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

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

I think we would have heard if there were a preponderance of gang rapes and sexual assaults being carried out by Canadians in Europe.

Newsflash! There's no preponderance of gang rapes and sexual assaults being carried out by Afghans in Europe either.

Like I said, you're engaging in disseminating 'alternative' facts.

enricoh

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, 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:.

Nah, God bless him he'll still try - unless you have a U.N. report to prove the future intentions of all Afghanis and Canadians.
Which of the two countries residents are most likely to come over for two weeks, spend a few grand, get the photos n head home.
N which are most likely to require social welfare, free house, etc. N have extremist views, anti women n gays etc etc
It's too hard to call j mayo, I'll look up paddy power n see what odds there giving on each country. Cos without that U.N. report I can't decide!

CMOTDibbler

enricoh wrote: »

Nah, God bless him he'll still try - unless you have a U.N. report to prove the future intentions of all Afghanis and Canadians.
Which of the two countries residents are most likely to come over for two weeks, spend a few grand, get the photos n head home.
N which are most likely to require social welfare, free house, etc. N have extremist views, anti women n gays etc etc
It's too hard to call j mayo, I'll look up paddy power n see what odds there giving on each country. Cos without that U.N. report I can't decide!

N?

Who's N? Or is it the mathematical expression for any given number?

Widdershins

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.

Are you sure?

I'm pleased this family were given leave to stay and appeal since the boy is doing so well where he is, but if you read the case details, they contradict you?

What's this about?

''The law states refugees should apply for asylum in the first country of safety they reach and Lawand's family had their fingerprints taken in Greece and Germany.

The UK does not deport to Greece but does to Germany which is why the family were told they would sent there. In December, a spokeswoman for the Home Office said it was "fair" the UK should honour international rules agreed between EU countries that asylum seekers should settle in the first country they enter.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/14/deaf-boy-6-fled-iraq-isis-threatened-kill-disabled-youngsters/

Brian?

jmayo wrote: »

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.

It really isn't.

oscarBravo

Widdershins wrote: »

What's this about?

''The law states refugees should apply for asylum in the first country of safety they reach...''

It doesn't. Has it occurred to you that the Telegraph could be wrong?

If the Dublin Regulation indeed states that, you can quite easily demonstrate it by quoting from the text of the Regulation. It's funny how all those who are adamant about what the Regulation states never actually quote it.

Brian?

Widdershins wrote: »

Are you sure?

I'm pleased this family were given leave to stay and appeal since the boy is doing so well where he is, but if you read the case details, they contradict you?

What's this about?

''The law states refugees should apply for asylum in the first country of safety they reach and Lawand's family had their fingerprints taken in Greece and Germany.

The UK does not deport to Greece but does to Germany which is why the family were told they would sent there. In December, a spokeswoman for the Home Office said it was "fair" the UK should honour international rules agreed between EU countries that asylum seekers should settle in the first country they enter.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/14/deaf-boy-6-fled-iraq-isis-threatened-kill-disabled-youngsters/

So you quote the Telegraph even though Oscar Bravo already quoted the regulation. Why do you think the Telegraph is more correct than the actual regulation? Possibly because you want it to be so?

rgossip30

Brian? wrote: »

So you quote the Telegraph even though Oscar Bravo already quoted the regulation. Why do you think the Telegraph is more correct than the actual regulation? Possibly because you want it to be so?

Regulations get bent in the real world its not cut and dry and a feeding ground for lawyers .

jmayo

alastair wrote: »

Newsflash! There's no preponderance of gang rapes and sexual assaults being carried out by Afghans in Europe either.

Like I said, you're engaging in disseminating 'alternative' facts.

So are you are saying
the three Afghan minors found guilty of raping a student in a railway station in Vienna didn't happen ?
The rape of a female Afghan translator in the Calais jungle didn't happen and she and her male colleague are liars ?
The attempted rape of young woman in Graz by another Afghan minor didn't happen either and that is why police are investigating ?

I suppose next thing you will tell me was it was only an anecdotal story about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Years Eve 2016 ?

This site is becoming a joke when actual rape cases, under police investigation and the subject of guilty verdicts in a court of law, are now being pedaled as "alternative facts" by pro migrant/refugee posters.

And since you are so are fond of comparisons can you find three comparable cases involving say the aforementioned Canadians ?

Widdershins

Brian? wrote: »

So you quote the Telegraph even though Oscar Bravo already quoted the regulation. Why do you think the Telegraph is more correct than the actual regulation? Possibly because you want it to be so?

oscarBravo wrote: »

It doesn't. Has it occurred to you that the Telegraph could be wrong?

If the Dublin Regulation indeed states that, you can quite easily demonstrate it by quoting from the text of the Regulation. It's funny how all those who are adamant about what the Regulation states never actually quote it.

No, I didn't read OB's comment about the regulation. I have time constraints and haven't read the last x-number of pages on the thread. I read the last page on which I commented, asking what is the quoted bit in the article about and why it contradicted what you were saying. Of course it occurred that the Telegraph might be wrong-that's why I asked!

I've seen the media get it wrong, but it's more unusual to pluck a 'fact' out of thin air like that. I thought it likely that there's something to it, even if it's not up to date. The article doesn't seem to offer any other reason for the potential deportation, at all. And has a quote from a Home Office Spokkesperson. And a BBC article says much the same as the Telegraph. The odds are that there's something to it, or so I thought.In all honesty I find the BBC and Telegraph more consistently reliable and impartial than most Boards users, and it would be very odd for both to quote the home office erroneously..but no journalist is infallible.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

So are you are saying...

For clarity, and to avoid any more needless lists, I'm saying:

There's no preponderance of gang rapes and sexual assaults being carried out by Afghans in Europe either.

Hope that helps.

CMOTDibbler

rgossip30 wrote: »

Regulations get bent in the real world its not cut and dry and a feeding ground for lawyers .

It's been around for twenty years. In that time, if it's been bent by lawyers, there should be some evidence of that.

rgossip30

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's been around for twenty years. In that time, if it's been bent by lawyers, there should be some evidence of that.

Looking at the Orac stats for 2016 .

' Determinations made under the Dublin Convention / EU Dublin Regulation' is 578 . One is inclined to question the number and circumstances ? Well its a two way street . The state has lawyers too who will return or deport .

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNR-AGWD4L9271523-en/$File/2016%2011%20ORAC%20Nov%20monthly%20stats%20book.pdf

CMOTDibbler

rgossip30 wrote: »

Looking at the Orac stats for 2016 .

' Determinations made under the Dublin Convention / EU Dublin Regulation' is 578 . One is inclined to question the number and circumstances ? Well its a two way street . The state has lawyers too who will return or deport .

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNR-AGWD4L9271523-en/$File/2016%2011%20ORAC%20Nov%20monthly%20stats%20book.pdf

I fail to see how that answers my question.

rgossip30

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I fail to see how that answers my question.

Lawyers will argue the case , the regulations in court ,use reasons why the person should stay or go .
Individual cases are not discussed .

CMOTDibbler

rgossip30 wrote: »

Lawyers will argue the case , the regulations in court ,use reasons why the person should stay or go .
Individual cases are not discussed .

You're just guessing. Where's the actual evidence that the Dublin Convention has been 'bent' by lawyers?

And cases of deportation have been reported in the press. So there should be plenty of evidence out there. If it exists.

rgossip30

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're just guessing. Where's the actual evidence that the Dublin Convention has been 'bent' by lawyers?

And cases of deportation have been reported in the press. So there should be plenty of evidence out there. If it exists.

The word bent being rather strong lets just leave it at argued around and that applies to both sides .

recedite

rgossip30 wrote: »

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNR-AGWD4L9271523-en/$File/2016%2011%20ORAC%20Nov%20monthly%20stats%20book.pdf

Seem to be mainly Pakistan, Albania, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Afghanistan.
Places known more for gang wars than real wars.

The Dublin convention did not exactly say a refugee had to apply for asylum in the first EU country they encountered. They had to register in the first country, but another country could then offer the asylum, as Germany did in 2015.

On the other hand, the other country could also choose to send them back to the previous safe EU country, as the UK has decided to do here.

Widdershins

recedite wrote: »

Seem to be mainly Pakistan, Albania, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Afghanistan.
Places known more for gang wars than real wars.

The Dublin convention did not exactly say a refugee had to apply for asylum in the first EU country they encountered. They had to register in the first country, but another country could then offer the asylum, as Germany did in 2015.

On the other hand, the other country could also choose to send them back to the previous safe EU country, as the UK has decided to do here.

Thanks for clearing that up

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The Dublin convention did not exactly say a refugee had to apply for asylum in the first EU country they encountered. They had to register in the first country...

I see you're still subscribing to the theory that confidently repeating a lie will magically make it true.

I'll make this as clear as I can: the Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers. Anyone who claims that it does is either making stuff up to advance an agenda, or mindlessly parroting someone else who is doing so.

This is very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/16/hundreds-calais-child-refugees-uk-asylum-claims-rejected-home-office

Hundreds of child asylum seekers in France who had been expecting to come to the UK have been told that the Home Office has rejected their claims. The children and teenagers dispersed from Calais in October have been advised to lodge their applications in France instead.
The Home Office confirmed that the transfer of children previously in the Calais camp and now in French reception centres had ended, and said those it had decided could not come to the UK had been given advice about how to claim asylum in France. A spokeswoman said more unaccompanied children were undergoing initial screening in Italy and Greece and may also be brought to the UK.

So, essentially, the UK have already assessed the Calais migrants for asylum and those who were considered eligible have already been transferred to the UK.

Meaning those remaining in France are not entitled to asylum in the UK.

So, why are they being given asylum in Ireland, and why have they been given advice about how to claim asylum in France?

Surely the requirements would be the same? (Apart from those who were attempting to gain asylum through family reunification).

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

Seem to be mainly Pakistan, Albania, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Afghanistan.
Places known more for gang wars than real wars.

The Dublin convention did not exactly say a refugee had to apply for asylum in the first EU country they encountered. They had to register in the first country, but another country could then offer the asylum, as Germany did in 2015.

On the other hand, the other country could also choose to send them back to the previous safe EU country, as the UK has decided to do here.

Can you quote directly from the regulation where it says that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Not from a newspaper article, the actual regulation.

323

At last, even EU president is confirming that these people are not refugees.

Referred to "irregular migration" at the summit in Malta

alastair

323 wrote: »

At last, even EU president is confirming that these people are not refugees.

Referred to "irregular migration" at the summit in Malta

Nothing new in that. A migrant isn't a refugee until they attain refugee status. These people are a mixture of migrants and refugees. That's always been the case, and nobody has pretended otherwise.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

So, essentially, the UK have already assessed the Calais migrants for asylum and those who were considered eligible have already been transferred to the UK.

Meaning those remaining in France are not entitled to asylum in the UK.

So, why are they being given asylum in Ireland, and why have they been given advice about how to claim asylum in France?

None of them were entitled to apply for asylum in either Britain or Ireland. because so far they have only made it to France.
Any decision by Britain or Ireland to "send for them" is entirely a political decision based on certain politicians trying to appeal to a certain section of the vote.

Brian? wrote: »

Can you quote directly from the regulation where it says that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Not from a newspaper article, the actual regulation.

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

No no no - you confidently stated what you claimed was an obligation imposed on refugees by the Dublin Regulation. Rather than demanding that others disprove your falsehoods, the onus is on you to support your claim.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

None of them were entitled to apply for asylum in either Britain or Ireland. because so far they have only made it to France.
Any decision by Britain or Ireland to "send for them" is entirely a political decision based on certain politicians trying to appeal to a certain section of the vote.

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

Oscar Bravo already quoted the regulations. The point has been made.

The onus is not on me to provide evidence, I'm not the one making the claim repeatedly.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

Can you just give your own interpretation of the Dublin rules instead of sniping at everyone else? It would save all this cryptic "back and forth" leading up to your big announcement.

There's nothing cryptic about it. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Dublin Regulations isn't applicable to refugees, it's for States and their arrangements between them on how to allocate asylum applications. There's nothing whatsoever in the Regulations that's binding on asylum seekers themselves.

Asylum seekers don't have to apply for asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. They can apply wherever they want. That doesn't mean they won't be then directed back to a different state; they may or may not, but it's not an obligation imposed on them.

rgossip30

Brian? wrote: »

Can you quote directly from the regulation where it says that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Not from a newspaper article, the actual regulation.

They are not refugees until proven so one should refer to them as migrants or asylum seekers.


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

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

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/state-moves-over-pakistani-and-bangladeshi-asylum-seekers-1.2423258


These migrants who are shown to have made false claims on visa applicants , have a criminal record , a family member ,smuggled ,false passport etc they can however be sent back to the first country of entry.

A migrant can enter Ireland on a tourist visa and claim asylum provided they used their real name and nationality on the visa application and for their asylum claim .

Brian?

rgossip30 wrote: »

They are not refugees until proven so one should refer to them as migrants .


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

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

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/state-moves-over-pakistani-and-bangladeshi-asylum-seekers-1.2423258


These migrants who are shown to have made false claims on visa applicants , have a criminal record , a family member ,smuggled ,false passport etc they can however be sent back to the first country of entry.

A migrant can enter Ireland on a tourist visa and claim asylum provided they used their real name and nationality on the visa application and for their asylum claim .

So we're agreed. The migrants don't have to apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter. It's up to the member states to decide if they should be referred back to the first state.

rgossip30

Brian? wrote: »

So we're agreed. The migrants don't have to apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter. It's up to the member states to decide if they should be referred back to the first state.

The only part I disagreed with is that they can be sent back for a variety of reasons despite the regulation .

recedite

alastair wrote: »

There's nothing cryptic about it. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Dublin Regulations isn't applicable to refugees, it's for States and their arrangements between them on how to allocate asylum applications. There's nothing whatsoever in the Regulations that's binding on asylum seekers themselves.

Right, but was there not an agreement between the states that migrants were to be registered on first arrival in the EU? So that it could be determined later which country they would be sent back to.

Anyway, this is a bit of a red herring, the rules and their implementation keep changing. And migrants are in theory free to wander through the Schengen area because "free movement of people". Except for "temporary border controls" which keep popping up, and get renewed for "just another few months". The whole thing is a mess.
None of it can work until the EU secures its external borders.

recedite

On the subject of the EU securing its external borders, has anybody noticed the Irish Navy seems to have quietly discontinued its Libya-Italy ferry service?
There has been no mention of another ship going out there after the last rotation. Have they run out of diesel?

Or maybe something to do with this....

European Union leaders are meeting in Malta to discuss how to stem the influx of migrants from North Africa.
Boosting the Libyan coastguard and tackling people smugglers are the main proposals.

Maybe somebody in Europe had a word with our navy; "Thanks lads, you've done great work, but I think we have enough migrants now. Haven't you got the Atlantic Ocean to patrol..."

alastair

recedite wrote: »

Right, but was there not an agreement between the states that migrants were to be registered on first arrival in the EU? So that it could be determined later which country they would be sent back to.

An agreement that has no legal bearing on where an asylum seeker might register.

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

A migrant can enter Ireland on a tourist visa and claim asylum provided they used their real name and nationality on the visa application and for their asylum claim .

They don't need a tourist visa. They don't need any visa. They can arrive entirely illegally and still attain refugees status. Most of them don't have any tourist visa. Clearly a real name and nationality need to be established before declaring someone a refugee.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

An agreement that has no legal bearing on where an asylum seeker might register.

So you admit that the Dublin agreement placed an obligation to register the asylum seeker on the first EU state they arrived in.

But you're saying the asylum seekers themselves had no legal obligation to comply with the Dublin agreement.

Its a very weasely argument. The asylum seeker is required to do what they are told by the host state, otherwise they don't get the freebies.
If unregistered, they become an illegal immigrant, not an asylum seeker.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

So you admit that the Dublin agreement placed an obligation to register the asylum seeker on the first EU state they arrived in.

ehh, I'm saying the agreement doesn't apply to asylum seekers. There's nothing in it for them to comply with.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

So you admit that the Dublin agreement placed an obligation to register the asylum seeker on the first EU state they arrived in.

I see you're determined to keep peddling this lie.

If you were so convinced that it's true, you'd think that by now you'd have been able to find something in the text of the Regulation itself to back it up - but you can't, because it's not true.

Put up or shut up: quote the text of the Regulation that supports your claim, or stop lying about it.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

The asylum seeker is required to do what they are told by the host state

Within law, sure. But they don't have to make the host state the first EU state they arrive in.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

ehh, I'm saying the agreement doesn't apply to asylum seekers. There's nothing in it for them to comply with.

That's a ridiculously weasely statement.
The regulation applies to asylum seekers,applied by EU states.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

That's a ridiculously weasely statement.
The regulation appliesd to asylum seekers by EU states.

Put up or shut up. Quote the Regulation.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

That's a ridiculously weasely statement.
The regulation applies to asylum seekers, by EU states.

It imposes obligations on EU states - not on asylum seekers. Nothing weasely about it.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

They don't need a tourist visa. They don't need any visa. They can arrive entirely illegally and still attain refugees status. Most of them don't have any tourist visa. Clearly a real name and nationality need to be established before declaring someone a refugee.

They can provided they have not been fingerprinted in a visa application for an EU country . Ireland only requires fingerprints for applicants from Nigeria,Pakistan and China so its still open for them .You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you .
There are so many ways to scam entry hardly surprising many object to the present asylum process .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

They can provided they have not been fingerprinted in a visa application for an EU country . Ireland only requires fingerprints for applicants from Nigeria,Pakistan and China so its still open for them .You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you .

Sure - you can only apply for asylum the once in the EU. Nothing to do with the Dublin regulations though. All asylum seekers are fingerprinted.

Of course you can be deported without providing a name or nationality. Literally thousands of false identity applicants are rejected and either deported or leave of their valition.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Sure - you can only apply for asylum the once in the EU. Nothing to do with the Dublin regulations though. All asylum seekers are fingerprinted.

Of course you can be deported without providing a name or nationality. Literally thousands of false identity applicants are rejected and either deported or leave of their valition.

Got a link and where would they deport them if authorities cannot find their nationality or their home country refuses to accept them .??

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Got a link and where would they deport them ??

Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

'You must be truthful at all times in the information you provide in connection with your application. If you are not, it may lead to a finding that your application is manifestly unfounded. In such circumstances, you would have a shorter period within which to appeal and any appeal you might make would be dealt with without an oral hearing.'

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/asylum_seekers_and_refugees/the_asylum_process_in_ireland/rights_and_obligations_of_asylum_seekers_in_ireland.html

Your link now .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

'You must be truthful at all times in the information you provide in connection with your application. If you are not, it may lead to a finding that your application is manifestly unfounded. In such circumstances, you would have a shorter period within which to appeal and any appeal you might make would be dealt with without an oral hearing.'

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/asylum_seekers_and_refugees/the_asylum_process_in_ireland/rights_and_obligations_of_asylum_seekers_in_ireland.html

Your link now .

Ehh, that's nothing to do with what you've been asked for.

Again:

Got a link to a singular failed asylum seeker that's successfully refusing to leave the state?

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, that's nothing to do with what you've been asked for.

Again:

Link to show procedure in Ireland or lack of .

http://www.nascireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Karen-Berkeley.pdf


http://brophysolicitors.ie/spotlight-on-irelands-flawed-asylum-and-protection-procedures-at-ucd-conference-for-world-refugee-day/

Links show procedure in the UK for stateless persons .

http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/proving-statelessness-evidential-issues-refused-asylum-seekers

The link below shows a case of an asylum seeker with 17 convictions who cannot be deported .

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1714137/asylum-seeker-convicted-of-17-offences-cant-be-deported-because-no-country-will-accept-him/


Those in the appeals process and such cases are not discussed in public media until an outcome .
They would have a better chance to fake their name and nationality .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Link to show procedure in Ireland or lack of .

http://www.nascireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Karen-Berkeley.pdf


http://brophysolicitors.ie/spotlight-on-irelands-flawed-asylum-and-protection-procedures-at-ucd-conference-for-world-refugee-day/

Links show procedure in the UK for stateless persons .

http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/proving-statelessness-evidential-issues-refused-asylum-seekers

Again - not what was asked for.

rgossip30 wrote: »

The link below shows a case of an asylum seeker with 17 convictions who cannot be deported .

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1714137/asylum-seeker-convicted-of-17-offences-cant-be-deported-because-no-country-will-accept-him/

Well I suppose this is something, even if it's a different State and a different context to the one you claimed. It's not really pertinent as the man's name and nationality are known. The issue in this case is a reluctance by his home nation to take him back. Nothing coming up in this State then? Seems pretty strange if it's as cut and dried a strategy as you suggested.