Calais transfer.
Discussion
News reports have suggested that the majority of the unaccompanied children taken in so far are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Sudan. Now no one can say that these countries are pleasant places to live in right now but surely Syria should be the priority at the moment. A better use of resources would be to take in orphan kids directly from the refugee camps surrounding Syria. Those from Afghanistan etc should claim asylum in France or be sent back to parts of their country which are safe - we've spent billions in Afghanistan to make it more stable and the Afghan government, who we still give lots of money to, should take responsibility for these kids.
BlackLabel said:
News reports have suggested that the majority of the unaccompanied children taken in so far are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Sudan. Now no one can say that these countries are pleasant places to live in right now but surely Syria should be the priority at the moment. A better use of resources would be to take in orphan kids directly from the refugee camps surrounding Syria. Those from Afghanistan etc should claim asylum in France or be sent back to parts of their country which are safe - we've spent billions in Afghanistan to make it more stable and the Afghan government, who we still give lots of money to, should take responsibility for these kids.
The likes of UAE and Saudi could always step in and help a few of their fellow Arabs as well. Not as if they haven't got the space or resources.
BlackLabel said:
News reports have suggested that the majority of the unaccompanied children taken in so far are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Sudan. Now no one can say that these countries are pleasant places to live in right now but surely Syria should be the priority at the moment. A better use of resources would be to take in orphan kids directly from the refugee camps surrounding Syria. Those from Afghanistan etc should claim asylum in France or be sent back to parts of their country which are safe - we've spent billions in Afghanistan to make it more stable and the Afghan government, who we still give lots of money to, should take responsibility for these kids.
Aren't we only taking children from the Calais camp who already have family in the UK, rather than just taking any children? That's the implication, if we're doing it under the Dublin agreements.rscott said:
Aren't we only taking children from the Calais camp who already have family in the UK, rather than just taking any children? That's the implication, if we're doing it under the Dublin agreements.
You're correct, my mistake I didn't spot this first time round - they must have direct family links in Britain which I suppose is why there are a disproportionate number of kids from certain countries and so few Syrians.BlackLabel said:
The Crack Fox said:
Maybe mentioned already, but that guy is a translator, not one of the "children" coming over, according to a paper I saw somewhere.
The charity who started the rumour that this guy was a translator are now backtracking on their earlier statement.
As I said in my above post, TACT now added to my list of 'DON'T GIVE TO' charities.
Did you get that, Mr CeO of TACT Andy Elvin.
TACT have an income of over £23M a year. Well, I ain't adding a penny to it.
Question
Once a "child" is here in the UK, if someone rocks up in Calais and claims to be the child's parent what will happen
a, The child will be returned to Calais to be reunited with their parent, or
b, the "parent" is allowed to come to the UK to be with their child?
Standby for thousands of adults claiming to be parents of these kids...
Once a "child" is here in the UK, if someone rocks up in Calais and claims to be the child's parent what will happen
a, The child will be returned to Calais to be reunited with their parent, or
b, the "parent" is allowed to come to the UK to be with their child?
Standby for thousands of adults claiming to be parents of these kids...
Its mental.
I can agree with the argument that the UK has a level of responsibility where it has intervened in another country and played an active hand in causing the situation (e.g Syria), but the taking on of 40 year old children who are economic migrants has to be controlled.
Ultimately the state has a responsibility to those that support it. Like most local councils, big govt seems to have got far to involved in all sorts of stuff that is far removed from the basics.
I can agree with the argument that the UK has a level of responsibility where it has intervened in another country and played an active hand in causing the situation (e.g Syria), but the taking on of 40 year old children who are economic migrants has to be controlled.
Ultimately the state has a responsibility to those that support it. Like most local councils, big govt seems to have got far to involved in all sorts of stuff that is far removed from the basics.
There was some 
from one of these do gooder charities on the TV yesterday who was asked about the stats detailing that so far, one in 5 of the so called unaccompanied minors allowed into UK has been proven to be an adult.
His response was amazing." The home office procedures are extremely robust....etc etc"
Robust? How the fk are these people allowed to run orgainsations and be in charge of cheque books when they think a system with a 20% failure rate is fking "robust".
They're living in a fking dream world. None of them have ever had a proper job, and hence they have no clue. They're just utter s.
from one of these do gooder charities on the TV yesterday who was asked about the stats detailing that so far, one in 5 of the so called unaccompanied minors allowed into UK has been proven to be an adult. His response was amazing." The home office procedures are extremely robust....etc etc"
Robust? How the f
k are these people allowed to run orgainsations and be in charge of cheque books when they think a system with a 20% failure rate is fking "robust". They're living in a f
king dream world. None of them have ever had a proper job, and hence they have no clue. They're just utter s. rscott said:
BlackLabel said:
News reports have suggested that the majority of the unaccompanied children taken in so far are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Sudan. Now no one can say that these countries are pleasant places to live in right now but surely Syria should be the priority at the moment. A better use of resources would be to take in orphan kids directly from the refugee camps surrounding Syria. Those from Afghanistan etc should claim asylum in France or be sent back to parts of their country which are safe - we've spent billions in Afghanistan to make it more stable and the Afghan government, who we still give lots of money to, should take responsibility for these kids.
Aren't we only taking children from the Calais camp who already have family in the UK, rather than just taking any children? That's the implication, if we're doing it under the Dublin agreements.Mr Snrub said:
BlackLabel said:
News reports have suggested that the majority of the unaccompanied children taken in so far are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Sudan. Now no one can say that these countries are pleasant places to live in right now but surely Syria should be the priority at the moment. A better use of resources would be to take in orphan kids directly from the refugee camps surrounding Syria. Those from Afghanistan etc should claim asylum in France or be sent back to parts of their country which are safe - we've spent billions in Afghanistan to make it more stable and the Afghan government, who we still give lots of money to, should take responsibility for these kids.
The likes of UAE and Saudi could always step in and help a few of their fellow Arabs as well. Not as if they haven't got the space or resources.thole Saudi is with 99% of the population living in slums.jesusbuiltmycar said:
Mr Snrub said:
BlackLabel said:
News reports have suggested that the majority of the unaccompanied children taken in so far are from Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Sudan. Now no one can say that these countries are pleasant places to live in right now but surely Syria should be the priority at the moment. A better use of resources would be to take in orphan kids directly from the refugee camps surrounding Syria. Those from Afghanistan etc should claim asylum in France or be sent back to parts of their country which are safe - we've spent billions in Afghanistan to make it more stable and the Afghan government, who we still give lots of money to, should take responsibility for these kids.
The likes of UAE and Saudi could always step in and help a few of their fellow Arabs as well. Not as if they haven't got the space or resources.thole Saudi is with 99% of the population living in slums.Digga said:
If you read the history of the area, you realise how the conflicts and divisions we see today are basically the same as a century or so back, but with the added turmoil of successive Western intervention. And then you realise that, sadly, achieving what we might consider peace and civilisation in that region is going to be incredibly complicated and, probably, not something we can do too much to influence without repeating past mistakes.
It's a rather depressing thought but I believe we will never see genuine peace in the Middle East any time soon. Yes the west have to take some blame for the current situation in Yemen, Iraq,Syria etc but ultimately it is conflicts between Shia,Sunni, Alawite etc and the various tribal/insurency groups such as Houthi and Hezzbollah
rscott said:
andymc said:
or sort out our own kids who are in vulnerable situations and are being exploited/raped/etc by immigrants
Only the ones exploited/raped/etc by immigrants? Do we leave the ones exploited/raped/etc by locals to suffer?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff