Unaccompanied migrant children ...I don't get it.

[gasbanni]

Heard it on the news today ......big issue.......My question ....how do unaccompanied migrant children transverse Europe from Greece. Food clothing shelter needed. How on earth have they managed to get across Europe.
They're in Europe so surely they're now safe why is GB the only safe destination, is Europe not safe ?

Just asking the question ......government taking them from Syria is correct in my opinion.

 

[jockscott]

Yep I agree. As far as I can make out, taking unaccompanied children from the "Jungle "in Calais, is fraught with danger... Suddenly the child will say his/ her, mother/ father/ uncle/ aunt are still in Calais and they have a right to a family life under EU rules. (same applies to the taking of unaccompanied children from Syria or any of the refugee camps bordering it) Before you know it, there's going to be thousands of refugees here and the ECHR will allow even more in.

 

[noseall]

Suddenly.....blah, blah, blah.....

Oh the drama!

 

[Himaginn]

UNICEF suggest that there are 12,000 such children already in EU. The UK, taking 3,000 is just doing its share.......if it decides to do its share.
Taking unaccompanied children from the migrant camps in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, etc, is additional to those 12,000 already in EU. It probably also allows the UK government to fudge the issue by muddling the data.

 

[Fire and Ice]

Why should we take these people at all? Why are they not in their own country fighting for their own land? Even their 14 year olds seem to enjoy violence.

 

[^woody^]

Link this in with a Judge's ruling last week that a person in Calais should be let in to the UK just because he has a sibling here already, and ponder on that for a moment.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35366425

smh

 

[Himaginn]

Link this in with a Judge's ruling last week that a person in Calais should be let in to the UK just because he has a sibling here already, and ponder on that for a moment.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35366425

smh

To be fair woody, their's is a special case as reported in the article:

The tribunal has, subject to conditions, ordered that four individuals, who claim to be refugees, should, in the particular circumstances of their cases, be allowed to enter the UK.

and it's no change from the rules as they stand:

Under European rules, known as Dublin III, asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first country they reach. Those who have a relative living legally in another European country do have a legal entitlement to then apply to seek asylum there, but only if they have already been processed by the first country.

The reason why the Tribunal became involved was because the UK Home Office denied them asylum even though they were entitled to it under existing rules.
Dublin 111 was drawn up in 2013.

 

[^woody^]

To be fair woody, their's is a special case as reported in the article:

I suspect that last week's special case is next week's precedent case.

 

[Himaginn]

It's the rules, and has been since 2013.

 

[^woody^]

It's the rules, and has been since 2013.

Oh. The legal people saying it's a landmark decision confused me.

 

[Fire and Ice]

The rules say that they are entitled to apply for entry... Where does it say that we have to let them in?

 

[fender]

The rules say that they are entitled to apply for entry... Where does it say that we have to let them in?

It doesn't and we shouldn't.

I suppose some of these are the same "children" that have been found to be lying about their ages?

 

[Himaginn]

The rules say that they are entitled to apply for entry... Where does it say that we have to let them in?

It doesn't and we shouldn't.

I suppose some of these are the same "children" that have been found to be lying about their ages?

Always think the worst of people. Tar them all with the dirtiest brush you can find. Any excuse will do. Doesn't matter if it's not accurate, you've sown the seeds of mistrust.

 

[fender]

The rules say that they are entitled to apply for entry... Where does it say that we have to let them in?

It doesn't and we shouldn't.

I suppose some of these are the same "children" that have been found to be lying about their ages?

Always think the worst of people. Tar them all with the dirtiest brush you can find. Any excuse will do. Doesn't matter if it's not accurate, you've sown the seeds of mistrust.

Blah blah blah.....

Think what you like Himmy,
I'm off to lose some sleep over it..

 

[Himaginn]

The rules say that they are entitled to apply for entry... Where does it say that we have to let them in?

Even though they are entitled to it?
That's the government ignoring their own rules, surely.