay, showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence and has made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable, protection in England Wales and Northern Ireland against prosecution for the following offences: • Part 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 [forgery and connected offences]; • Section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 [deception]; • Section 26(1)(d) of the Immigration 1971 Act [falsification of documents]. • Sections 25(1) and (5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 [possession of false identity documents] – relevant up to 21 January 2011only. • Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Identity Documents Act 2010, which replaced Sections 25(1) and (5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 with effect from 21 January 2011

 

[SgtRock]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 6. Section 31 affords a refugee, who has presented himself to the UK authorities without delay, showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence and has made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable,

 

Is it beyond your comprehension to understand that people who have paid people traffickers a small fortune to move them 1000's of miles illegally. Currently live in an illegal camp, have done so for many months. Failed to claim asylum in a safe Country that they are currently in, namely France and others that have moved through to get to Calais, have absolutely no right whatsoever to try to enter the UK illegally and claim Asylum.

 

The easiest thing they could have done was go from France to Germany when Merkel declared her open doors policy. This was not good enough, UK or die trying, as many have.

 

I have already provided you with a list of documents that are required by UK law to claim asylum in the UK. Sitting in an illegal camp in France with the intention of illegally entering the UK does not show       '' Good Cause '' what it shows is an extraordinary attempt to get to the UK at all costs.

 

Denied entry, return to sender.

[Grouse]

We discussing refugee CHILDREN. The childish bickering is unseemly.

[SgtRock]

46 minutes ago, Grouse said:

We discussing refugee CHILDREN. The childish bickering is unseemly.

 

And what is not being discussed, is how these '' Children '' managed to successfully navigate their way, all alone, to the paradise that is known as Calais.

 

Neither is the Army of Human Rights lawyers, who at this point in time are rubbing their collective hands in glee, at the thought of all that taxpayers money making its way into their pockets as the fight to bring the parents and families to the UK to be reunited with their children.

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

And what is not being discussed, is how these '' Children '' managed to successfully navigate their way, all alone, to the paradise that is known as Calais.

 

Neither is the Army of Human Rights lawyers, who at this point in time are rubbing their collective hands in glee, at the thought of all that taxpayers money making its way into their pockets as the fight to bring the parents and families to the UK to be reunited with their children.

 

Tell you what Rock, get your gun and put them in the ground. OK?

[simple1]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

Considering the amount of time that the camp has been in existence, it is extremely sad to see that unaccompanied minors have not been screened.   In the past, a significant amount of money has been put aside to get children screened and out of the camps.  

 

The longer they are left in camps, the greater the damage done to them both physically and psychologically.  

 

Some more details from the BBC...

Senior religious figures have already urged the UK to allow nearly 400 refugee children into the UK before the camp is demolished. In a letter, signed by ex-Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Williams and Muslim and Jewish faith leaders, they described the camp as "a stain" on France and Britain's conscience.

 

80 unaccompanied children had been accepted to the UK so far this year under EU rules known as the Dublin regulations.She said a further 50 children - largely from Greece - had been accepted under the so-called Dubs amendment.

 

Identified 387 refugee children in the camp eligible to come to Britain - 178 under the Dublin regulations, and 209 under the Dubs amendment.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37609973

 

"During the last such demolition (Calais), the charity Help Refugees documented that 129 children went missing". One has to ask where did these children go? Were they trafficked into child prostitution, organised crime owned street gangs? Has it ever been clarified where the estimated 10,000 children 'migrants' who disappeared in the EU  last year ended up?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37599188

 

[Grouse]

 

Do you know about the Kinderbahn? Jewish kids escaping the NAZIs?

 

Maybe some parents sent children to safety but had not enough money for themselves?

 

Maybe people got separated 

 

Maybe kids got orphaned

 

And maybe some of them are lying, cheating bastards who should be handed over to slavers and pimps? 

 

OK now?

 

 

[i claudius]

Just been reading the drival that Lilly Allan wrote about that poor"13 year old" has had to endure( mind you when I was 13 most I could manage was to be put on the train to London and be met the other end) and I didn't have a smartphone. Now we hear his father ran away,leaving the family behind lived on benefits in the UK then went back for a 3 month holiday once he was given leave to remain,wish I could afford a 3 month holiday back home on my pension , now its do dangerous there his son wants a taste of benefits as well,a joke ,how could hid father support him and the others, if I as a British guy who has paid in all their lives can't take my wife back(we have been out of the country over 2 years so she lost her residency) unless I earn over 18k a year. But then I don't count I am white ,British and a Christian to boot. Bottom of the pile

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

Sorry I meant Kindertransport NOT Kinderbahn