To think only 3 of the 15 migrant children look under 18

[AmyMiller]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3843900/amp/First-migrant-children-arrive-UK-Calais-French-prepare-raze-Jungle-camp-ground.html?client=safari

This is so ridiculous, many of them look around 25.

I feel distinctly uneasy about the lack of girls. Why on earth are they not being prioritised? They are much more vunlerabe

Yes, if you don't count being co-opted into being a fighter for Taliban/ISIS/Boko Haram/the Sudanese army/the Syrian army etc etc as making one 'vulnerable'. And of course once co-opted, they are enemy combatants so legitamate targets for hatred being shot.

Apart from one or two they look like teenagers to me.

Why do you assume everyone has the right to flee and demand that other countries support them Barbarianmum? By your logic the entire population of England in the early 1940s, suffering aerial bombardment and the threat of invasion, had the right to land in the US and insist that they be housed, employed, supported etc for ever.

Those who disappeared were successfully in education staff were devastated to lose them. God knows where they are now.

The "as far as you know" may be key. The refugees returned that I know were about 21 when they were forcibly repatriated. By the time all appeals have happened it can 3 or 4 years after the age of 18. Visas are NOT automatically extended.

I know refugees who have been illegally held in UK detention centers as they were believed to be a flight risk. There were freed after a threat of habeas corpus was threatened.

If they were given 'leave to remain' then they had evidence that their life was in danger if they returned. Perhaps we should send them back anyway?

I will recommend refugees I know move where you are, it seems the authorities are a lot more relaxed.

Shins - I hope you are never lonely, desperate or scared.
I hope logic always works and you never need compassion.

Rights are a human construct. The reality is that some people do flee when their lives are in danger. World War 2 saw the mass movements of people - some in the UK sent their children to the USA, some in Germany sent their children to the UK. The 'average' person in the UK was actually at pretty low risk of death during the war (soldiers excepted) compared say to being in Mosul or Aleppo today.

I would send my children away if I thought that was the best chance of their survival. Therefore I don't resent others for making the same choice. You can hand your underage son a gun and send him to do or die for the motherland/Caliphate/God if you want to. Young men are pretty disposable in most societies.

People don't demand that other countries support them - people offer help to those in desperate need:

We took in over 250,000 refugees in WW1.
In WW2, there was mass evacuation of children out of the cities. Many, people fled Germany and Poland to neighbouring countries, and there was of course the kindertransport.

I'm sure they're fine young men and will do well in education or employment, good luck to them.

But it does rather make a mockery of all the 'think of the children!' chat coming from some sections.

Think of the young men! Doesn't have the same meaning or impact.

shins, plenty of youngsters were evacuated to the US during WW2. My MIL was one of them. She never forgot the incredible generosity of the Americans.

There were initial plans for evacuating over 211 000 children overseas, but with the sinking of City of Benares by the Germans, and the death of 70 children, the plans came to a halt; but about 14000 had already left.

MIL was on one of the last ships that left: she always remembered how all the dockers in Liverpool lined the quay and waved and shouted "Goodbye, kiddies, good luck kiddies". They knew what had happened to the last ship.

As for internal evacuations, it is estimated that almost 3,75 million people were displaced in the UK. So no, the British did not sit around bravely allowing their children to be bombed to smithereens.

In WW1 250 000 Belgian refugees made it to Britain. That is over twice the number of estimated refugees living in the UK at the moment.

LyndaNotLinda

Source is my friends who work in Calais and most of the media

Offical sources say different though don't they..........

angryangryyoungwoman

Yes, as I said, your sources don't confirm that. It's your opinion.
And the video you posted is one video. Not a valid evidence source to back up your generalisations.

Would the head of Italian police be a viable source? In September 2015 1 in 3 of those who arrived in Italy refused to be identified.

The EU has said that Italy must change it's laws to force the identification of all migrants because obviously that is not happening at the moment. A quick google search will show you that you do know how to use google don't you?

Amalf - I am unclear what you are saying, that they are not refugees?

Assuming refugees do identify in Italy, does that abrogate us of all responsibility?

It only concerns us if the bodies wash up on our shore?

Clearly there will be girls that are taken in, but the daily mail are going to show as many men as possible so all of their readers start banging dustbin lids on their head

Do you really not think that the leftie papers would be showing photos of the opposite thing (ie very little children, and crowing about what a good deed we've done) if there were actually any of them??

The reason why nobody shows the genuine children is because there are none. They're all adult males fleeing, shamelessly leaving their women and children behind.

I am so confused reading back through thread about this strange logic of men fleeing war zones for their life as they are able to make the journey but the women and children and girls cant make the journey?

So if as some posters claim the women and children are supposed to join, after someone gets a foot hold in here...how do they get here?

I am struggling to understand why the war zone these men are fleeing is safer for the women - left un protected by men?

I'm very on the fence with this issue - at a recent evening out, I got chatting to a friend of a friend who is an emergency foster carer. They're having real issues with being asked to take in "teenage" migrants who very clearly are much older than they are stating, and she has to try and balance taking someone in whose had a horrid horrid time of it against the needs of her own teenager daughters. The process to establish their ages can take months due to the amount of strain on the system, and nearly always they are proved to be much older than they've stated. It's heartbreaking to think of anyone that's gone through losing everything they have and know, yet there are a lot of young men that know the system and are using and abusing it. I think we need to be so very very careful here, trying to help but at the same time not opening our homes and borders to those with malicious intent. I still can't help but think that as a world full of equal humans, we need to make THEIR homes and countries safe for them, rather than emptying them and just letting these insane terrorists and dictators get away with their behaviour.

If you'd been through that much trauma it might age you a tad too. Luckily for you you will likely never have to.

So some of these 'children' will end up in schools with actual children.

Does anyone really want a '14 year old' who is actually 25 in a class with their 13/14 year old daughter? I don't.

Also people could answer their own questions if they researched, got involved etc. There are only 2 unaccompanied children under 8 in the jungle! That would be why there aren't many pictures of very young children. If your children needed safe passage I'm sure so many of you would not flinch at sending your under 18 boys/men.

Musicinthe00sucks - Don't Hate Donate distribute to refugee camps in Syria and Uganda.

All systems will be gamed by the desperate and/or unscrupulous.

Unless you are against the system of asylum, it is bizarre to be arguing against applying its rules as fairly as possible.

If adult men are abusing soecual provisions for children, then it is right yo identify that and aim to end it.

Supporting the asylum system and wanting to prioritise those most at need is not racist.

There is something quite distyrbing to me about the people who claim not to be racust srgue un favoyr of policies that damage the peopke they clsim to help.

People more worried about the Calais jungle than the millions of refugees in camps across the middle east and Africa frighten me.

They seem more concerned about having the experience of doing "their stint" in Calais so they can boast about how good they are are thsn actually doing anything to make this horrendous and complicated situation better.

Werkzallhourz Mon 17-Oct-16 21:44:34

fascinating post thank you!

Would this 25 year old be OK with my 14 year old son?

Are all 25 year olds potential rapists?

Please be specific.

No.

However someone who looked 25 would be able to purchase age restricted products for your 14 yr old

Amalfimamma
I do know how to use Google, of course, I was engaging with you to verify what you were stating. Unfortunately, as you seem to be attempting to deflect this with insults, I will not be continuing with this direct communication between us as it has become obvious that you are determined to be facetious, as you have been on many other occasions with many other people on here.
Your one sided opinions are not facts, no matter how many times you insist they are.
However, as I said, it is the equivalent to playing chess with a pigeon, so I'm out.

Are all 25 year olds potential rapists?

All 25 year olds are 25.

And therefore should be treated in all ways as adults and not minors.