It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should Countries like Britain take in Unaccompanied but Already Married 'Children'?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:52 AM
Recently the public have been told that Cameron has agreed to take in a number of unaccompanied children to be allowed into Britain. This sounded a good thing to do.

What was not disclosed until a journalist raised this issue was that some of these 'children' are already married off, however with no spouse in tow.

The bigger issue is that in Britain we don't marry our kids off as young as 8 so its really a social taboo that's getting further kicked under the carpet to accommodate people from a religious culture with huge different in their values and practises. Many here find these practices despicable and unacceptable. Our laws on this matter seem to be deliberately compromised by politicians like cameron, thereby weakening and eroding our legal system. Are people happy with this?

Should a receiving nation be expected to alter its fundamental beliefs and taboos to allow these practices to continue on its soil?

Is this another scam in order for yet more men who don't qualify to come to Britain to get in under so-called family relationships?

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:54 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

Do you have a link or source or are we just hypothesizing?

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:14 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

I think this fear is a little too far fetched now. People were shouting that most of the refugees are young men. Then they started complaining that many of these men just came first, because they could do the dangerous trip better alone and get their families over here later.
Now this is a new dimension: They send their childish "wifes" first alone to follow them later...

Such a marriage would be illegal in my country anyways and the "husband" would not be family at all. He even would have to face legal charges if he would have sex with "his wife".

And on another note: Children who are forced to marry adult men really are victims who need help.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:19 AM
a reply to: Kitana

It was discussed on Sky during the 10.30 press release. I also suggest a read through this article which towards the end covers the dreadful Saudi influence on this where a Saudi Imam tells men to marry off their daughters when they are in the

Taking in any more immigrants - kids or not is already an hugely emotive issue in this country. The closest Cameron came was his acknowledgement in parliament yesterday that taking in these kids has put Kent Social Services under impossible strain. He didn't choose to tell the house we are taking in married kids though, which he knew would have created uproar. Remember he kept the Rotherham grooming and other similar cases quiet because there was little in the press to alert people about what has been going on. The public are the last to hear about what is really going on, in the UK you have to rely on what the press leaks out.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:46 AM
a reply to: Siddharta

The bulk of refugees are young men which is correct but not what this thread is about. Actually when you see the remnants of many Syrian towns like Homs and other villages etc, would you really want to leave you family alone, undefended when Daesh came knocking for your female relatives?

The whole point of this thread is that child marriage practices are illegal in the Western world. However child brides are a real phenomena in the Muslim world and the journalist disclosed information the public have not been told. This practise is backed up by the fact its going on here in the UK within our mosques. So are you saying these marriages aren't being carried out by desperate men as a means of getting in when they produce their marriage certificates or whatever paperwork some Saudi Imam is happy to provide once the child is ensconced here?

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:58 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

I don't say this wouldn't happen. Maybe. But it would be illegal anyway, as long as the children are too young.
I don't see how anybody could invoke a right on basis of an illegal premise.
Of course, this also depends on the country and how things are handled. But I don't see the UK as a banana republic.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:59 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

Britain should not be accommodating any children that are married and if they do then any marriage or contract that was in place should be deemed null and void as soon as the little ones become wards of the state.


posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:01 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

I believe that there ought to be a clause on entry, that any person who is considered a child by the standards of statutes pertaining to age, consent, and legal responsibility, cannot be considered married on our soil. Therefore, no marriage between a person and a child, even if it was legal under the laws of the nation of origin, can be considered legal in this country.

Furthermore, it is my belief that any child coming to this nation, who has been married to someone, should be immediately placed in the care of social services, placed outside the influence of the individual or family into which they have been married, and considered from that time a ward of the state, until such time as they reach adulthood and will then be free to live whatever life they choose, a choice they will make free of expectations placed upon their young minds, by persons with agendas other than the child's well being.

Only that which is considered lawful by our laws, by the laws of this nation, must be allowed to stand in this nation. That which is considered unlawful by our laws, should be treated as if it is. These children need protecting, and if they are to live in our nation, then they must be protected by our laws, institutions, and our society. Persons coming here from abroad are always welcome, and let me tell you, I am staunchly in favour of diversity in our streets and societies. I love the vibrancy and colour that has come into my nation since I was a lad. However, persons coming here to live, from other nations, no matter whether they come here by choice, or necessity, must accept that they will not be able to carry on traditions which break our laws, any more than we would be able to go to their homeland, and do as we might normally do.

This is Britain, and those wishing to take up residence here, must accept that by so doing, they are changing not just where they live, but their way of life. It IS, and damned well has to be, our way, or the highway. This is not a negotiable issue. No matter what faith a person might hold, no matter where a person originates from, or what the customs may be there, when you step on British soil, you are both under the protection of its laws, and the scrutiny of the enforcers of that law. Violation of our law is no more acceptable than violation of any other nations law, and this must be at the forefront of the minds of those who come here to live, whether they seek better working conditions and pay, or refuge from war.

In short, if our nation is considered a desirable place to be, then it is necessary that the nation is done the common courtesy of having people change their way of life to fit their new place of residence. Faith is for a person and their God to agree upon, but law in this land belongs to the British, and always will.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

Im not surprised to hear this as this was the case in Europe last year. Girls 12 years old pregnant and married and whether they should be allowed to live with their husbands. This BBC source touches on it from last November

I think if we accept children in Britain they should be children under say 11 and preferably girls. This would stop all the men in their 20's trying to pass as under 18 as at age 11 no one is going to have a beard and it would also mean not taking pregnant women as most girls under that age havent started puberty.

Girls should be given preference in any event I believe as they are more likely to be preyed upon in the camps etc where rape is high so they are more vulnerable.

Children should mean children and the younger they are the more vulnerable so no one should have any problem with that ie UN etc.

In any event it is up to us as a Country who we feel more comfortable about letting in IMHO!

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 09:57 AM
This is going to need to be tried for anu change to occur in the existing law but as it stands at the moment; those marriages aren't recognised here so no chance of the spouse coming on a spouse visa, they can apply and enter on their own merit in a different category but it won't be easy for them.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:10 AM
a reply to: Siddharta

It isn't the fact we are a banana republic yet, but we are already having our laws compromised by immigrants claiming religious grounds for breaking the law and our politicians are allowing this to happen and them to get away with it.

Are we happy to allow this and how far will the laws we as Brits have to follow be compromised so that e.g. men can marry underage and also unwilling girls? Can a marriage contract between a girl of 8, 10 12 years of age and some older man abroad be annulled? Its a new phenomena that hasn't yet been tested and has been kept from the public's awareness when it comes to children coming to the UK.

We know from a survey that imams here in british mosques are prepared happily to abuse our laws and marry people under these circumstances. There are a number of charities asking for money to stop this practise abroad, so with the mass exodus of people from countries where this is normal, its unlikely it won't arise here with spouses who have 'lost their brides in transit' claiming they have a right to come in.

I was surprised to hear I think it was Stig Abell who mentioned it the other night, so its surprising its not making the headlines, except its not really because it

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: andy06shake

Simple? One would think so, but do you not think the 'husband' would not get legal aid, claim his human right to his bride and we would all be paying for this fiasco to be fought in our courts and ultimately overrule within the current Sharia courts sitting here already?

Where does our law stand on the right of islamic law and although we hear our law is the law of the land, it took an awful lot of time for social services and the police to even start to prosecute the rotherham groomers so we already know how frightened of offending muslim voters politicians and councillors are. Ultimately where will this leave us, with a two tier legal system whereby some laws apply and other can be ignored?

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:26 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

There is only one law applicable and that's the law of the land. There are no Islamic laws in the U.K period. As to the paedophile grooming incidents in Rotherham, Police and other authority's dragged there heals down to the fact that they did not wish to appear racist at the expense of those poor children's life's, that's diabolical if you ask me.

As to any Sharia law courts in operation here in the U.K, they are illegal as are any judgments and/or decisions they hand out.
edit on 4-2-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:32 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

Have you not read what Cameron wants to do - he wants to get children with ties to relatives in this country back into their family's hands here. Now once placed back with the family do you think those earlier 'marriages' will be ignored, you are ignoring the question of honour which has a very different value within a muslim family to the free will we allow within our society.

I know its great to bang the drum of multiculturalism. We have been multicultural for a good few decades now, my family for over 50 years and no one has said it doesn't work but none of this is relevant to the thread.

You are dwelling on what you as a decent individual think is decent behaviour and rightly expect our politicians to support. But do you really believe Cameron and our government who run our legal courts are right in the stance of allowing men to get away with 4 wives - strictly against our laws yet cameron pays these men benefits for all the wives, is actually protecting our laws by doing this.

We already know Imams are prepared to force marriage illegally on young women and children from the crib here - yet where do you see the prosecutions or these men being taken in and given a reminder of the laws of this country - you don't and they are simply being left alone. We have hate preachers marching our streets, do you see Cameron making any effort to stop thee men - or do you see him hand in glove with the Saudis in their drive to make Britain Islamic?

Slightly off topic I noticed albeit on Facebook one Saudi Prince saying he will donate his 38 billion $ fortune to help fund the Isamification of America - Perhaps its time we all started to look to our security and freedoms we have lived because they seem to me to be more under threat today than they ever were from the Nazi's, what will Britain be like within 25 years from now?

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:36 AM
a reply to: anxiouswens

Thank for that, I am only too grateful I didn't see it because the whole idea of these girls being so abused horrifies me when I look at my granddaughter and wonder about her future here.

This is something Cameron doesn't want the British public to know about and I do feel this man is utterly untrustworthy and has an agenda quite of his own. I suspect a public under Sharia where if you complain as in Saudi you can get yourself crucified is something men like Cameron would love to inflict on the British public.

Trouble is that we the public simply don't have a say in who is coming here and worse, we are not being asked - no wonder Cameron wants us to stay in the EU with open borders.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:45 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

If you read my post carefully, you would see that I am against child brides being placed with those who had a hand in their marriage.

I would like to see them cared for by foster parents until they are at least sixteen to eighteen years of age, and already on the path to their futures, before giving them the option to reconnect with the sort of individuals who would allow an eight year old to marry.

Furthermore, I believe that anyone violating the law of our land for any reason, ought to be bought to book, no matter their race, religion, political affiliation, financial status, or favourite ice cream flavour. Do I believe that Cameron is going to enforce the law? No! Why would he? Friends of his get away with defrauding the taxpayer, often through the HMRC itself! Why would he cut off his cronies from a healthy supply of kickback money?

What I am saying is that the law already exists, and all we need is for someone impartial and whose honour is not for sale, to enforce that law. Of course, no one like that will ever run for office, because the right person for that job, is someone who would never ask for it.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:55 AM
I'd imagine there are many muslims in the UK that would be vehemently opposed to children being married in their mosques. I really doubt it's a widely accepted part of islamic culture outside of a few very strict, autocratic states.

If it is found to be going on I hope anyone orchestrating it is punished to the fullest extent of the law.
edit on 4-2-2016 by MagnaCarta2015 because: spelling correction

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:19 AM
Yes I can imagine you are worried for your grand daughter's future as are a lot of Brits. I am worried for my 8 year old son's future but for different reasons. I want him to be free to be himself with no constraints. So for instance if he grew up to be gay (which I doubt he already likes the girls lol) I want him to be free to love and marry without shame or guilt. I want the same for any future grand daughters I may have as well, More and more our freedoms and way of life seems to be being encroached upon and I worry with regard to what will happen if there is a war having a son.

As far as David Cameron and his cronies go I think someone is pulling the strings, I think big money is involved and power. Who are the people in London with vast amounts of wealth buying all the properties? Soon these people will be being voted in as MP's by a growing minority and then what. Will we have to stop drinking etc.

I think this next 2 years will be crucial. Normal Brits have had enough. British myslims are saying they are concerned. I dont know whether you heard the interview with Katie Hopkins when the guy rang in and said he no longer sends his children to mosque because of the new islam that has been bought over. Same on The Jihadist Next Door there were loads of British muslims shouting at the cameras saying the radicals giving out propaganda are ISIS. When even British muslims are voicing their concerns at the ideology that is being allowed into our society you would think MPs would take notice but they dont so can only think they are being bribed..a reply to: Shiloh7

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:24 AM
I believe a successful and enduring nation is largely formed through a vast majority of the people holding similar enough moral values for them to be comfortable in any necessary compromise that would be required in creating the larger community. Nations formed through necessity or survival or for financial benefit - I don't think will last very long.

This influx of a wholly incompatible culture is extremely inflammatory and will only lead to conflict. I simply can't accept it as simply naïve or a response formed in a fit of emotion or politically correct vanity.

Are we really to believe that all our experts, academics, political advisors, journalists; that our supposedly omniscient intelligence agencies, couldn't see the obvious problems?
edit on 4-2-2016 by Robert Reynolds because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:27 AM
a reply to: anxiouswens

I dont think they're being bribed. Radical islam is a useful tool to those in power. It's used primarily as a destabilisation force for regime change in nations we can't be seen to be militarily involved in until the situation escalates enough that we can start using our tech and troops to secure resources, then profit from reconstruction.

The other way it's used is as a tool at home to frighten the population into acquiescence for ever more draconian laws. All of the recruiters, radical imams and general nutjobs enjoy state protection and are left alone to carry out their activities with impunity while regular people can be jailed for downloading a book or having videos.

It's all far too convenient for it to be accidental or just run of the mill corruption and under the table deals. Our entire system is founded on it.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in