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

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Again - not what was asked for.



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.

The cut and dry remark was about the Dublin 3 regulation remember pay attention ,as you can see from the links it is not and exceptions are made . You want to ignore the links , why are they even discussing if its not a problem ? No links are available to actual cases in Ireland at present . I said before one would reasonably assume that if its happening in other EU countries why is Ireland different . .I would not expect there to be given that it would encourage others . I fail to see any reason to continue with this . I suggest you continue yourself if really interests you that much .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

The cut and dry remark was about the Dublin 3 regulation remember pay attention ,as you can see from the links it is not and exceptions are made . You want to ignore the links , why are they even discussing if its not a problem ? No links are available to actual cases I said that before .I would not expect there to be given that it would encourage others . I fail to see any reason to continue with this . I suggest you continue yourself if really interests you that much .

Oh, I'm paying attention alright. I'm ignoring the links that have nothing to do with the claim made:

You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you

To which I asked:

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

Now, unless you can find an instance of that 'refusal to give name or nationality, and yet won't leave the state' asylum seeker, I think it's fair to say that you've been caught out in a bit of interweb bluster.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Oh, I'm paying attention alright. I'm ignoring the links that have nothing to do with the claim made:



To which I asked:


Now, unless you can find an instance of that 'refusal to give name or nationality, and yet won't leave the state' asylum seeker, I think it's fair to say that you've been caught out in a bit of interweb bluster.

You need a link to prove the contrary . You are fully aware at this time no cases are public in Ireland but are in the EU . Please stop pestering !

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

You need to prove the contrary .

No I don't. You made the claim. Up to you to prove it on the basis of evidence.

None so far.

The reason? It's a nonsensical claim.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

No I don't. You made the claim. Up to you to prove it on the basis of evidence.

None so far.

The reason? It's a nonsensical claim.

A link which refers to the EU problem of returning African migrants with no passports and countries that refuse to accept them .
The numbers are far greater .No it could not happen here ! You give a false name and say you are from a country that does not accept asylum seekers .

Do you think you could stop now !


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315183/Migrant-summit-chaos-African-countries-REFUSE-Europe-s-failed-asylum-seekers.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

alastair

alastair wrote: »

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.

That's not entirely true.

There are countless debates on Boards where various people initially claimed all these people were refugees.

And, no, I'm not trawling four or five different threads to find the relevant posts.
I haven't heard that claim in quite some time, apart from the claims re. Calais residents.

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.

I agree about the political decision.

However, I've actually been trying to find out whether all these Calais jungle residents could have initially applied for asylum in Britain from Calais, since Britain has a Border force in Calais which regularly stops migrants from entering Britain.
The Border Force is a subdivision of the Home Office, and clearly operates Immigration control from Calais.

Now, we know that Britain has given asylum to some of the Jungle residents, meaning the Border Force presumably assessed these people in Calais. Meaning it was possible to apply for asylum from Calais.Which begs a whole lot of questions.....

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not entirely true.

There are countless debates on Boards where various people initially claimed all these people were refugees.

And, no, I'm not trawling four or five different threads to find the relevant posts.
I haven't heard that claim in quite some time, apart from the claims re. Calais residents.

That's not particularly persuasive tbh. I can certainly recall threads where it was claimed none of the people travellling through Europe were refugees, on account of illegal entry, trying to get to Germany, etc, and there were people, like myself, who were pointing out that they were just as legitimate asylum seekers as the people stuck in Turkey, a Jordan etc. I don't recall anyone insisting that every migrant was likely to attain asylum status.

rgossip30

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I've actually been trying to find out whether all these Calais jungle residents could have initially applied for asylum in Britain from Calais, since Britain has a Border force in Calais which regularly stops migrants from entering Britain.
The Border Force is a subdivision of the Home Office, and clearly operates Immigration control from Calais.

Now, we know that Britain has given asylum to some of the Jungle residents, meaning the Border Force presumably assessed these people in Calais. Meaning it was possible to apply for asylum from Calais.Which begs a whole lot of questions.....

I saw a TV program on the border force in Calais about the migrants they find in the lorries . When they don't give name and nationality they are sent back to France . When they do give name and nationality they are treated as asylum seekers .The officer interviewed said most likely they are deported so the reason for not disclosing nationality .

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

I saw a TV program on the border force in Calais about the migrants they find in the lorries . When they don't give name and nationality they are sent back to France . When they do give name and nationality they are transferred to the UK as asylum seekers .

Thanks. I've read articles about how the French police take them off the lorries, and let them go. I've read that the Border force takes the illegal migrants, and deposits them at a bus stop or train station.

What I cannot find is evidence of when when, exactly, the Border Force was able to grant asylum in Britain to the jungle residents.

I'd love to watch that program. PM a link, if you have one, please?

Because I have a horrible suspicion that a lot of the Calais "refugees" that we are taking are not "refugees" as per the Geneva Convention - especially since the Border Force compound is legally British soil, as I understand it....I'm open to correction on that, but that's the impression I get...

rgossip30

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks. I've read articles about how the French police take them off the lorries, and let them go. I've read that the Border force takes the illegal migrants, and deposits them at a bus stop or train station.

What I cannot find is evidence of when when, exactly, the Border Force was able to grant asylum in Britain to the jungle residents.

I'd love to watch that program. PM a link, if you have one, please?

Because I have a horrible suspicion that a lot of the Calais "refugees" that we are taking are not "refugees" as per the Geneva Convention - especially since the Border Force compound is legally British soil, as I understand it....I'm open to correction on that, but that's the impression I get...

I found this, its the same program but is possibly a shorter version .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6Jjat9iD8

recedite

rgossip30 wrote: »

I found this, its the same program but is possibly a shorter version .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6Jjat9iD8

It all seems very polite. I suppose if there is a roughly 50% chance of getting caught inside the lorry, then statistically they would expect to get through on the second attempt.

rgossip30

recedite wrote: »

It all seems very polite. I suppose if there is a roughly 50% chance of getting caught inside the lorry, then statistically they would expect to get through on the second attempt.

The links I have looked at show a lot of disagreement on the Le Touquet treaty and nothing recent .

The links below are recent and show a limited number of minors were accepted by the UK .



http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Migrant+Crisis/Calais+Migrant+Crisis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11179302/French-riot-police-in-battle-with-Calais-migrants-in-pictures.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/09/home-office-transfers-of-calais-child-refugees-to-uk-cease

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

A link which refers to the EU problem of returning African migrants with no passports and countries that refuse to accept them .
The numbers are far greater .No it could not happen here ! You give a false name and say you are from a country that does not accept asylum seekers .

Do you think you could stop now !


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315183/Migrant-summit-chaos-African-countries-REFUSE-Europe-s-failed-asylum-seekers.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

Still no joy then?

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Still no joy then?

I have now asked you to stop pursuing this for the purpose of tormenting .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

I have now asked you to stop pursuing this for the purpose of tormenting .

Just waiting for the retraction of an unfounded claim then, and we can all move on.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Just waiting for the retraction of an unfounded claim then, and we can all move on.

.I just said it was likely given that other EU countries are experiencing the problem .This was shown in links .
I fail to see why I should retract on an issue that's a possibility in Ireland .
That no publicity exists on this at present does not make it ridiculous .
You have not shown a link to show otherwise .
You seem determined to harass on this .I can move on .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

.I just said it was likely given that other EU countries are experiencing the problem .This was shown in links .
I fail to see why I should retract on an issue that's a possibility .You have not shown a link to show otherwise .
You seem determined to harass on this .

Because it's nonsense, and nonsense deserves calling out. I'm sure you're a lovely fellah, but the claim is ridiculous.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Because it's nonsense, and nonsense deserves calling out. I'm sure you're a lovely fellah, but the claim is ridiculous.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it .Now can you stop the repeated harassment .

johnnyskeleton

alastair wrote: »

Because it's nonsense, and nonsense deserves calling out. I'm sure you're a lovely fellah, but the claim is ridiculous.

rgossip30 wrote: »

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it .Now can you stop the repeated harassment .

Mod note:

Please stop this off topic low standards bickering.

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

I found this, its the same program but is possibly a shorter version .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6Jjat9iD8

Thank you very much. I'll take a look at it tomorrow.

rgossip30

An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

See below .

There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

All the best,
Cathal

Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie |

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

See below .

There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

All the best,
Cathal

Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie |

Well done on trying your best. This doesn't do a thing to support your claim however:

You can also refuse to give a name and nationality likely the application will fail but they can't deport you

johnnyskeleton

rgossip30 wrote: »

An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

See below .

There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

All the best,
Cathal

Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie |

alastair wrote: »

Well done on trying your best. This doesn't do a thing to support your claim however:

Mod note:

I warned you both that this was bickering and off topic. The thread is about the age of the child refugees i.e. whether they are children or not. This issue you are arguing over, i.e. whether someone can avoid deportation by refusing to give their name or nationality, is neither here nor there.

Final warning. If either of you posts in this off topic way any more it will be a ban.

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

An official email sent from the Department of Justice and Equality, on the non return of failed asylum seekers .

See below .

There have been cases where a country will not accept the return of a failed asylum seeker.

However, for security and confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose any further information in relation to this matter.

All the best,
Cathal

Cathal Redmond | Press & Communications Office| Department of Justice and Equality,
51 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, D02 HK52 |* cxredmond@justice.ie | ( +353-1-602-8712 [[URL="http://www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie"]www.justice.ie]www.justice.ie[/URL] |

Fair play to you. At least you got a reply, even if it wasn't comprehensive, or informative. I've yet to receive an acknowledgement, much less a reply, from Katherine Zappone.

rgossip30

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair play to you. At least you got a reply, even if it wasn't comprehensive, or informative. I've yet to receive an acknowledgement, much less a reply, from Katherine Zappone.

The shroud of secrecy still would like to see how these 'children ' develop after 10 years .

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

The shroud of secrecy still would like to see how these 'children ' develop after 10 years .

Tbh, I'd be more interested in finding out how we managed to get 200 children, out of a total of 1600, somewhere between 320, and 640 of whom are likely to be granted asylum in the UK.

If we split the difference between the Home Office, and the various charities estimates, since one is likely to be overestimating the numbers, and the other is likely to be a conservative estimate, we come to a figure of 500, likely to be granted asylum in the UK.

That leaves 900.

Meaning we're taking 22% of the remainder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/last-group-of-calais-refugee-children-evacuated-from-camp/

Nearly 700 child migrants from the now-demolished Calais migrants camp could be given asylum in Britain, according to charities. Four in 10 of 1,600 children bussed out of the remains of the camp yesterday[wed] say that they have relatives in the UK, and Whitehall sources suggested that as many as half could successfully claim asylum.
Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has said that "several hundred" will come but Home Office sources denied that Britain will take half of them.

The other interesting little nugget is a census, taken in June 2016.

http://www.helprefugees.org.uk/news/new-calais-census-released-700-children-in-calais-78-on-their-own/

Help Refugees and L'Auberge des Migrants conducted a recent census on the Calais "Jungle" and found that there are currently 6,123 people living in the refugee camp, with numbers constantly rising.

We found that 700 are children, 78% of whom are unaccompanied. The youngest child in the camp is just four months old and the youngest unaccompanied minor is ten years old. The 544 unaccompanied children in the camp are now eligible for resettlement in the UK under Dubs Amendment
There are over 20 different nationalities in the refugee community. The largest groups are from Afghanistan (36%) and Sudan (32%), with 5% coming from Ethiopia and 3% from Syria.

So, between June and November, numbers of children in the camp apparently rose by 900, an increase of over 128%.


Even more to the point, if there were only 544 unaccompanied children in June - how many of the 1600 who were removed from the camp in November were unaccompanied minors? Because taking the original census figure of 78%, in the absence of any more recent information, that would be 1248.
Take approx. 500 out of that figure for those who will gain asylum in the UK, and there are 748 remaining.
Even if we accept the most conservative home office figure of 320, we're still left with 928 unaccompanied minors.

So how, in the name of God, did we end up with 200 of them?

The other very interesting nugget was the fact that there were over 20 Nationalities in the camp.
Yet we are expected to believe, or blindly accept, that each of these Nationalities qualify for refugee status?

Does. Not. Compute.

rgossip30

I wonder how many will look for family reunification when they have refugee status . ?

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

I wonder how many will look for family reunification when they have refugee status . ?

It's a pretty narrow window of opportunity for most of them, if they're 17. You can only apply for reunification with your parents if you're under 18 and have your refugee status confirmed (a process that's still taking at least a year). So, unless they're married minors or have kids, there's not much chance that they have qualifying family.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

It's a pretty narrow window of opportunity for most of them, if they're 17. You can only apply for reunification with your parents if you're under 18 and have your refugee status confirmed (a process that's still taking at least a year). So, unless they're married minors or have kids, there's not much chance that they have qualifying family.

Got a link for your claim ?

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Got a link for your claim ?

(9) In this section and section 57 , “member of the family” means, in relation to the sponsor—

(a) where the sponsor is married, his or her spouse (provided that the marriage is subsisting on the date the sponsor made an application for international protection in the State),

(b) where the sponsor is a civil partner, his or her civil partner (provided that the civil partnership is subsisting on the date the sponsor made an application for international protection in the State),

(c) where the sponsor is, on the date of the application under subsection (1) under the age of 18 years and is not married, his or her parents and their children who, on the date of the application under subsection (1), are under the age of 18 years and are not married, or

(d) a child of the sponsor who, on the date of the application under subsection (1), is under the age of 18 years and is not married.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/66/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/66/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56

Still remains to be seen how many will apply for family reunification the option is there .They will have access to lawyers to assist in this .
They are refereed to as unaccompanied minors and not orphans so a family/relatives are likely to exist .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Still remains to be seen how many will apply for family reunification the option is there .They will have access to lawyers to assist in this .

Lawers assisting them doesn't change the clear limited options available to them if they're about to turn 18. It doesn't matter what family they have if that family are excluded from the legal criteria for reunification.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/66/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56

(9) In this section and section 57 , “member of the family” means, in relation to the sponsor—

(a) where the sponsor is married, his or her spouse (provided that the marriage is subsisting on the date the sponsor made an application for international protection in the State),

(b) where the sponsor is a civil partner, his or her civil partner (provided that the civil partnership is subsisting on the date the sponsor made an application for international protection in the State),

(c) where the sponsor is, on the date of the application under subsection (1) under the age of 18 years and is not married, his or her parents and their children who, on the date of the application under subsection (1), are under the age of 18 years and are not married, or

(d) a child of the sponsor who, on the date of the application under subsection (1), is under the age of 18 years and is not married.

Hmm. A quote from Zappone.

http://www.thejournal.ie/calais-resettlement-ireland-3179600-Jan2017/

In addition to that, Túsla and my department have been working very hard to first of agree on the legal status they will have when they come and secondly then the kind of supports they will require, especially accomodation.

From the same link:

A spokesperson for independents in government said that any additional money needed will be made available from savings found in the Department of Children.
The spokesperson also said that when the migrant children turn 18 they will receive the same supports available to children in State care who turn 18.
It’s understood that once the children turn 18 they can remain in Ireland or they may decide to move on if they choose.

Meaning these minors are to be, or have been granted, as a bare minimum, subsidiary protection - but that quote strongly suggests that their refugee status has already been granted, or is to be fast-tracked.

Or:

The other option,(quite likely, imo), is that these minors are to be treated as "programme refugees"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/66/section/59/enacted/en/html#sec59

59. (1) In this section, and subject to subsection (4), a “programme refugee” means a person to whom permission to enter and remain in the State for resettlement, or for temporary protection other than temporary protection provided for in section 60 , has been given by the Government or the Minister and whose name is entered in a register established and maintained by the Minister, whether or not such person is a refugee within the meaning of the definition of “refugee” in section 2 .


(2) During such period as he or she is entitled to remain in the State pursuant to permission given by the Government or the Minister referred to in subsection (1), sections 53 to 55 shall apply to a programme refugee as if the programme refugee is a qualified person with the modification that a permission given under section 54 may be for a specified period of less than 3 years.

(3) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, enter into agreements with the High Commissioner for the reception and resettlement in the State of programme refugees.

(4) (a) A person who, on the date on which this section enters into operation, is a programme refugee within the meaning of section 24 of the Act of 1996, shall be deemed to be a programme refugee for the purposes of this section.

(b) An entry in the register referred to in section 24(1) of the Act of 1996 in respect of a person to whom paragraph (a) applies shall be deemed to be an entry in respect of him or her in the register referred to in subsection (1).

Either option makes this comment from you a lot less certain:

alastair wrote: »

It's a pretty narrow window of opportunity for most of them, if they're 17. You can only apply for reunification with your parents if you're under 18 and have your refugee status confirmed (a process that's still taking at least a year). So, unless they're married minors or have kids, there's not much chance that they have qualifying family.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Meaning these minors are to be, or have been granted, as a bare minimum, subsidiary protection - but that quote strongly suggests that their refugee status has already been granted, or is to be fast-tracked.

The linked quotes suggest that no status has yet been established, let alone granted. Which means that they will have to go through a process. Even the 'fast-track' refugee status process is supposed to take a year. Which, if you're 17, is not going to allow for family reunification.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

The linked quotes suggest that no status has yet been established, let alone granted. Which means that they will have to go through a process. Even the 'fast-track' refugee status process is supposed to take a year. Which, if you're 17, is not going to allow for family reunification.

Unless, of course, you're already classed as a programme refugee:

59. (1) In this section, and subject to subsection (4), a “programme refugee” means a person to whom permission to enter and remain in the State for resettlement, or for temporary protection other than temporary protection provided for in section 60 , has been given by the Government or the Minister and whose name is entered in a register established and maintained by the Minister, whether or not such person is a refugee within the meaning of the definition of “refugee” in section 2 .


(2) During such period as he or she is entitled to remain in the State pursuant to permission given by the Government or the Minister referred to in subsection (1), sections 53 to 55 shall apply to a programme refugee as if the programme refugee is a qualified person with the modification that a permission given under section 54 may be for a specified period of less than 3 years.

(3) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, enter into agreements with the High Commissioner for the reception and resettlement in the State of programme refugees.

(4) (a) A person who, on the date on which this section enters into operation, is a programme refugee within the meaning of section 24 of the Act of 1996, shall be deemed to be a programme refugee for the purposes of this section.

(b) An entry in the register referred to in section 24(1) of the Act of 1996 in respect of a person to whom paragraph (a) applies shall be deemed to be an entry in respect of him or her in the register referred to in subsection (1).

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless, of course, you're already classed as a programme refugee:

Which, as your Zappone quote confirms - they have not already been.

troll_a_roll

I don't believe the Calais children are really children.
I'm basing that opinion on the experience of the UK, where the UK Home Office was humiliated by having to admit that many of their supposed children are in fact adults. It has also been the case in Germany and Sweden.


I don't agree with Zappone on this issue. Ireland should not put itself into a position where Ireland makes the same mistake as the UK made as public support for refugees could evaporate. We wouldn't be able to help anybody then.


Many people consider the people in Calais to be criminal migrants, not refugees. It is damaging to public opinion to champion the cause of the Calais children over the cause of other, perhaps more deserving, people.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Lawers assisting them doesn't change the clear limited options available to them if they're about to turn 18. It doesn't matter what family they have if that family are excluded from the legal criteria for reunification.

Their exact age cannot be verified so they will say they are younger .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Their exact age cannot be verified so they will say they are younger .

A bit late for that - the ages of the minors in question are already stated as "All of these young people are teenage boys aged 16 or 17".

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

A bit late for that - the ages of the minors in question are already stated as "All of these young people are teenage boys aged 16 or 17".

So they have 1-2 years to make the application . remember the word may in the legislation .

56. (1) A qualified person (in this section referred to as the “sponsor”) may, subject to subsection (8), make an application to the Minister for permission to be given to a member of the family of the sponsor to enter and reside in the State.

(7) The Minister may refuse to give permission to enter and reside in the State to a person referred to in subsection (4) or revoke any permission given to such a person—

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

So they have 1-2 years to make the application . remember the word may in the legislation

Only if they have been granted refugee status - and no-one is getting fast-tracked in less than a year - in fact, no asylum seeker has yet been fast-tracked within that timeframe, so you'd need to be 16, and have the process work at a pace that's not been managed to date. As I say - it's too narrow a window for most.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Only if they have been granted refugee status - and no-one is getting fast-tracked in less than a year - in fact, no asylum seeker has yet been fast-tracked within that timeframe, so you'd need to be 16, and have the process work at a pace that's not been managed to date. As I say - it's too narrow a window for most.

Once again got proof .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

Once again got proof .

Of what?

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Of what?

The time frame for a declaration of refugee status will be greater than a year for these unaccompanied minors .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

The time frame for a declaration of refugee status is greater than a year .

Because if there was any success of fast-tracking applications, you'd have heard about it from ORAC. The clearance rates indicated in their monthly reports haven't really shifted in the last year.

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/orac-stats_16-en

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Because if there was any success of fast-tracking applications, you'd have heard about it from ORAC. The clearance rates indicated in their monthly reports haven't really shifted in the last year.

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/orac-stats_16-en

When 90% are bogus claims it does rather clog up the process .

These unaccompanied minors are different and no information appears available .
I would think one needs to wait and see .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

These unaccompanied minors are different and no information appears available .
I would think one needs to wait and see .

There's no evidence that they're different to any other unaccompanied minors already in the system.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Which, as your Zappone quote confirms - they have not already been.

Why would Zappone need to enter negotiations?

She can already bring the Calais migrants in as "programme refugees", irrespective of their status under normal refugee criteria.

Therefore, the only reason she would have for negotiating is to obtain either "full" refugee status, or to alter the time frame that these lads would be allowed to stay.

This quote suggests that she wants them to acquire full residency rights by the time they are 18:

A spokesperson for independents in government said that any additional money needed will be made available from savings found in the Department of Children.
The spokesperson also said that when the migrant children turn 18 they will receive the same supports available to children in State care who turn 18.
It’s understood that once the children turn 18 they can remain in Ireland or they may decide to move on if they choose.

Therefore, my original opinion still stands.
These lads will be allowed to apply for family re-unification. In fact, as "programme refugees, which would be the already existing legislative option given the circumstances in which they have been allowed entry to Ireland - they already can.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would Zappone need to enter negotiations

Zappone has stated that the status of the minors has still to be determined - no matter how hard you try, you can't spin that into a suggestion that it has. Therefore they will need to go through a process of some sort.

Deleted User wrote: »

These lads will be allowed to apply for family re-unification.

Of course they will, assuming they get refugee status. But once they're over 18, only for their spouses and children they had at the time of their processing. Unless you reckon these minors have either of those currently on the go, that would be a pointless exercise.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Zappone has stated that the status of the minors has still to be determined - no matter how hard you try, you can't spin that into a suggestion that it has. Therefore they will need to go through a process of some sort.

Right. So, you're saying Zappone is basically inviting 200 people into this Country - and they've accepted that invitation - despite having refused to apply for asylum in France - based on having no legal status, whatsoever?

These lads have managed to make their way to Calais, familiarise themselves with Immigration legislation, work out that they probably wouldn't qualify for asylum in France - but you're saying they came here with no guarantees?
I don't believe that for one second.

Show me a link that proves Zappone has stated the status of the minors still has to be determined?

Because they are already legally entitled to be classed as "programme refugees", since they came here by way of an invitation by the Minister.

If Zappone is negotiating on their behalf - it is because she wants to improve the conditions. Family re-unification is part and parcel of the rights they already have as programme refugee minors.