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

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Accordingly, I don't believe these "children" have a legal right to asylum.

As tends to be the case with personal beliefs, whether or not you believe it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true.

The legal right to asylum is determined by the appropriate authorities, not by randomers on the Internet without all the facts available to them.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

As tends to be the case with personal beliefs, whether or not you believe it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true.

The legal right to asylum is determined by the appropriate authorities, not by randomers on the Internet without all the facts available to them.

Indeed. Which brings us right back to the question of why they didn't apply for asylum in the first place....

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. Which brings us right back to the question of why they didn't apply for asylum in the first place....

Presumably because they don't want asylum in France.

I get that some people think being a refugee means that you forgo the right to choose where to live, but again: believing something doesn't make it true.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably because they don't want asylum in France.

I get that some people think being a refugee means that you forgo the right to choose where to live, but again: believing something doesn't make it true.

Why did they not apply for asylum in the UK, or, in the case of the children recently admitted to the UK who have family there, family repatriation?

Or, to put it another way - if they could walk through Europe, and choose where to live - why can't/didn't they, as asylum seekers, enter the UK and request asylum if that is where they want to live?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why did they not apply for asylum in the UK, or, in the case of the children recently admitted to the UK who have family there, family repatriation?

Or, to put it another way - if they could walk through Europe, and choose where to live - why can't/didn't they, as asylum seekers, enter the UK and request asylum if that is where they want to live?

Why does it matter? The system will decide if they have a genuine case to seek asylum or refugee status. Their ability to walk long distances is pretty irrelevant to that.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably because they don't want asylum in France.

I get that some people think being a refugee means that you forgo the right to choose where to live, but again: believing something doesn't make it true.

That's against the Dublin Regulation which is seek asylum in the first country you enter .But when asylum laws are ignored its a reason for discontent .

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

That's against the Dublin Regulation which is seek asylum in the first country you enter .

Nope. No matter how often that lie is peddled, it won't magically become true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

One of the principal aims of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state. The country in which the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting the claim, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.

[...]

Contrary to what is often stated, under the Dublin III Regulations, there are no obligations stated for asylum seekers themselves, and in particular no direct obligation for them to apply for asylum in the first EU country they entered.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. No matter how often that lie is peddled, it won't magically become true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Provided they have not been fingerprinted in another EU country .

'' However the regulations do set down allowable procedures for governments and the legal process for the transference of asylum seekers between countries, and in particular back to the first country they can be proved to have entered within the EU if that was within the previous twelve months, often by use of their fingerprints.''

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

Provided they have not been fingerprinted in another EU country .

'' However the regulations do set down allowable procedures for governments and the legal process for the transference of asylum seekers between countries, and in particular back to the first country they can be proved to have entered within the EU if that was within the previous twelve months, often by use of their fingerprints.''

That allows a member state to transfer an asylum application back to another member state, if the applicant can be demonstrated to have entered that country first. It doesn't impose any obligation on the asylum seeker whatsoever, so what you said is still not true.

It wouldn't kill you to admit you were wrong, you know.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Or, to put it another way - if they could walk through Europe, and choose where to live - why can't/didn't they, as asylum seekers, enter the UK and request asylum if that is where they want to live?

That's what they were trying to do. Entering the UK to request asylum however requires, as you've already pointed out, 'sneaking into Britain'.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

That allows a member state to transfer an asylum application back to another member state, if the applicant can be demonstrated to have entered that country first. It doesn't impose any obligation on the asylum seeker whatsoever, so what you said is still not true.

It wouldn't kill you to admit you were wrong, you know.

So you are saying that even when fingerprinted they have no obligation to return . got a link .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

So you are saying that even when fingerprinted they have no obligation to return . got a link .

He's not saying that.

The Dublin Regulations are not for asylum seekers, they're for the States. Asylum Seekers can exercise their right to seek asylum anywhere, but it doesn't mean that they will have any certainty that they will be accepted. Seeking asylum in one EU state after registering for asylum in another EU state is one of those certain situations where an asylum claim will be rejected (and you'll be transferred back to the EU state you registered in).

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

So you are saying that even when fingerprinted they have no obligation to return . got a link .

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604&from=EN

I'm saying that the Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers. If you can point to where in the text of the Regulation you believe such obligations are imposed, please do so.

If not, it wouldn't kill you to admit that you're wrong.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604&from=EN

I'm saying that the Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers. If you can point to where in the text of the Regulation you believe such obligations are imposed, please do so.

If not, it wouldn't kill you to admit that you're wrong.

Well if the so called asylum seeker was fingerprinted in an application for a tourist visa in another EU country they will be returned .
The UK was a prime example until they introduced fingerprinting of applicants for visas . There was a time when 2/3 of asylum applicants were visa over stayers from the UK .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Well if the so called asylum seeker was fingerprinted in an application for a tourist visa in another EU country they will be returned .

Not a tourist visa. An asylum application, yes.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Not a tourist visa. An asylum application, yes.

Got a link to show that tourist visa over stayers from another EU country who come and seek asylum here are not returned .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Got a link to show that tourist visa over stayers from another EU country who come and seek asylum here are not returned .

A link? Where would you expect to find that? Asylum seekers are interviewed about their asylum cases individually. Same story with all criteria for positive or negative outcomes.

A suggestion - why not actually inform yourself about the regulations before making erroneous claims?

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

A link? Where would you expect to find that? Asylum seekers are interviewed about their asylum cases individually. Same story with all criteria for positive or negative outcomes.

A suggestion - why not actually inform yourself about the regulations before making erroneous claims?

What erroneous claim . You are trying to say that asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here .


Here is a link you were reluctant to show . This is what I am referring to .Less remarks would be helpful and back up your claims !!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-failed-asylum-seekers-had-used-false-identities-26855916.html

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

What erroneous claim . You are trying to say that asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here.

This erroneous claim: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102488882&postcount=807

I'm sure less remarking on your falsehoods would helpful to your propagating them, but sorry, not going to oblige.

I never said that "asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here". They might or might not, but it's not any certainty. That would be determined on the merits of their asylum claim. What's certain is that a prior asylum claim in a different EU state will disallow a second asylum claim, and result in transfer back to that state (or the applicant's home country, if it's safe).

oscarBravo

Hang on a sec. You said:

rgossip30 wrote: »

That's against the Dublin Regulation which is seek asylum in the first country you enter .

Now, that's not true. When you admit that it's not true, there may be some point in discussing other aspects of refugee law with you. Until then, you're just flailing around, trying to find something to be right about, rather than accepting that you said something that wasn't true.

So: will you accept that what I've quoted above isn't true, and that you were wrong?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Why does it matter? The system will decide if they have a genuine case to seek asylum or refugee status. Their ability to walk long distances is pretty irrelevant to that.

The "system" was bypassed the minute Frau Merkel issued her open invitation, then further bypassed the minute the Irish delegation went "seeking" unaccompanied minors.

http://www.thejournal.ie/refugee-children-ireland-3066267-Nov2016/

Children’s Minister Katherine Zappone has announced a three-day mission to Greece that will seek to identify lone children who wish to come to Ireland to restart their lives.

It matters because there is a real question to be answered. If these people are genuine refugees - why haven't they gone through legal channels?
Genuine refugees have nothing to hide, right?

alastair wrote: »

That's what they were trying to do. Entering the UK to request asylum however requires, as you've already pointed out, 'sneaking into Britain'.

Why? Britain is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, the only reason to avoid entering by legal means is if you have reason to believe your application will be rejected, no?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? Britain is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Therefore, the only reason to avoid entering by legal means is if you have reason to believe your application will be rejected, no?

Clearly simple facts are not registering.

The only way to attain asylum in the U.K. is to apply for asylum in the U.K. That requires entering the UK, and if that requires illegal entry, then that illegal entry cannot be penalised. You point out successful asylum cases in the U.K. that didn't involve illegal entry as part of the process. Then get back to me.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on a sec. You said:



Now, that's not true. When you admit that it's not true, there may be some point in discussing other aspects of refugee law with you. Until then, you're just flailing around, trying to find something to be right about, rather than accepting that you said something that wasn't true.

So: will you accept that what I've quoted above isn't true, and that you were wrong?

yes that was changed in the Dublin regulation 3 .

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

This erroneous claim: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102488882&postcount=807

I'm sure less remarking on your falsehoods would helpful to your propagating them, but sorry, not going to oblige.

I never said that "asylum seekers who are visa over stayers from another EU cannot be returned there if they seek asylum here". They might or might not, but it's not any certainty. That would be determined on the merits of their asylum claim. What's certain is that a prior asylum claim in a different EU state will disallow a second asylum claim, and result in transfer back to that state (or the applicant's home country, if it's safe).

The Dublin 3 regulation changed it so that asylum seekers are not obliged to return to the first entry .
You are trying to dodge the point about visa overstayers from other EU countries claiming asylum here which is what I am now referring to .

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

yes that was changed in the Dublin regulation 3 .

I don't think it was, but I guess it's a tiny step forward that you've grudgingly accepted that you were wrong.

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

The Dublin 3 regulation changed it so that asylum seekers are not obliged to return to the first entry .
You are trying to dodge the point about visa overstayers from other EU countries claiming asylum here which is what I am now referring to .

I'm dodging nothing. I was very clear in responding to that point.

I hope you now have the decency to admit you are propagating erronous claims?

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

I'm dodging nothing. I was very clear in responding to that point.

I hope you now have the decency to admit you are propagating erronous claims?

What erroneous clam ? I already cleared that unless you want to keep driving on about it .
You should apoligise for interrupting my conversation with another user .I don't need you to repeat it .

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Clearly simple facts are not registering.

The only way to attain asylum in the U.K. is to apply for asylum in the U.K. That requires entering the UK, and if that requires illegal entry, then that illegal entry cannot be penalised. You point out successful asylum cases in the U.K. that didn't involve illegal entry as part of the process. Then get back to me.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

Correct. It can't. So, why aren't they presenting at UK airports or ports, and claiming asylum there? Perhaps because they know they would be turned back?

Can you point out to me how many of the successful asylum cases in the UK over the years involved illegal entry by massing on the Borders of another Country for extended periods, and damaging lorries, and their contents, in order to execute that illegal entry? Or terrorising the local residents, damaging their business prospects, and indeed, terrorising random traffic?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/681614/Calais-migrants-refugees-Britain-UK-EU-referendum-Brexit-Euro-2016

HUNDREDS of migrants shouting "f*** the UK" have stormed the roads in and around Calais and hurled rocks at British motorists in a desperate attempt to reach the UK before Britons decide whether or not to leave the EU.


French police battled around 300 migrants in the lawless port town this afternoon after huge mobs targeted England and Wales fans returning across the Channel after cheering on their teams at Euro 2016 and motoring enthusiasts driving back from the Le Mans rally event.
Gangs of migrants ran out onto the motorway and brought traffic to a standstill outside the port, so that they could break into lorries and stow away in an attempt to sneak across the Channel.
A British football fan caught up in the chaos reported that gangs of migrants were shouting "f*** the UK" as they hurled rocks at his car, posting photos on social media of clouds of tear gas fired by embattled police.

While you're at it, you might explain how helpless unaccompanied minors are so knowledgeable about asylum legislation?

They don't exactly portray themselves as helpless refugees, who are just seeking a peaceful existence, do they?

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think it was, but I guess it's a tiny step forward that you've grudgingly accepted that you were wrong.

if you looking for a grovel post forget it .

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

if you looking for a grovel post forget it .

I'm not looking for a grovel post. I'm trying to determine whether you're interested in an actual conversation - whether you're willing to accept that some of your views are based on incorrect assumptions, and to reconsider those views as a result - or whether you're just here to drive an agenda, and are happy to peddle falsehoods as a means to that end.

For example: you've claimed that the obligation on asylum seekers to claim in the first country they arrived in was removed in Dublin III. That's a marginal improvement on claiming that such an obligation currently exists, but it's still untrue based on my reading of the Dublin II Regulation, which also imposed no such obligation.

If you believe that asylum seekers ever had such an obligation, feel free to support that view with reference to the text of the Regulation itself. If you can't, maybe you should accept that this is something that you're just wrong about, and stop using it as a stick to beat refugees with?

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not looking for a grovel post. I'm trying to determine whether you're interested in an actual conversation - whether you're willing to accept that some of your views are based on incorrect assumptions, and to reconsider those views as a result - or whether you're just here to drive an agenda, and are happy to peddle falsehoods as a means to that end.

For example: you've claimed that the obligation on asylum seekers to claim in the first country they arrived in was removed in Dublin III. That's a marginal improvement on claiming that such an obligation currently exists, but it's still untrue based on my reading of the Dublin II Regulation, which also imposed no such obligation.

If you believe that asylum seekers ever had such an obligation, feel free to support that view with reference to the text of the Regulation itself. If you can't, maybe you should accept that this is something that you're just wrong about, and stop using it as a stick to beat refugees with?

#
You want to dispute these links .Irregular entry ,criminals , visa applicants . The asylum system is dysfunctional and a disgrace .
The reason why so many object to it .

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/scrapping-the-first-country-of-entry-rule-for-asylum-seekers-how-big-of-a-deal-would-it-be/

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

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/news/tenth-anniversary-of-european-asylum-law-agreed-in-dublin-is-not-a-reason-for-celebration-says-irish-refugee-council/1803


http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/IRELAND-UK%20ACCORD%20TO%20FURTHER%20SECURE%20THE%20COMMON%20TRAVEL%20AREA

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

#
You want to dispute these links .Irregular entry ,criminals , visa applicants . The asylum system is dysfunctional and a disgrace .
The reason why so many object to it .

...or, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you can move the goalposts and change the subject.

I guess when I asked whether you're interested in an intelligent conversation or blindly pushing an agenda, I've got my answer.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you can move the goalposts and change the subject.

I guess when I asked whether you're interested in an intelligent conversation or blindly pushing an agenda, I've got my answer.

I was moving on and maybe an intelligent conversation can . The issue of return to first country of entry is not now disputed so what agenda am I blindly pursuing .

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct. It can't. So, why aren't they presenting at UK airports or ports, and claiming asylum there? Perhaps because they know they would be turned back?

They don't present at airports because they can't get tickets. Airlines are fined for all rejected asylum seekers they carry.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33139

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

While you're at it, you might explain how helpless unaccompanied minors are so knowledgeable about asylum legislation?

They don't exactly portray themselves as helpless refugees, who are just seeking a peaceful existence, do they?

Just because they're minors, it's not required that they also be uninformed. There's ample information freely available, and it's obviously pretty important for someone in their position to be aware of their rights and responsibilities.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

They don't present at airports because they can't get tickets. Airlines are fined for all rejected asylum seekers they carry.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33139

They can with a false passport or visa .Do they have computers yet at the immigration counters in Dublin airport ?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

They don't present at airports because they can't get tickets. Airlines are fined for all rejected asylum seekers they carry.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33139

Ports? Roads? Other routes? Are you suggesting that every successful asylum seeker who reached Britain massed at Calais?

Further, are you suggesting that Britain is refusing to meet it's obligations under the Geneva convention?

alastair wrote: »

Just because they're minors, it's not required that they also be uninformed. There's ample information freely available, and it's obviously pretty important for someone in their position to be aware of their rights and responsibilities.

Indeed. So, again - why are these asylum seekers not availing of those rights?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Ports?

Thats where the lorries are going.

Deleted User wrote: »

Roads?

You must know of some bridge that the rest of us are unfamiliar with.

Deleted User wrote: »

Other routes?

Like Hook of Holland and Zeebrugge - where attempts are made from?

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that every successful asylum seeker who reached Britain massed at Calais?

Why would you suggest such a bizarre misreading of straightforward posts?

Deleted User wrote: »

Further, are you suggesting that Britain is refusing to meet it's obligations under the Geneva convention?

Again - bizzaro misreading.

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. So, again - why are these asylum seekers not availing of those rights?

They are.

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

They can with a false passport or visa .Do they have computers yet at the immigration counters in Dublin airport ?

Ahh, the false passport strategy. That's your preference? It's equally illegal, so not too sure what recommends it to you. They can of course with a tourist/transit visa, but getting approved for a visa if you're suspected of not intending to leave the UK is another matter.

Brian?

rgossip30 wrote: »

They can with a false passport or visa .Do they have computers yet at the immigration counters in Dublin airport ?

Is this a joke? Of course they do, they've had them for as long as I can remember. My wife is an immigrant, so I'm probably more aware of than most. Don't worry she's not brown or Muslim, so I'm safe.

It's shocking that you won't admit you were incorrect about seeking asylum in the first EU country you land in.

jmayo

Does anyone know if some of the Calais minors we are getting are Afghani ?

I would say there is a good chance seeing that a sizable portion of the residents of the jungle in Calais were from Afghanistan.

Lets hope they aren't of the same mindset as three Afghan minors in Austria that have been sentenced to prison for the gang rape of a 21 year old student in a train station in Vienna last April.

BTW one of the excuses offered was that they didn't know it was illegal because women are treated differently at home.

Oh and rather than use the Express or Daily Mail links, in case some would argue it was right wing propaganda, I thought i would use Reuters instead.

The Vienna court sentenced two Afghan 18-year-olds to six years in prison and one 16-year-old to five years, a court spokeswoman said, adding that the maximum sentence was halved to 7-1/2 years because the accused were under 18 when the attack took place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-rape-idUSKBN15F1HD

There have also been other attacks including the attempted rape of a 20 year woman in Graz when a 17-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan attacked her on her way home.

Does anyone recall the rape of the Afghan lady who was acting as interpreter for journalist in the jungle camp in October 2015 ?
Three Afghan men were arrested in Paris in November for the rape.
But it's alright they aren't minors, they are 30 to 35 years old.

But why do I think there does seem to be a bit of recurring theme here. :rolleyes:

I am sure someone, probably someone in authority, will be along soon to tell me that it is all a coincidence and women are as likely to be gang raped by French men, Irish men, Austrians, etc, etc

jmayo

Brian? wrote: »

Is this a joke? Of course they do, they've had them for as long as I can remember. My wife is an immigrant, so I'm probably more aware of than most. Don't worry she's not brown or Muslim, so I'm safe.

It's shocking that you won't admit you were incorrect about seeking asylum in the first EU country you land in.

Why do I find it highly unlikely she lost her passport and identification documents before she arrived in Ireland.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

Does anyone know if some of the Calais minors we are getting are Afghani ?

I would say there is a good chance seeing that a sizable portion of the residents of the jungle in Calais were from Afghanistan.

Lets hope they aren't of the same mindset as three Afghan minors in Austria that have been sentenced to prison for the gang rape of a 21 year old student in a train station in Vienna last April.

Does anyone know if there are any Canadian marching bands coming her for the St Patricks Day parade? Because they might have the same mindset as that fellah Alexandre Bissonnette who murdered six people the other day.

Never mind the mass of other Canadians who haven't bothered anyone. Think of the children!

jmayo

alastair wrote: »

Does anyone know if there are any Canadian marching bands coming her for the St Patricks Day parade? Because they might have the same mindset as that fellah Alexandre Bissonnette who murdered six people the other day.

Never mind the mass of other Canadians who haven't bothered anyone. Think of the children!

No matter how facetious you try to be, you can't alter the fact Afghans pose a bigger threat in Europe than Canadians, even if they are playing musical instruments.

I suppose we will now see Alexandre Bissonnette trotted out as a response to every negative story about "migrants"/"refugees".
It does make a change from the usual references to Anders Breivik.

Granted I do suppose it is easier to remember the names of individual right wing terrorists since there aren't a hundred of those of a different persuasion and political/cultural outlook :rolleyes:.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

No matter how facetious you try to be, you can't alter the fact Afghans pose a bigger threat in Europe than Canadians.

Really? You've collated similar stories about Canadian criminality in Europe and compared? And you're assured that any other notional Afghans or Canadians are likely to follow suit?

I'm sensing an absence of actual facts.

Brian?

jmayo wrote: »

Why do I find it highly unlikely she lost her passport and identification documents before she arrived in Ireland.

What has that to do with my post?

Brian?

alastair wrote: »

Does anyone know if there are any Canadian marching bands coming her for the St Patricks Day parade? Because they might have the same mindset as that fellah Alexandre Bissonnette who murdered six people the other day.

Never mind the mass of other Canadians who haven't bothered anyone. Think of the children!

My wife is Canadian. My son is a yank. I'm worried they're both going to mass murder me now. Ban them both.

jmayo

alastair wrote: »

Really? You've collated similar stories about Canadian criminality in Europe and compared? And you're assured that any other notional Afghans or Canadians are likely to follow suit?

I'm sensing an absence of actual facts.

I would be banned by half of the posters on these threads if I really said what I was sensing.

I think we would have heard if there were a preponderance of gang rapes and sexual assaults being carried out by Canadians in Europe.
Somehow I think it would be making the news :rolleyes:

Actually the funny thing is if you look up Canadian rapists in Europe in Google one of the first links is to the alleged rape of a Canadian tourist in Paris.

Now on the other if you were to look up something relating to Afghans and rape in Europe it is quiet astounding how many incidents one finds.

Now of course I am not citing Google as the arbiter of all facts on European justice, just a good pointer to stories covered in press of actual rapes and sexual assaults.

Brian? wrote: »

What has that to do with my post?

I just wondered if your wife as an entrant to Ireland (didn't know she was Canadian at time or was never implying she was non legal) was as remiss as all those refugees/migrants that are always loosing their passports and documents.

After all the likes of the above poster would like me to do comparison tests and collate data concerning Canadians and the nationalities of the new arrivals to Europe.

Oh and btw the term Yank can be considered mildly impolite or even offensive to some Americans.
Just thought you should know, as I presume you would not want to ever cause offense.

Brian?

jmayo wrote: »

I would be banned by half of the posters on these threads if I really said what I was sensing.

I think we would have heard if there were a preponderance of gang rapes and sexual assaults being carried out by Canadians in Europe.
Somehow I think it would be making the news :rolleyes:

Actually the funny thing is if you look up Canadian rapists in Europe in Google one of the first links is to the rape of a Canadian tourist in Paris.

Now on the other if you were to look up something relating to Afghans and rape in Europe it is quiet astounding how many incidents one finds.

Now of course I am not citing Google as the arbiter of all facts on European justice, just a good pointer to stories covered in press of actual rapes and sexual assaults.



I just wondered if your wife as an entrant to Ireland (didn't know she was Canadian at time or was never implying she was non legal) was as remiss as all those refugees/migrants that are always loosing their passports and documents.

After all the likes of the above poster would like me to do comparison tests and collate data concerning Canadians and the nationalities of the new arrivals to Europe.

Why do you keep winking?

My post was in response to a question about whether the have computers to check immigration documents at the airport. They do. I've no idea why you're trying to wrap that up in something else.

As the husband and father of non EU nationals I can assure you they check everyone coming in on a non EU passport. End of point.

rgossip30

Brian? wrote: »

Is this a joke? Of course they do, they've had them for as long as I can remember. My wife is an immigrant, so I'm probably more aware of than most. Don't worry she's not brown or Muslim, so I'm safe.

It's shocking that you won't admit you were incorrect about seeking asylum in the first EU country you land in.

They don't use them in EU queue and just look at your passport there in November. Safe from what ?

I said it was changed in the Dublin 3 regulation and do not dispute it anymore .Shocking that you want to continue this .
Asylum seekers are however returned if an irregular immigration history is proven .Links provided earlier pay attention !