French authorities remove minors from shipping containers in Calais

[webfact]

French authorities remove minors from shipping containers in Calais

Seamus Kearney

 

 

CALAIS: -- Temporary accommodation in shipping containers has come to an end for hundreds of minors in Calais.

 

On Wednesday French authorities began to move about 1,600 unaccompanied underage migrants from the site of the demolished Calais refugee camp.

 

Buses have taken the youngsters to processing centres across France.

 

A row between Britain and France over the sharing of responsibility for the care of the minors has dragged on.

 

French officials met to discuss the issue in Paris amid growing pressure from charities.

 

The UK is obliged under EU rules to take in unaccompanied minors who have family there.

 

And there is concern about many who have disappeared.

 

The demolition of the Calais camp known as the ‘Jungle’ is coming to an end.

 

Officials say more than 6,000 people have been moved to processing centres across France, where their eligibility for asylum will be assessed.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-11-03

[daveAustin]

Minor must mean a different thing outside Europe, because I don't see many kids in that picture. If the French won't have these 'minors', then the UK should be obliged to reunite their families with them by sending them all back to France. It was France's issue in the first place by not housing them.

[metisdead]

A troll post containing unsubstantiated claims has been removed. 

[Caps]

I find it hard to believe that these so called families who have children/teens/young adults staying in France have not been across to get them!   I am sure if they are in the UK legally and/or their application has been submitted they should be able to go get them? 

On the plus side its one less mouth to feed

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Minor must mean a different thing outside Europe, because I don't see many kids in that picture. If the French won't have these 'minors', then the UK should be obliged to reunite their families with them by sending them all back to France. It was France's issue in the first place by not housing them.

 

I guess they are using 21 rather than 18. And some "old" looking 21 year old there too!

 

France simply ignored the problem for far too long. Hoping to sneakily palm the problem off on the UK in typical French fashion. Now they have been forced to take the action they should have been taking from day 1. 

 

If any of these illegal immigrants can prove they have lawful immigrant close family members, who are prepared to accept them and can afford to do so financially without being on or increasing benefits then fine. If not, they should either be dealt with by France or deported to their home country.

 

Allowing them to all say they have family, ignore their attempts to enter illegally, and giving them loads of freebies simply encourages more and more. Despite what all the PC and luvvies keep moaning on about.

[SgtRock]

4 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Minor must mean a different thing outside Europe, because I don't see many kids in that picture. If the French won't have these 'minors', then the UK should be obliged to reunite their families with them by sending them all back to France. It was France's issue in the first place by not housing them.

 

Syrian must also have a different meaning.

 

Most of those in the video appear to be from sub-Saharan Africa.

[Scott]

Here is the definition of an unaccompanied minor:

 

An unaccompanied child is a person who is under the age of eighteen, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is,attained earlier and who is “separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so.

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d4f91cf4.pdf

 

These asylum seekers would have been under 18 at the time of their arrival and registration.   They would be screened as a minor even if they turn 18, however, the resettlement country could and probably would make adjustments to any resettlement of someone who had reached legal majority.   It would be outside the scope of most country's laws to, for example, give custody of an adult to someone.  

 

The fact is that these youths have been allowed to languish in the camps for far too long.   Whether they should be resettled or not depends on the individual case and situation, but whether they are resettled or repatriated, it should be done quickly.   They will have gained nothing positive from their time in camps, largely unsupervised.  

 

[SgtRock]

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

These asylum seekers would have been under 18 at the time of their arrival and registration.

 

You would have made a great point if this had actually been the case.

 

The inhabitants of Calais are not registered and have no intention of registering. It places restrictions on them, like trying to get to the UK.

 

Registering their details including their fingerprints, which they are not going to do. This is why they are still in Calais and not the lovely secure, warm accommodation that the nice French Authorities supplied for them.

 

These people are well briefed before they arrive at Calais.

 

Sorry, but on this, you are way behind the times.

[Scott]

I am afraid you are wrong and I am not behind the times...at least not that far behind the times.   No one is declared an unaccompanied minor until they are registered and there is credible reason to declare them an unaccompanied minor.  

 

A child is not an unaccompanied minor if he arrives with family members, such as siblings who are from the same household.   Please re-read this:   is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so.

 

A child who arrives with a caregiver who has legal responsibility or by historic cultural customs is attached to that family and they are screened (or dealt with) as a member of that family.  

 

It is not unusual for children who have arrived with someone from the same village and who have remained in the camps for an extended period of time, to be screened with that family/person, simply because they have formed a family attachment.  

 

I don't believe for a moment that any reasonable gov't would not have information on who these people are and where they come from.   The people may refuse to be screened, but that does not mean that information on them is not collected.  

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Here is the definition of an unaccompanied minor:

 

An unaccompanied child is a person who is under the age of eighteen, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is,attained earlier and who is “separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so.

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d4f91cf4.pdf

 

These asylum seekers would have been under 18 at the time of their arrival and registration.   They would be screened as a minor even if they turn 18, however, the resettlement country could and probably would make adjustments to any resettlement of someone who had reached legal majority.   It would be outside the scope of most country's laws to, for example, give custody of an adult to someone.  

 

Lets get one thing straight. The majority of these people are not asylum seekers, they are Economic Migrants. As for their age,in many cases it is now being show that they are not even minors, in fact one of them had published his age on Facebook as being 22yrs old. 

 Why have they not stayed in the first country that they arrived in. one Economic Migrants stated. " I want to go to England not France"

 I wonder why.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Scott
Reply moved out of the quote box

[Scott]

I am don't have a horse in this race.   I am just trying to set forth the process.   If someone is 22, they are not an unaccompanied minor unless they arrived in the camp before they were 18.   I don't consider facebook to be a credible place to determine age, although it may be pertinent.

 

You are mixing up asylum seeker, economic migrant and refugee with unaccompanied minor.   You are an unaccompanied minor regardless of which category you belong to if you arrive in a country and under 18 with no family or guardian.  

 

Where they want to go and where they will be offered resettlement are not the same.   If they are to be resettled, then they should  be placed with family where possible.   If there are no family members in a country, then they up for resettlement in a different country and no, they don't get to chose where they go.

 

Those involved in resettlement know full well that the best option for children is to be with their family and in most cases that means back to where they came from unless there is a very, very good reason they can't be returned.  

 

 

[SgtRock]

46 minutes ago, Scott said:

I am afraid you are wrong and I am not behind the times...at least not that far behind the times.   No one is declared an unaccompanied minor until they are registered and there is credible reason to declare them an unaccompanied minor.  

 

Really.

 

I think you need to brush up on reality, not a trip down memory lane to the UN's version of reality.

 

They do not register as asylum seekers in France, or anywhere else in the EU, as this will negate them from being able to claim Asylum in their final choice of destination Country.

 

This is even more evident with the Calais residents. Everyone one of those Calais residents will claim to have family in the UK. If that were the case they would have been shipped to the UK long ago.

 

You may well have no horse in this particular race. At least have the courtesy to take your UN head off and see what is actually happening.

[elgordo38]

Maybe the mistakenly thought the containers were going to the good ole USA land of plenty. The fact that they were empty should have been a clue I guess. Europe of course would love to put them at the top of their export list. 

[simple1]

56 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

 

They do not register as asylum seekers in France, or anywhere else in the EU, as this will negate them from being able to claim Asylum in their final choice of destination Country.

 

<snip>

 

For unaccompanied minors seeking permission to enter the UK your claim is incorrect, especially for those with contacts / extended family resident in the UK. For those who do not meet the UK connections criteria acquaint yourself with the Dubs Agreement.

 

Asylum seekers in France are required to have a permanent address to begin the process to register and claim refugee status a process which is claimed to take anywhere up to two years, in the meantime the claimant is not permitted to work, therefore completely reliant on welfare handouts. At the moment France only approves roughly 22 percent of asylum claims (the EU’s average approval rate is about 40%.).

[SgtRock]

30 minutes ago, simple1 said:

For unaccompanied minors seeking permission to enter the UK your claim is incorrect, especially for those with contacts / extended family resident in the UK. For those who do not meet the UK connections criteria acquaint yourself with the Dubs Agreement.

 

Try reading what I actually said and not what you think it said.

 

The vast majority of the Calais residents will claim to have family members in the UK. Just like a majority of prisoners will claim they are innocent.

 

1. The vast majority of them are not minors, regardless of what they claim.

 

2. The vast majority of them are economic migrants, not Asylum Seekers. Watch the video in the OP, sub- Saharan Africans for the vast majority.

 

3. The Dublin Agreement ? Are you having a laugh ? That went out the window last year when the invasion started. As far as I am aware there is still no International Airport in Calais, so every one of the inhabitants of Calais broke the Dublin Agreement to get to Calais.

 

If you want to fire the Dublin Regs and Agreements at me. Try understanding them yourself.

 

Quote

The regulation does this by setting forth a hierarchy of criteria to guide a member state's decision on where an individual should have their application examined. The criterion most commonly used by states is the 'first EU country of entry', meaning that the member state responsible for examining an individual's asylum application is the one through which he or she first entered into the EU. For example: an asylum seeker who came to the EU via Hungary and then traveled to Belgium, would likely be sent back to Hungary to have their application examined. 

In the view of EU and government officials, the Dublin Regulation is the cornerstone of the Common European Asylum System. Without it, asylum seekers could have applications open in several member states and it wouldn't be clear which state would be responsible for making a decision. 

 

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

 

Which is why they do not register anywhere until they get to their chosen destination.

 

Stick to Aussieland and Wiki. Worldwide reality does not appear to be your strong point.

[rockingrobin]

37 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

Try reading what I actually said and not what you think it said.

 

The vast majority of the Calais residents will claim to have family members in the UK. Just like a majority of prisoners will claim they are innocent.

 

1. The vast majority of them are not minors, regardless of what they claim.

 

2. The vast majority of them are economic migrants, not Asylum Seekers. Watch the video in the OP, sub- Saharan Africans for the vast majority.

 

3. The Dublin Agreement ? Are you having a laugh ? That went out the window last year when the invasion started. As far as I am aware there is still no International Airport in Calais, so every one of the inhabitants of Calais broke the Dublin Agreement to get to Calais.

 

If you want to fire the Dublin Regs and Agreements at me. Try understanding them yourself.

 

 

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

 

Which is why they do not register anywhere until they get to their chosen destination.

 

Stick to Aussieland and Wiki. Worldwide reality does not appear to be your strong point.

The Dublin convention became moot with Lord Dubs amendment , with regard to children

https://www.byrondavies.org.uk/lord-dubs-amendment-immigration-bill

[simple1]

48 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

 

As per usual your aggressive, rude and bombastic posts are based upon your opinions, not facts.

Edited November 3, 2016 by simple1

[Loles]

55555555555555555 minors 5555555555 their average age is 25 ...

[Scott]

5 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

Try reading what I actually said and not what you think it said.

 

The vast majority of the Calais residents will claim to have family members in the UK. Just like a majority of prisoners will claim they are innocent.

 

1. The vast majority of them are not minors, regardless of what they claim.

 

2. The vast majority of them are economic migrants, not Asylum Seekers. Watch the video in the OP, sub- Saharan Africans for the vast majority.

 

3. The Dublin Agreement ? Are you having a laugh ? That went out the window last year when the invasion started. As far as I am aware there is still no International Airport in Calais, so every one of the inhabitants of Calais broke the Dublin Agreement to get to Calais.

 

If you want to fire the Dublin Regs and Agreements at me. Try understanding them yourself.

 

 

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

 

Which is why they do not register anywhere until they get to their chosen destination.

 

Stick to Aussieland and Wiki. Worldwide reality does not appear to be your strong point.

You might want to read what others write and you might want to amend your posting style.   Do you honestly think that someone can waltz into a country and nobody at any time gets basic information about them?   So the buses pulled up and moved people to various reception centers without any information about who they are, or where they are from?   You think the aid agencies, and those providing medical care have no basic information about these people?  

 

I am not taking a walk down memory lane.   I do keep up with issues related to unaccompanied minors and refugee resettlement.   I worked in the field for many years.   So please give us a little bit about your experience in this area.  

 

Whether the French gov't or your own gov't is dealing with the situation effectively is open for discussion, but your pompous and negative style does you no favors.  

 

Asylum seekers are not prisoners and the comparison is a false analogy. 

Because someone says they have a relative in a country doesn't make it a fact and all the information has to support that assumption.   The family in the resettlement country has to have declared their family members.   A sudden new addition to the family years later doesn't quite cut it.  

 

So again, it might be in your best interest to take your own advice and read what other members post.  

[i claudius]

I don't know why this gets discussed,to be blunt most of us don't want them and wish they would pi_ss of back where they came from,that's not being racist its just telling it as it is most are just scrounging spongers, who cause nothing but trouble, and all you do gooders don't bother having a go ,I couldn't care less what you think

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[nontabury]

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

You might want to read what others write and you might want to amend your posting style.   Do you honestly think that someone can waltz into a country and nobody at any time gets basic information about them?   So the buses pulled up and moved people to various reception centers without any information about who they are, or where they are from?   You think the aid agencies, and those providing medical care have no basic information about these people?  

 

I am not taking a walk down memory lane.   I do keep up with issues related to unaccompanied minors and refugee resettlement.   I worked in the field for many years.   So please give us a little bit about your experience in this area.  

 

Whether the French gov't or your own gov't is dealing with the situation effectively is open for discussion, but your pompous and negative style does you no favors.  

 

Asylum seekers are not prisoners and the comparison is a false analogy. 

Because someone says they have a relative in a country doesn't make it a fact and all the information has to support that assumption.   The family in the resettlement country has to have declared their family members.   A sudden new addition to the family years later doesn't quite cut it.  

 

So again, it might be in your best interest to take your own advice and read what other members post.  

 

  I take it that you are not British,as you do not seem to know what has,and is taking place in Europe.

 Yes I do think that some people can,and do just waltz into the UK without any checks being carried out on them. The entry of so called children into the UK is just one example. 

 

[SgtRock]

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

Do you honestly think that someone can waltz into a country and nobody at any time gets basic information about them?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-moment-dozens-migrants-unloaded-7617432

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/21/group-of-28-immigrants-found-in-the-back-of-a-lorry-in-portsmout/

 

Just 2 examples. The MSM have stopped reporting what is now an almost every day occurrence.

 

Try Youtube. There are 1000's of videos.

 

I should not need to apologise for contradicting someone. But when it becomes blatantly obvious that they have either  no idea of reality concerning Calais or there head is buried in the sand, in leaves one very little option.

 

I will send you a PM with regards to my dealings with real refugees.