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

[Scott]

Some off-topic, inflammatory posts have been removed or edited.   Please stop with the bickering and personal remarks. 

 

This topic is about unaccompanied minor children and their status and possible resettlement in the UK.  

 

I know of no country that requires an asylum seeker to have documentation.   Documentation provides an easier path to refugee status.  The burden of proof of refugee status is on the asylum seeker, not on the country doing the screening.   

 

With unaccompanied minors the situation is different.   Very few children are a refugee in their own right, most are refugees because their parents would be eligible for refugee status.   Many are too young to properly articulate their claim, thus the need for special screening and rules.  

 

Children end up as unaccompanied minors for a lot of reasons.   Some are sent out by family for their own safety and some are sent out to establish a link in another country.   Those being sent to establish a link to a resettlement country were referred to as 'Gold Children'.   It provides a quicker path for the entry of the remainder of the family to the country.   However, unless given refugee status most countries would not admit the remainder of the family unless someone has sufficient funds to allow them to enter as immigrants.   The same rules of family reunification apply to them as they do to any immigrant family.

 

Some children end up as unaccompanied minors end up alone because of the death of the parents on the way.   Some get separated from family for a variety of reasons.   Some are simply being trafficked.  

 

  Most resettlement countries have special provisions for resettling minors.   If they are screened, many countries will resettle them rather quickly, rather than leave them in camps.    Minors should not be resettled in a 3rd country if they have existing family in a different country.   If they have family in the UK, then resettlement in the UK is warranted; if family exists in another country then that is where they should be resettled.  

 

Most children are attached in some fashion to someone when they leave, that maybe a relative, friend or neighbor.   During the screening process a decision is made as to whether the child should be attached to that family or be considered an unaccompanied minor.  

 

 

 

 

[elliss]

16 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 

 

       Parents living in the UK ,   and in receipt of  benefits  handouts , are in a position to take care of them , really .         Stop  benefits asap , then immigrants would  not  want to live in UK .

           

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, elliss said:

 

       Parents living in the UK ,

  and in receipt of  benefits  handouts , are in a position to take care of them , really .

       Stop  benefits asap , then immigrants would  not  want to live in UK .

           

A lot of assumptions, maybe the parents are working

 

UK professes to be a world leader with a proud history of fighting persecution and providing safe haven for the most vulnerable

[biplanebluey]

10 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

How can you screen someone when you have not got a clue where they come from ?

 

Why do you think these people in the OP have not already claimed asylum ?

 

Grow up and open your eyes.

 For F#$%s sake can you not see this as just another loop hole to get a foot in-------- then it will be DAD and then BROTHER and so on and so on-------------------GROW UP------------- no sorry GROW SOME BALLS.

 

[elliss]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

A lot of assumptions, maybe the parents are working

 

UK professes to be a world leader with a proud history of fighting persecution and providing safe haven for the most vulnerable

    UK. Christian  upbringing   has  been  used and abused ,  by so called Politcal refugees . aka IS.

            The enemy within , less we forget . 

           Sadly , we will never learn , from our mistakes 

Edited October 16, 2016 by elliss
spelling

[tomyumchai]

23 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

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

Seriously? Its well known that without documents its almost impossible to return them back to where they came from. It also aids 36yr old afgans to claim theyre a 14 yr old child so cant be sent home.

[halloween]

22 hours 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. 

 

From your own post "..... 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......"

 

Any M.E. citizen/resident entering the UK from France to seek asylum is doing so illegally.

[Jonmarleesco]

Oh, don't fret. The relatives of those without relatives will soon start popping their heads over the parapet.

[rockingrobin]

38 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

From your own post "..... 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......"

 

Any M.E. citizen/resident entering the UK from France to seek asylum is doing so illegally.

Regarding the legality it is found , Art 31 of the 1951 convention.

Coming directly from , is how to interpret, in a narrow sense or wider.

Take for example a train journey where you start A and travel to destination B , if there is no stops or changes en route then that is narrow definition of direct. However consider if a change of trains is required at point C, does this still fulfill the definition of direct. The answer lies in the travelers objectives and actions, if their purpose is to go from A to B and only purpose is to change trains at  C, then his journey is direct with C being a point of transit. However if they voluntarily stop off and spend time at point C, their journey has been interrupted.

Asylum seekers setting off from ME with sole purpose of seeking refuge in the UK can argue that they are transiting through  countries.

 

This defense will be examined and tested by the recipient country

[stander]

Send them back, even the BBC admit that the "migrant children" in Calais jungle come from Eritrea, Afghan, Sudan. Not so much Syria, pure opportunism. The so-called relatives probably came illegally on the last ferry.

Edited October 17, 2016 by stander

[Grouse]

59 minutes ago, stander said:

Send them back, even the BBC admit that the "migrant children" in Calais jungle come from Eritrea, Afghan, Sudan. Not so much Syria, pure opportunism. The so-called relatives probably came illegally on the last ferry.

 

There's about 100 being brought over. Is that so bad?

 

The lack of humanity, the unkindness displayed on here disappoints me....?

 

I can can only assume that you lead rather unhappy lives.

[7by7]

These children have family in the UK, possibly the only family they have anywhere. Although the Home Secretary has said that there might be processes put into place to accept unaccompanied children who do not have family in the UK, at the moment those processes do not exist.

 

Those family members in the UK must be here legally; if they were not then the UK authorities would not know of them and so the children would not be classed as having family in the UK.

 

Whether these children are from Syria, Eritrea, Afghan, Sudan or anywhere else, they have fled conflict and so are refugees.

 

Whether or not their family paid traffickers does not stop them from being refugees. Many Jews escaping Nazi Germany paid large amounts to what today would be called people traffickers; does anyone believe those Jews were not genuine refugees?

 

Grouse has already mentioned the Kindertransport. Does anyone believe that these children should not have been accepted by the UK? After all, unlike these children in Calais, very few, if any, of them had family in the UK.

 

 

[stander]

This will be only the first wave of so called kids. Thousands of more chancers will attempt to follow.

[stander]

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

These children have family in the UK, possibly the only family they have anywhere. Although the Home Secretary has said that there might be processes put into place to accept unaccompanied children who do not have family in the UK, at the moment those processes do not exist.

 

Those family members in the UK must be here legally; if they were not then the UK authorities would not know of them and so the children would not be classed as having family in the UK.

 

Whether these children are from Syria, Eritrea, Afghan, Sudan or anywhere else, they have fled conflict and so are refugees.

 

Whether or not their family paid traffickers does not stop them from being refugees. Many Jews escaping Nazi Germany paid large amounts to what today would be called people traffickers; does anyone believe those Jews were not genuine refugees?

 

Grouse has already mentioned the Kindertransport. Does anyone believe that these children should not have been accepted by the UK? After all, unlike these children in Calais, very few, if any, of them had family in the UK.

 

 

Why should the U.K. taxpayer pick up the cost of opportunistic third world economic migrants?

[7by7]

On ‎16‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 8:12 AM, Fithman said:

 

Are you serious?  The Huff-Puff post ! 

 

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

 

Whatever you may think of The Huffington Post, that article does provide links to verifiable sources to substantiate what it says.

 

Unlike the media favoured by some members.

 

The Gulf States Are Taking Syrian Refugees

Quote

Many more Syrians are living in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States than at the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.

The World Bank reports that 1,000,000 Syrians resided in Saudi Arabia in 2013, a whopping 795 percent increase over 2010. There were 1,375,064 Syrian migrants living in the Gulf States in 2013, a 470 percent increase over 2010.

 

[7by7]

17 minutes ago, stander said:

Why should the U.K. taxpayer pick up the cost of opportunistic third world economic migrants?

 

They shouldn't; but these are not opportunistic third world economic migrants; they are children for goodness sake!

 

Even the Daily Mail accepts that; The refugee camp even WORSE than the Calais 'Jungle': Children pictured living in horrendous conditions at site stuffed with 2,500 migrants desperate to reach Britain

 

I can only assume from your comments that had it been up to you the Kindertransports would have been sent back to Germany! 

 

 

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, stander said:

This will be only the first wave of so called kids. Thousands of more chancers will attempt to follow.

 

So you would send the children back?

 

Do you have kids yourself?

 

Just trying to understand you.

 

Maybe you are just following orders?

[stander]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

They shouldn't; but these are not opportunistic third world economic migrants; they are children for goodness sake!

 

Even the Daily Mail accepts that; The refugee camp even WORSE than the Calais 'Jungle': Children pictured living in horrendous conditions at site stuffed with 2,500 migrants desperate to reach Britain

 

I can only assume from your comments that had it been up to you the Kindertransports would have been sent back to Germany! 

 

 

To me "children" are 12 and under, the BBC also admit they are 'mostly' teenagers, not children.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by stander

[halloween]

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Regarding the legality it is found , Art 31 of the 1951 convention.

Coming directly from , is how to interpret, in a narrow sense or wider.

Take for example a train journey where you start A and travel to destination B , if there is no stops or changes en route then that is narrow definition of direct. However consider if a change of trains is required at point C, does this still fulfill the definition of direct. The answer lies in the travelers objectives and actions, if their purpose is to go from A to B and only purpose is to change trains at  C, then his journey is direct with C being a point of transit. However if they voluntarily stop off and spend time at point C, their journey has been interrupted.

Asylum seekers setting off from ME with sole purpose of seeking refuge in the UK can argue that they are transiting through  countries.

 

This defense will be examined and tested by the recipient country

And treated like the BS it is - asylum seekers shppoing for the best deal.

[7by7]

33 minutes ago, stander said:

To me "children" are 12 and under, the BBC also admit they are 'mostly' teenagers, not children.

 

 

 

Under UK law, children are those under 18.

 

I can't find any thing on the BBC News pages nor on the BBC news channel (there's just been a report on this on the One O'clock News) where the BBC 'admit' that the 14 who arrived today and those yet to be processed are 'mostly teenagers. In fact; no mention of age at all. Link, please, rather than screenshot from Facebook which doesn't say who posted it, nor even what the photo is of!

 

Many of the children saved by the Kindertransport were 13 and over; the maximum age was 17.

 

So as you do not consider those aged 13 or over to be children, you would have sent the teenagers back to Germany to join their parents in the gas chambers?

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by 7by7
Edit removed as irrelevent

[stander]

Your Kindertransport analogy, is below contempt, just shows how desperate you are to justify this invasion by economic migrants.

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, stander said:

Your Kindertransport analogy, is below contempt, just shows how desperate you are to justify this invasion by economic migrants.

 

As is typical of certain members whose arguments are built on ignorant prejudice, you are dodging the question. I am, as Grouse did before me, using a very similar example from history. If you believe that 13 to 17 year old refugees today are not children, then you must also believe that 13 to 17 year old refugees in the late 1930s were also not children!

 

Of course, there is one difference between those children on the Kindertransport and the children who are the subject of this topic; their religion. Were these children not Muslim I am sure your attitude would be completely different!

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by 7by7

[stander]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

As is typical of certain members whose arguments are built on ignorant prejudice, you are dodging the question. I am, as Grouse did before me, using a very similar example from history. If you believe that 13 to 17 year old refugees today are not children, then you must also believe that 13 to 17 year old refugees in the late 1930s were also not children!

 

So you seriously believe there is any similarity between whats happening today and the Kindertransport?............. I am stunned, that's just incredible, goodness what kind of mind does those thoughts come from.

Edited October 17, 2016 by stander

[SgtRock]

Quote

:: Britain set to take Calais Jungle camp children

Since the French government announced that it would demolish the Calais jungle camp by the end of the year, there has been evidence of new camps appearing elsewhere in the countryside of northern France.

The Norrent-Fontes camp numbered a few dozen until a few months ago. New estimates now suggest that it's home for more than 300 Eritreans, Ethiopians and Sudanese.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/migrants-attack-journalists-near-camp-in-northern-france-10620874

 

Of course, without any documentation they are all Syrian 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, stander said:

So you seriously believe there is any similarity between whats happening today and the Kindertransport?............. I am stunned, that's just incredible, goodness what kind of mind does those thought come from.

 

A humane, compassionate mind.

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

As is typical of certain members whose arguments are built on ignorant prejudice, you are dodging the question. I am, as Grouse did before me, using a very similar example from history. If you believe that 13 to 17 year old refugees today are not children, then you must also believe that 13 to 17 year old refugees in the late 1930s were also not children!

 

Of course, there is one difference between those children on the Kindertransport and the children who are the subject of this topic; their religion. Were these children not Muslim I am sure your attitude would be completely different!

 

There is another difference. We can be certain that those on the Kindertransport were genuine refugees, whereas there is no such certainty for many of those in these camps. But you would prefer to ignore that inconvenient comparison I assume.

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

http://news.sky.com/story/migrants-attack-journalists-near-camp-in-northern-france-10620874

 

Of course, without any documentation they are all Syrian 

 

Nobody has ever said that they are all Syrian; not even the refugees themselves!

 

Try and pay attention

[7by7]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

There is another difference. We can be certain that those on the Kindertransport were genuine refugees, whereas there is no such certainty for many of those in these camps. But you would prefer to ignore that inconvenient comparison I assume.

 

I have never denied that among the genuine refugees there are economic migrants, in fact the opposite.

 

So tell us, how many of these children do you believe are trying to get into the UK so they can work illegally?

[halloween]

Just now, 7by7 said:

 

I have never denied that among the genuine refugees there are economic migrants, in fact the opposite.

 

So tell us, how many of these children do you believe are trying to get into the UK so they can work illegally?

Exactly the opposite. They will claim social security benefits and apply for their relatives to join them on "compassionate grounds". There's more than one way around an immigration law.

BTW the most outstanding thing about muslim terrorism in Australia is the young age of the perpetrators. Most of the recent incidents fit the definition of children.

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, stander said:

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

11 minutes ago, stander said:

So you seriously believe there is any similarity between whats happening today and the Kindertransport?............. I am stunned, that's just incredible, goodness what kind of mind does those thoughts come from.

A humane, compassionate mind.

Enough already, you are a contemptible human being. 

 

If caring about innocent children makes me a contemptible human being in your eyes then I will wear that label with pride.