Wednesday 19 October 2016

UK Asylum Seeker Ages

SWEDEN is set to begin a controversial age testing scheme on more than 18,000 unaccompanied migrant children.

Child refugees coming alone to Sweden aren’t always children. According to workers at several different refugee housing facilities, many people say that they are younger than they actually are in order to get better treatment and avoid deportation.
Sometimes the difference in real age and given age can be upwards of ten years, leading to problems when it comes to schooling, medical care, and housing.
Radio Sweden 5 march 2010

Sweden has been overwhelmed with ‘unaccompanied minors’ in what critics suspect is a huge fraud
Daily Mail January 2016.
So there is nothing very new in the story that of the first batch of children asylum seekers, some appear to be significantly older than the age they claim. This has been a serious issue in Sweden for quite a while. So serious that the most liberal of liberal governments in the entire world, had to step in and do something about a problem it would much rather have avoided. The Swedes asked the doctors to do a test. But the medics said the test wasn't accurate enough and could only provide an age range.
And that story continues on in Scandinavia without resolution.

Over here,the latest batch of over age children has caused something of a millennial revival. The Tory MP David Davies, who questioned the age of the refugees has been labeled a racist. That's a very new labour era method of trying to silence a debate when one side suspects it has no answer to the questions it is being asked and wants to just shut it all down.
Why is it 'racist' {Gary Lineker} or 'Unethical' {British dental Association}, or a 'shameful attempt to smear refugees' {Tim Farron} to assess the age of these asylum seekers?

Because if they are asylum seekers, and have been granted asylum, then their age does not really matter. If the UK has agreed to take 'x' number of asylum seekers, then we should take 'x' many. if some of these are over the age they say they probably would still have been granted asylum in the following weeks anyway.
However, if the UK public has been told that the UK is only taking children, in an attempt to soften the anti-immigration feeling in the country, then the children should be children. And if some sort of test is necessary, and does actually exist, why can't that be used to verify an age? 
Remember these people are coming from France, not Syria. they aren't in any immediate danger except from the willfully inept and deliberately uninterested French social services granting them asylum in France instead of the UK. Why certain sections of UK society are terribly upset over what appears a fairly reasonable request to verify the age of someone claiming to be a child is hard to understand. If these kids are kids, nothing happens. If they are older, they will be treated as adults. That's all. Better for them not be put into social, schooling, medical or asylum centres with children if they are actually adults.

I would remind the lefties who are having a good old virtue signal about this, and the Home Office, who ruled out 'inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical dental checks' that the drowning out and silencing of people's concerns about immigration for ten years; instead of engagement, explanation and resource allocation, had a very large impact on the decision of people of the United Kingdom voting to leave the EU.
If they want to make the case for allowing in any number of any age asylum seekers, then make the case for that. But don't suggest to the UK public that it is operating a 'Kindertransport' and then yell racist when someone asks for some proof of age. 
That can only end badly.


Electro-Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven_L said...

Am I reading too much between the lines when I suspect some kind of 'deal' on closing 'the jungle' has been done with the French here?

It is bonkers if they expected us to believe there folk are under 18 though. Did the government actually say they were all under 18 or have the Daily Mail just caught them off-guard?

Electro-Kevin said...

The BBC's pixelation of faces was doubtless done because they are 'children'.

Therefore the 'children' will be sent to school to sit next to other children in class - possibly share gym changing rooms etc.

My lad had to undergo a CRB screening to assist in coaching - he was aged sixteen at the time, and a very young looking sixteen at that. I know these 'children' aren't coming here to coach other children but all the same, we are so obsessed when it comes to the protection of children - except when Political Correctness trumps it.

Quite clearly these are not children, and certainly not in the sense that we were assured - babes in arms, vulnerable under 10s...

This is truly Orwellian. We are being ordered by the state to avert our gaze or to disbelieve our eyes or to silence our tongues.

Once again I must add the usual clause here: I do not blame these chaps for chancing their arms one bit, but the fact remains that they could be sitting in class next to innocent children (not Gary Linekar's, Diane Abbott's nor Shami Chakrabarti's) having already committed at least one crime that we can be certain of - cheating the migration process, abetted by our own state.

This is truly sinister, under a long serving Tory government (supposedly) and smacks of punishment for having the temerity to vote Brexit.

I am coming to the point where I wonder if I am any longer morally obliged to obey this country's laws. It treats me with such disrespect and seems to consider me the enemy. Perhaps now I am.

People are very very angry about this.

Electro-Kevin said...

Steven - They called them 'children'. Under 18 by definition.

Blue Eyes said...

I think when voters consider accepting Child Refugees, they do not think of lads a few days either side of their 18th birthday.

Anonymous said...

EK, I know exactly what you mean re obeying the law. I have zero respect for it these days. Gone are the days when I fill out any official form truthfully. If being truthful will result in me paying even more tax than I already do, I lie. These scumbags in government don't represent me, nor do they represent most working people.

I really don't know why our "leaders" are so concerned about a vocal minority who have never and will never vote for them because they believe that Tories are evil. Screw the left. They had their chance from 97-2010 and they blew it because they were too busy enjoying the debt binge.

Anon (and IP hidden) for obvious reasons.

James Higham said...

And that is why we need to be out, well away from the lunacy.

E-K said...

The presumption of innocence without proof of guilt has long been ditched in the UK.

With CRB checks we British are presumed to be a risk until we prove otherwise. No CRB clearance, no job (voluntary or paid.)

This scrutiny applies to UK children too.

Yet the establishment and celebrigensia slap us around when we demand similar scrutiny of newcomers.

Clearly there is inequality before the law and one particular group is seriously empowered by it.

I find I've gone off a certain brand of crisps btw.

Matt said...

No doubt after the entirely foreseeable outcome of having these 'children' domiciled with actual under 18s there will be 'lessons learned' but no one actually being identified as being to blame.

markc said...

I doubt that in reality, there'll be any problem of these "children" being domiciled with real children. They'll disappear at the first opportunity into the general population and crop up in crime figures over the next few years.

Beats me how any human being (with or without the gift of eyesight) could possibly confuse these people with children. I agree with E-K here; it's Orwellian - with overtones of Pavlov, too. Told they're kids, we ignore reality but when the little bell goes "ting", instead of slobbering we all roll over.

L fairfax said...

@"But don't suggest to the UK public that it is operating a 'Kindertransport' and then yell racist when someone asks for some proof of age.

That can only end badly.
It is the age we live in, those who want to con the British public into accepting mass immigration, always shout racist. If they had listened to people's fears then we would probably in the EU today.

Decnine said...

According to the weepy hand wringers, the Jungle is awash with vulnerable young children who urgently need protection. It doesn't seem to have occurred to TPTB that filling the first few buses with some of them would have been competent PR. But maybe the weepy hand wringers were mistaken, or lying?

SumoKing said...

I think we've hit peak Neo Humanist/Conservative with this one. The issue seems to be pretty much the same as the Trumpian hysteria about the US taking Syrian refugees (john oliver debunked) and appears to stem from the usual conservative's cluelessness on how things actually get done.

As I understand it, there isn't a big van with "Free Shitt in the UK for under 18s" written on it sitting in the 'Jungle'. There is rather a lengthy screening and interview process in place to verify where there kids (the totally safe kids who aren't disappearing into the sex trade) are from and whether they have family already in the UK, with cross check interviews with said family members, before the Uk begrudgingly accepts a handful of people who have ultimately been displaced by the aforementioned UK jingoism.

In such a context, David Davis, who is already gone from 'possibly competent' to 'bumbling about and showing the calibre of politician the UK has these days', popping up and demanding that teenagers be strapped into a chair and investigated by the State Adult Finder General sounds rather khunty at best.

L fairfax said...

@"who have ultimately been displaced by the aforementioned UK jingoism"
People were displaced because Muslims kill other Muslims. We can hardly be held responsible for the war in Afghanistan. True our ignorance of the violent nature of Islam was responsible for the war in Iraq, but that was stupidity rather than Jingoism.
The idea that they all wanted to live together in peace but nasty Saddam would not let them, was more ignorant than evil. -Not much comfort for the victims of course.

Anonymous said...

The trouble with BQ's piece is that it assumes good faith on the part of our rulers.

We're well past that.

Bill Quango MP said...

SumoKing: Who would strap a teenager in a chair? When you visit the dentist do you need to be forcibly restrained? Or do you sit there while the doc takes an xray?

I would suggest that anyone unwilling to undergo an xray as part of their asylum appeal,will be told they then fail.

This point does go to the heart of what I was writing about.

> If these kids are kids, and can be shown to be kids, then why is there a problem? Why don't the handwringers, who are the ones pushing the agenda for ever increasing immigration on humanitarian or economic grounds, so worried about having a check on an asylum seeker's age? What harm would that do?

The only logical explanation seems to be that those kicking up a fuss are well aware that some {see above for some of the many many European examples too} of the young people are not young people at all and do not want this to be discussed.

And why not? my point is the UK would accept children in immigration much more readily than they would adults. In this case the asylum seekers have a good case to come to the UK. relatives etc.
So adding a dental check wouldn't be much of an extra burden.

The only reason this has become an issue is because of the bleeding heart brigade's insistence that the UK was helping only 'unaccompanied children'.
An emotive appeal to parents everywhere.

i am suggesting that if that turns out not to be the case, there will be much anger. And THAT is why the liberal free movement of everyone's are worried about dental checks.

Anonymous said...

I don't like the mail but I am sure if this were not true the Guardian would have printed an expose of the mail's lies

Charlie said...

I see a hand-wringing Huffington Post piece is currently being shared by my hard of thinking Facebook friends. A synopsis: "Nobody is too old to be treated like a human".

Won't someone think of the not-children?!

dustybloke said...

Funny old world the socialists live in.

I couldn't take photos of my 15 year old son when he was made captain of the local football team because they were children. But Gary doesn't mind children sharing showers and dorms with adults.

As long as it's not his kids, of course.

Oh, by the way, how are Sir Paddybob and Ms Church getting old, sharing theirs homes with loadsa refugees? Yeah, thought so.

Anonymous said...

there isn't a big van with "Free Shitt in the UK for under 18s"

If migrants thought they would get a better deal in Greece, Italy, France or any of the other places they have passed through before they get to Calais, one wonders why they go to all the effort to get to Calais. Perhaps it is for the seafood restaurants or the bracing climate.

Anonymous said...

there isn't a big van with "Free Shitt in the UK for under 18s"

No that's being delivered to their homes courtesy of RAF Tornados.

The BBC's pixelation of faces was doubtless done because they are 'children'.

Strange that the Police pixelated faces of sheep being transported and Google does the same for cows on a Cambridge pathway. Perhaps I can make the same logical leap here.

Suff said...

This is a topic I have had several warm discussions about with my Swedish friends and is the perfect discussion for how the bed wetters tie themselves in nots. Firstly your post misses the extra cost of taking children instead of adults. My ex worked at a local home which was intended for problem children but most have switched to immigrant children as they are a lot less work and better behaved ( as stated previously this is not a racist argument and I've no idea what happens to the existing problem children) While the state will happily support any high school dropout, raise as many children as her tubes will supply, any child in care must have at least one and sometimes as many as four degree qualified adults to give 24/7 care. This comes to a standard cost of 400 pounds a day per child, before we even talk about school, medical.......if the 18000 figure is correct, with a working population of 5 million, it will cost every working person 525 £ a year to support that many.( if the number stays at that)
This somewhat blows the argument " for the price of a cup of coffee you can save a child's life) splashed all over the social media.After paying an eye watering amount of tax in to the system for 16 years, upon retirement I will be able to stay in one of these homes for half a day per month. Oh and good look absorbing them into the job market because we have been told that they will have to extend the pension age by a further 5 years

Anonymous said...

Costs available here

Electro-Kevin said...

Sumoking - A really simple solution to the strapping-kids-in-dentist chairs.

We are taking a quota.

Let's just take the very young migrants. Few people would take issue with that.


Turns out that the 'translator' who looks about forty is actually a child migrant too.

You're on the wrong side of the argument.

Electro-Kevin said...

Apparently there are advisors in Calais prepping migrants to come over - telling them to say that they are minors. (In response to those saying there isn't a van saying "Free Shitt in the UK..."

Well there's a tent with someone on a megaphone outside it according to reports.

Blue Eyes said...

People don't cross continents on some sort of wing and prayer. They have done research just as any of us would do if we were looking for a new life abroad.

visc said...

THis is no new problem - been going in for ages it's simply it has caught the public eye - in another life I lived in in East Kent with my then girlfriend, an immigration officer (before they started wearing their silly uniforms - at the height of the beer runners and "Kosovan" "refugees". The wheeze to claim to be a child was in full swing then and authorities had to take everythings stated to them as most discard any id. The process rolls on many who are swinging the lead walk through the system. There may not be a van saying "Free Shit in the UK for under 18s" but it is well known - it is not always what is given in direct handouts that is the issue but what can be procured and done when here.

Of course the other issue is that unchecked migration of people unknown, (by their nature), will contain a large proportion of n'er do wells - evinced by changing waves of criminal gangs with each new "refugee" "crisis".