Unaccompanied Minors Don’t Just ‘Disappear’

“At least 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have disappeared after arriving in Europe. Many are feared to have fallen into the hands of organized trafficking syndicates.”1

The above excerpt, taken from an interview conducted by The Observer with Brian

Donald, Europol’s Chief of Staff, caused mass frenzy and made global headlines. A simple

internet search pulls up multiple news articles that uniformly point fingers at human trafficking

rings for “taking advantage of Europe’s refugee crisis.”2 As a children’s rights activist and

modern day abolitionist, I am well versed as to how Europe’s humanitarian crisis, with thousands

of unaccompanied minors arriving each day, can severely increase a child’s vulnerability.

However, this is where the obligation of EU member states, all of which have ratified the

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), comes into play. Unaccompanied minors (UAMs)

are entitled to protection under the CRC. Yet, across the board, EU member states are

abandoning their responsibilities to protect these children and gross human rights violations have

become commonplace. In this paper I will argue that human traffickers are not taking advantage

of the crisis itself, but rather the immigration policies of the Schengen Area that leave UAMs

exposed, vulnerable and easy targets for exploitation. In the first section I will discuss the rights

that these children are entitled to under the CRC. In the second section I will highlight the case

studies of Greece, France and Germany. Finally, I will conclude with a brief discussion on the

implications of harsh migration policies and finish with a final example of the “Calais Jungle.”

1 Mark Townsend, “10,000 refugee children are missing, says Europol,” The Observer. January 30, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-for-missing-child-refugees (Accessed February 2, 2016).

2 “10,000 kids missing in EU as criminals ‘exploit’ migrant flow- Europol chief of staff,” RT, January 31, 2016, Accessed April 27, 2016, https://www.rt.com/news/330746-children-eu-missing-refugees/.

Taylor 2

In 2005, the Committee on the Rights of the Child produced the Treatment of

unaccompanied and separated children outside of their country of origin. Article 3 of the CRC

states that

“in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”3

In order to ensure that the best interests of UAMs are met, the Committee on the Rights

of the Child has outlined several guidelines that must be in place when considering these

children.

The Committee defines unaccompanied minors as human beings under the age of

eighteen “who have been separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared

for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so.”4 The Committee explains

that all children, whether citizens of the state in question or foreigners, are entitled to the rights

enlisted under the CRC. Furthermore, the state cannot inhibit these rights by creating “excluding

zones” or areas that are, in spite of being within the legal borders of the state, not under the

state’s jurisdiction.5

The Committee urges states to recognize the fact that many UAMs must enter into a

country illegally in order to avoid situations of human rights violations. As a result, these UAMs

should not be criminalized for their illegal entry. Under the CRC, states are obligated to maintain

child friendly protocols throughout the entire displacement cycle of a UAM. States are required

to implement policies for identifying unaccompanied children at the border. If the child is

3 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, art 3.

4 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, 1 September 2005, CRC/GC/2005/6, para 7.

5 Ibid, para 12.

Taylor 3

deemed to be unaccompanied and if relatives are found, the state is obligated to assist with

familial reunification as soon as possible.6 Proper age identification of the minor can be

conducted in situations of doubt, but should be carried out in a safe, scientific, gender-sensitive

manner that does not violate the integrity or dignity of the child in any way. If uncertainty

remains, the child should be given “the benefit of the doubt” and accepted for the age that he/she

claims to be. Furthermore, the child should be afforded a legal avenue to contest a wrongful age

assessment.7

Any discrimination of a child based on the fact that he/she is unaccompanied, a migrant,

a refugee or an asylum-seeker is strictly prohibited under the CRC. Additionally, the state should

take into account different types of protection that may be needed based on age and gender. In

order to adequately assess the needs of the UAM, a child-friendly, age and gender sensitive

evaluation should be conducted in order to identify any “particular vulnerabilities and protection

needs.” If there is a language barrier between the person conducting the assessment and the

child, then a qualified interpreter must be present. 8

States must take special care to comply with the non-refoulement protocol. In order to

satisfy this obligation, a state should not return a child to a country where any harm could

potentially come to that child. The Committee further states that no child should be returned in

particular to any country where there is a risk of under-age recruitment into armed forces.9 Along

these lines, the Committee takes special care to outline the dangers of trafficking and “re-

trafficking” amongst UAMs. If a child is identified to be a trafficking victim, then the state must

6 Ibid, para 13.7 Ibid, para 31.8 Ibid, para 20.9 Ibid, para 26-28.

Taylor 4

not criminalize the child, but rather provide special assistance. Furthermore, any child who is at

risk of being re-trafficked should not be returned to his/her country of origin.10

If it is determined that a child cannot be returned to his/her country of origin then the

process of local integration is the next viable option. The suitable authorities should consult with

the child and his/her legal guardian in order to implement the ideal long term solution. Under the

CRC, UAMs are entitled to the same benefits as national children. All UAMs should have full

access to education regardless of their legal status. In order to reduce the vulnerability of the

child, if he/she cannot speak the national language then language instruction should be provided.

Furthermore, states are obligated to provide adequate food, housing and even clothing to UAMs

in their care.11 Additionally, under the CRC, states must allow UAMs the same access to health

care as national children are given. States are also obligated to provide culturally sensitive

mental health care for children who have been subjected to any type of abuse, exploitation, or

cruel treatment during a rehabilitation period.12

Finally, in the event that the child cannot be returned to his/her country of origin and if no

plausible solution can be made in the host country then the next viable option would be

resettlement in a third country. Before resettlement can occur, a “best interests evaluation”

should be taken in order to find the most ideal method for safe guarding against refoulement and

continuing to guarantee the maximum protection for the child in a different country. Third

country resettlement is considered to be in the best interest of the child if he/she will be able to

reunify with family. That being said, a child should never be resettled in a third country if this

relocation could seriously hamper future reunification efforts with his/her family.13

10 Ibid, para 52.11 Ibid, para 41-42. 12 Ibid, para 46-48.13 Ibid, para 92-93.

Taylor 5

In 2005 all of the EU member states unanimously signed and ratified the CRC. In doing

so, they accepted the responsibility to honor, uphold and execute the rights as defined above.

Parties to the agreement are further obligated to adopt or change any existing laws in order to

fully implement the provisions of the CRC.14 Despite the fact that Greece, France and Germany

have all ratified the Convention, none of these countries are currently upholding their obligation

to UAMs as outlined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Due to its porous nature and location as an EU border state, Greece serves as a major

point of entry into the Schengen Area and consequently has become a popular destination site for

hundreds of thousands of refugees. In 2015, an estimated 856,723 refugees migrated to Greece.

Since January of this year, already 154,491 refugees have arrived with an estimated 38 percent

being children.15 Although many refugees enter Greece with the desire to continue on to other,

more economically stable countries, the Dublin II regulation has made this difficult. According

to this protocol, the EU member state through which a refugee first enters the Schengen Area is

the country responsible for filing that refugee’s asylum application.16 Therefore, returns to

Greece from other member states have become commonplace under this regulation; thus, further

exacerbating Greece’s migration crisis. Currently, the country is carrying the heavy financial

burden of having to accommodate such a large number of refugees. UAMs in particular require

special screening and child-friendly housing which is costly and further aggravates Greece’s

already devastated economy. In order to safeguard from total collapse under the crisis, Greece

employs harsh immigration policies which are detrimental to UAMs. These children are often

14 “Using the CRC and Protocols for children,” Convention on the Rights of the Child. Last modified June 25, 2014, Accessed April 27, 2016, http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_using.html. 15 “Greece,” Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response- Mediterranean, Accessed April 27, 2016, http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/country.php?id=83. 16 Dublin II Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, March 17, 2003

Taylor 6

never identified as unaccompanied and misrepresented as adults, leaving them without adequate

protection from possible exploitation.

Upon initial contact with the police, it is imperative that a child be identified as a UAM

so that he/she can be screened for special vulnerabilities and treated with care. This identification

process is two-fold; first, the refugee must be identified as a child, or under the age of eighteen

and second, the minor must be identified as separated from his/her guardians. Greece has no

official procedure for determining a child’s age. Many police officers openly admit that when it

is necessary to acquire the age of a child, they will either look at the child and estimate his/her

age or simply take the child’s word for it. While accepting the age that the child declares may

seem to comply with the “benefit of the doubt” clause stated by the UN Committee on the Rights

of the Child, many UAMs will often lie and give an age older than what is reality. Human Rights

Watch (HRW), in an investigation into the treatment of UAMs in Greece, conducted several

interviews with children who stated that pretending to be older makes the detention and asylum-

seeking process easier. For example, if they are considered to be over the age of eighteen then

they will more easily acquire work.17 Consequently, UAMs are commonly registered as adults.

Despite a presidential decree adopted in 2008 which states that a medical assessment can be

conducted in cases of doubt, the decree does not provide any guidance as to how the process

should look.18 As a result, medical examinations are rare. Furthermore, no law exists to provide a

child with the ability to challenge an age given to him/her after an unfair assessment.19

17 Left to Survive: Systematic Failure to Protect Unaccompanied Migrant Children in Greece, (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2008, 20-23.

18 Presidential Decree 90/2008, “Adjusting Greek legislation to the provisions of the Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status,” Official Gazette A 138, art. 12.

19 Left to Survive, 23

Taylor 7

By misrepresenting UAMs as adults, Greek officials are violating several stipulations

under the CRC. First and foremost, officials are denying these children of any and all entitled

rights under the Convention as they are not deemed to be children. Second, Greek officials are

not adhering to the prioritization of a child’s identification with an age assessment that is

“scientific, safe and child-sensitive.”20 Also, in not providing a child any legal avenue for

contesting a wrongful age assessment, Greek border police are leaving children extremely

vulnerable as going forward, they will be treated as adults with no way to prove their status as

children.21

It is very important that a child be identified as a UAM immediately so that potential

vulnerabilities can be accommodated for; however, Greek police rarely establish a minor as

unaccompanied. In an interview with a coast guard, HRW was told that out of the 25,000

migrants that the coastguard had detained over the past five years, not a single one was identified

as a UAM.22 Furthermore, according to the National Center for Social Solidarity, the Greek

agency responsible for placing UAMs in shelters, out of the 856,723 refugees who arrived in

2015, only 2,248 of them were registered as UAMs. This figure is clearly not an indicator of the

true number. In Macedonia, just the next country over, 18,123 UAMs were registered between

July and December of 2015. Additionally, Sweden registered 35,369 and Germany registered

14,439.23 As stated earlier, Greece is a major initial receiving country for migrants; therefore, it is

very hard to believe that Greece is receiving so few UAMs. In a recent press release, UNICEF

stated that currently more than 22,000 refugee children are stuck in precarious conditions

20 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), para 3121 Ibid.22 Gialelis, Konstantinos. Interviewed by Human Rights Watch. June 5, 2008.

23 Tania Karas, “Slipping through the cracks of a broken system,” IRIN, February 24, 2016, Accessed April 1, 2016, https://www.irinnews.org/feature/2016/02/24/slipping-through-cracks-broken-system.

Taylor 8

throughout Greece.24 Yet, if one is to believe the figures produced by Greek police, somehow

these children do not exist.

In understating the numbers of UAMs, Greece has found a way around fulling its

obligation to these children as stated by The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. For

example, the state is required to provide UAMs with social benefits including health care.

Furthermore, these children are entitled to a full education and housing within a child friendly

facility. By never declaring a child as unaccompanied, Greece can simply detain and deport the

child without any concern as to his/her wellbeing.25

Before any detention can take place, adequate screening of the UAM must be conducted

in order to ensure that the minor has not been a victim of any form of abuse. If signs of offense

are present, then Greek officials are required to provide rehabilitation services for the child. In

reality, the Greek system for identifying children of abuse is severely flawed. HRW conducted

many interviews with children who were admittedly victims of armed conflict and trafficking but

not a single case had been identified by the police. Even though some detention centers may be

equipped with the proper staff to accommodate abuse victims, for example social workers and

medical examiners, there is rarely the presence of an interpreter. Without someone who can

translate for the child, the ability of officials to assess a child’s potential status as a victim of

offense is severely hampered.26 This lack of procedure for abuse identification results in

trafficking victims in particular going under the radar.

Even more, in an attempt to take stress off of the overcrowded detention centers, children

are often released freely to any adult who claims to be a relative. Further investigation by HRW

24 UNICEF, UNICEF Urges Full Hearings For Refugee And Migrant Children Stranded In Greece, 2016. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.unicef.org/media/media_90818.html.

25 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), para 41-4226 Left to Survive, 28-29

Taylor 9

found that there is no adequate process in which an adult’s identification is verified before taking

a UAM into his/her custody. Additionally, HRW interviewed several street children who had

been released from detention centers with no instruction as to where to go. Many children

recounted stories of being told to simply “disappear.”27 As a result of this breakdown in

protection, Greece is a hotbed for child human trafficking.28 It is estimated that out of the 3,000

child trafficking victims on average being transmitted annually throughout the country, only 3%

are ever identified by Greek authorities.29

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is adamant as to the obligation of the state

to protect a child’s “right to life, survival and development.”30 By refusing to conduct an

adequate vulnerabilities assessment and with the absence of a translator, Greek officials are

ensuring that children will not be provided the space to seek help if needed and thus denying

their right to survival under the CRC.31 Furthermore, the Committee stresses that as a UAM, a

child is extremely vulnerable to trafficking and that every measure possible should be taken to

safeguard against such a violation.32 Not only does Greece provide no protection for UAMs to

keep them from falling into situations of trafficking, but the Greek immigration policies have

resulted in an environment where human traffickers can thrive.

Home to Roissy Charles de Gaulle, Europe’s second largest airport linking 470

destinations in 110 countries, France serves as another major entry point into the Schengen Area

for migrants and refugees.33 According to the World Bank, there are currently 252,264 refugees

27 Left to Survive, 6828 Left to Survive, 86-9029 Giorgos Christides, “Greece’s child-trafficking problem,” BBC News, October 21, 2013, Accessed April, 19, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24613781.

30 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), para 2331 Ibid, para 20.32 Ibid.33 Lost in Transit. (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009), 1.

Taylor 10

in France and as the migrant crisis continues, this number will only increase.34 In an attempt to

control the amount of refugees flowing into the country, France employs the use of “transit

zones” which have particularly dire consequences for UAMs as within these zones they are not

considered to be children.

By definition, a transit zone is a geographic area where the government applies fewer or

different laws than what is usually employed in a liberal democratic system. Transit zones first

came about in the 1980s as duty-free, tax-free zones with the intention of attracting foreign

capital. However, with the increase in global refugee migration over the past few decades,

governments worldwide are beginning to construct transit zones in accordance with their

immigration policies.35 France has over seventy transit zones located within the country and

throughout its overseas territories. Roissy Charles de Gaulle is by far the largest with a border

that extends 20 kilometers. Although migrants located in this transit zone are physically situated

within the French border, the government does not consider them to be on French territory and

therefore, not subject to French law. This migration tool allows France to quickly detain refugees

who come seeking asylum and assess if they meet the criteria for entry. If they are not applicable

for asylum, they are quickly deported.36 Approximately 90 percent of all children currently being

held in French transit zones are located in Roissy.37 These children are extremely vulnerable as,

within transit zones, little distinction is made between a child and an adult. Therefore, the French

government can use Roissy to get around its obligations to the CRC. For example, under national

34 The World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012), Refugee population by country or territory of asylum, accessed April 19, 2016, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG

35 All Things Considered, “’Transit Zones’ Can Extend Beyond Airports,” NPR, July 3 2013.

36 Lost in Transit, 8-12. 37 “France: Unaccompanied Children Detained at Border,” Human Rights Watch, April 8, 2014, Accessed April 1, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/08/france-unaccompanied-children-detained-borders.

Taylor 11

French law, in accordance with policies outlined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the

Child, the deportation of a UAM is strictly prohibited; however, within the transit zone, a UAM

can be deported to any third country where he/she has no family members or relatives.38

“Transit zones are a legal black hole for unaccompanied migrant children where their status as migrants prevails over their protection entitlements as children without caregivers.”39

By implementing the use of transit zones, France is in direct violation of the CRC. The

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child states that foreign children are subject to the same

legal treatment as national children. Furthermore, a state cannot abdicate these responsibilities

through the creation of “excluding zones.”40 Therefore, France is knowingly renouncing its

obligation to protect UAMs by using the transit zones to deny them of their rights.

The French government argues that transit zones inhibit trafficking organizations from

being able to operate on French soil.41 In other words, by deporting a child trafficking victim,

that minor will not be subject to sexual or labor exploitation while residing in France. This does

not mean however that the child is safe from a trafficking situation. Quite the opposite, by

deporting the child, French authorities may very well be placing the minor back into the hands of

traffickers. Furthermore, in an investigation, HRW found that French border police lack adequate

procedures for identifying possible trafficking victims and typically deport as many children as

possible without consideration for their safety.42 On average, 30 to 40 percent of UAMs are sent

back to either their country of origin or a third country.43 These children are then handed over to

security forces with no guarantee that they are safe or in proper care.

38 Lost in Transit, 8-10.39 Ibid, 9. 40 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, para 12.41 Lost in Transit, 442 Lost in Transit, 443 “France: Unaccompanied Children Detained at Border,”

Taylor 12

According to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, states must be cautious not to

commit acts of refoulement. States are prohibited from returning a child to a country where that

child’s life could be in danger.44 The Committee is particularly vocal about protecting UAMs

from the potential of being “re-trafficked,” and prohibits the return of a child to a country where

this could be a possibility.45 Finally, a state should not resettle a child in a third country if this

resettlement could severely hamper that minor’s ability to reunify with his/her family.46 Not only

does the French border control lack an ability to assess if the child is in danger, but there is no

method for determining if the child will be safe once relocated. Thus, the child could be returned

to a trafficking situation and the state would never be privy. Furthermore, French border control

does not take into consideration a child’s ability to reunify with his/her family. Consequently, the

French government is in direct violation of the Convention.

Germany stands out amongst EU member states as a country that has attempted to uphold

an environment of child protection throughout the entire migration crisis; however, due to the

continued influx of UAMs, even Germany has had to adopt harsh immigration policies that

provide little protection for these children. Germany is characterized by a practical, well-thought-

out youth welfare system that has been, up until recently, able to adequately cater to UAMs.

Border cities such as Munich are particularly adept in assisting refugee children as they serve as

initial entry points into the country. Across the board, UAMs enjoy special benefits such as

access to a full education and child-friendly housing.47

Upon initial contact with border control, UAMs in Germany begin the “clearing process”

or the preliminary procedure for determining what should be done with the child. The first step 44 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2005, para 26-2845 Ibid, 5246 Ibid, 92-9347 Greta Hamann, “Young, alone, and sent away: Germany grapples with child refugee swell,” Deutsche Welle, November 15, 2014, Accessed April 1, 2016, http://www.dw.com/en/young-alone-and-sent-away-germany-grapples-with-child-refugee-swell/a-18066492.

Taylor 13

of this “provisional care” period is a full assessment of the minor in question including possible

vulnerabilities and needs. If there is any doubt as to the age of the child, a medical assessment

can be done. Through extensive training of personnel, Germany ensures that this procedure is

carried out by child-friendly experts using the “most careful methods.”48 Under German law, all

children have the right to refute a wrongful age assessment. If the child is deemed to be under the

age of eighteen, then a legal guardian is immediately provided. The child will then be

interviewed by German officials who will gather a significant amount of identification

information including the location of family members, the country of origin, the reason for

migration and whether they would like to file an application for asylum with the Federal Office

for Migration and Refugees.49 Furthermore, if it is revealed that family members are located

either within Germany or in another member state, then German law obliges officials to assist

with family reunification as soon as possible.50 In most cases the clearing procedure is carried out

by the Youth Welfare Office and occurs in special child-friendly clearing houses which offer the

UAMs safe accommodation, placement in German language courses and enrollment in schools.

Upon completion of the clearing process, the UAM is transferred to some form of a children’s

institution. In the case of minors under the age of fourteen, placement in foster families is also

possible.51 Finally, all personnel that come into contact with a UAM during the entire

displacement process have taken classes and participated in seminars concerning child-friendly

practices and procedures.52

48 Asylum Information Database, “Age Assessment and Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children: Germany,” Accessed April 1, 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/germany/asylum-procedure/guarantees-vulnerable-groups-asylum-seekers/age-assessment.

49 Bernd Perusel, “Unaccompanied Minors in Germany: Reception, return and integration arrangements,” European Migration Network, Working Paper No. 26 (2009): 30-32

50 Ibid, 52.51 Parusel, 30-32.52 Ibid, 24.

Taylor 14

While Germany has been at the forefront for honoring their obligations under the CRC,

the surge of UAMs into the country is increasing and putting great pressure on the youth welfare

system. According to child care agencies, border cities such as Munich are seeing the arrival of

up to 140 UAMs every day. Schools are starting to reach capacity and spots are becoming

limited. The population of legal guardians available has been maxed out and youth

accommodations are now restricted in space. While agencies are attempting to rent out hotels

and buildings to account for the surge in refugee children, trained personnel to assist with the

displacement process are becoming fewer.53

Germany no longer has the funding or capacity to continue to accommodate the influx of

UAMs and great pressure has been put on Chancellor Angela Merkel to find ways to reduce the

number of migrants flowing into the country. Late February of this year, Germany’s parliament

passed the Asylum Package II which calls for the utilization of very strict immigration policies.

Human rights activists are outraged over this package explaining that it “lays the basis of a legal

system that for the first time since the Nazi regime robs a portion of the population of democratic

rights.” 54 The package calls for the accommodation of refugees into camps where rapid asylum

procedures and concurrent deportation will be commonplace. Furthermore, even if a refugee is

examined by a doctor and found to be sick or traumatized, he/she will still be subject to

deportation. Sick children are no exception. Also, the right to family reunification will be

suspended for the next two years. Therefore, UAMs will receive no assistance from the German

government to locate and reunite with family members.55

53 Hamann, “Young, alone, and sent away.”54 Verena Nees, “German parliament adopts anti-democratic ‘Asylum Package II,’”World Socialist Web Site, March 2, 2016, Accessed April 1, 2016, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/02/asyl-m02.html.

55 Ibid.

Taylor 15

According to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, if a minor is deemed to be

unaccompanied then the state is obligated to make family reunification a priority. 56 In

prohibiting a child from unifying with his or her family, the state is placing the child in a

situation of heightened vulnerability and leaving him/her completely exposed and targets for

exploitation. Therefore, Germany’s new immigration legislation is in direct violation of the

CRC.

In her article, “Anti-trafficking: whitewash for anti-immigration programmes,” Nandita

Sharma argues that

“Anti-trafficking policies do a great disservice to migrating people, especially the most vulnerable. By diverting our attention away from the practices of nation-states and employers, they channel our energies to support a law-and-order agenda of ‘getting tough’ with ‘traffickers.’ In this way, anti-trafficking measures are ideological: they render the plethora of immigration and border controls as unproblematic and place them outside of the bounds of politics. The reasons why it is increasingly difficult and dangerous for people to move safely or live securely in new places are brushed aside while nation states rush to criminalise ‘traffickers…’’”57

As someone who works in the anti-trafficking field, at first glance, Sharma’s statement

was offensive. Practitioners in my field do good work. Every single day lives are saved and

restored as a result of anti-trafficking programs. After having done the research for this paper

however, I am convinced that abolitionists such as myself must broaden our view as to what

conditions leave our fellow human beings vulnerable for exploitation. The traditional culprits of

poverty, lack of social and economic opportunity, and oppression are not enough to account for

what is occurring with UAMs across Europe. We must stop pointing fingers at the traffickers and

start looking into the policies and legislation that make it so easy for them to get away with it.

EU member states should not forget that the entities on the other sides of their legislation are

living, breathing human beings. Yet, children are dehumanized by these policies and treated as

56 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2005, para 1357 Nandita Sharma, “Anti-trafficking: whitewash for anti-immigration programmes,” March 30, 2015, Accessed April 28, 2016, https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/nandita-sharma/antitrafficking-whitewash-for-antiimmigration-programmes.

Taylor 16

threats, unworthy of protection. Nevertheless, as soon as Europol reports that children have gone

missing, everyone is in an uproar. Every newspaper is covering the story, voicing concerns about

what must have occurred with these “poor, vulnerable children.” When these same children were

attempting to apply for asylum they were considered unwanted and a threat to the state of the

economy, but as soon as they go missing, they are deemed innocent. The hypocrisy is shameful.

The “Calais Jungle”

Calais, a port city in northern France has become quite the tourist destination. With its

rich culture and picturesque beaches, the views from the Calais shore are apparently quite

beautiful. Situated a mere 20 miles from the UK coast line, on a clear day, one can see the

famous white cliffs of Dover, England.58 However, located just 3 miles from Calais’s city center

lies territory that is considered to be much less appealing. In January of this year, the “Calais

Jungle,” a massive refugee camp situated in a former landfill, was home to 6,000 inhabitants.

These refugees, anxiously awaiting the chance to enter into the UK and reunite with family, lived

in make shift homes scattered throughout the area. Aerial views of the refugee camp reveal the

settlement’s enormity (see picture 1). Indeed, housed within the camp site was a church, a

mosque, a library and even a night club. Today, just 3 months later, those same aerial views

reveal a vast land, void of human life (see picture 2).59 Early February, a French court gave the

government permission to demolish the “jungle.” The Calais natives, tired of the refugee

presence, were pleased by the decision. According to Phillippe Mignonet, Calais’s deputy mayor,

the town had been requesting this for a long time now. When asked what would happen with the

thousands of displaced people, Mignonet responded,

58 “Calais, France: City Info,” Calais, Accessed April 27, 2016. https://www.calais.com/v/city_info/.59 “Death of the Jungle,” Daily Mail, March 28, 2016, Accessed April 27, 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511855/Death-Jungle-Incredible-aerial-images-reveal-Calais-slum-just-bare-earth-makeshift-homes-flattened-bulldozers-eviction-thousands-refugees.html

Taylor 17

“All the migrants in that area can be driven somewhere in the country. But migrants have got to understand that it’s impossible to stay in Calais forever.”60

Two weeks later, bulldozers entered the camp site and refugees watched as all hope of reaching

their family members, just a mere 20 miles away, were decimated into nothingness.61

Currently, human rights activists are calling for an investigation into the 129 UAMs who

have disappeared since the destruction of the “Calais Jungle.” Help Refugees, a nonprofit based

out of the UK, has criticized the French government for failing to protect these children.

According to the nonprofit,

“No alternative accommodation was provided for unaccompanied minors during the evictions, no assessment was made by the French authorities for their needs, and no systems were put in place to monitor them or provide safeguarding.”62

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, unaccompanied minors don’t just “disappear.”

60 James McAuley, “French court gives okay to demolish Calais’s ‘Jungle’ refugee camp,” February 25, 2016, Accessed April 27, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-court-gives-okay-to-demolish-calaiss-jungle-refugee-camp/2016/02/25/52cae46e-dbd1-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html61 Ibid.62 Bruce Wright, “Calais Camp Refugee Children Missing: After Demolition, Unaccompanied Minors Disappear From French ‘Jungle,’” April 4, 2016, Accessed April 27, 2016, http://www.ibtimes.com/calais-camp-refugee-children-missing-after-demolition-unaccompanied-minors-disappear-2347903

Taylor 18

Picture 1

Taylor 19

Picture 2

Bibliography

Taylor 20

“10,000 kids missing in EU as criminals ‘exploit’ migrant flow- Europol chief of staff.” RT. January 31, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2016. https://www.rt.com/news/330746-children-

eu-missing-refugees/ .

All Things Considered. “’Transit Zones’ Can Extend Beyond Airports.” NPR. July 3 2013.

Asylum Information Database. “Age Assessment and Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children: Germany. Accessed April 1, 2016. http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/germany/asylum- procedure/guarantees-

vulnerable-groups-asylum-seekers/age-assessment .

“Calais, France: City Info,” Calais, Accessed April 27, 2016. https://www.calais.com/v/city_info/.

Christides, Giorgos. “Greece’s child-trafficking problem.” BBC News. October 21, 2013. Accessed April 19, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24613781.

“Death of the Jungle.” Daily Mail. March 28, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511855/Death-Jungle-Incredible-

aerial- images-reveal-Calais-slum-just-bare-earth-makeshift-homes-flattened-bulldozers-eviction-thousands-refugees.html

Dublin II Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, March 17, 2003

“France: Unaccompanied Children Detained at Border.” Human Rights Watch. April 8, 2014. Accessed April 1, 2016.https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/08/france-unaccompanied-

children-detained-borders

Gialelis, Konstantinos. Interviewed by Human Rights Watch. June 5, 2008.

Hamann, Greta. “Young, alone, and sent away: Germany grapples with child refugee swell.” Deutsche Welle. November 15, 2014. Accessed April 1, 2016. http://www.dw.com/en/young-alone-and-sent-away-germany-grapples-with-child-

refugee-swell/a-18066492 .

Karas, Tania. “Slipping through the cracks of a broken system.” IRIN. February 24, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2016. https://www.irinnews.org/feature/2016/02/24/slipping-through-

cracks-broken-system .

Left to Survive: Systematic Failure to Protect Unaccompanied Migrant Children in Greece. New York: Human Rights Watch, 2008.

Lost in Transit. New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009.

Taylor 21

McAuley, James. “French court gives okay to demolish Calais’s ‘Jungle’ refugee camp.” February 25, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-court-gives-okay-to-demolish-calaiss-jungle-refugee-camp/2016/02/25/52cae46e-dbd1-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html

Nees, Verena. “German parliament adopts anti-democratic ‘Asylum Package II.’” World Socialist Web Site. March 2, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2016. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/02/asyl-m02.html.

Parusel, Bernd. “Unaccompanied Minors in Germany: Reception, return and integration arrangements.” European Migration Network. Working Paper No. 26 (2009).

Presidential Decree 90/2008. “Adjusting Greek legislation to the provisions of the Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.” Official Gazette A 138, art. 12.

Sharma, Nandita. “Anti-trafficking: whitewash for anti-immigration programmes.” March 30, 2015. Accessed April 28, 2016. https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/nandita-sharma/antitrafficking-whitewash-for-antiimmigration-programmes

Townsend, Mark. “10,000 refugee children are missing, says Europol,” The Observer. January 30, 2016. Accessed February 2, 2016.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-for-missing-child-refugees.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, 1 September 2005, CRC/GC/2005/6.

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577

UNHCR. “Greece.” Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response- Mediterranean. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/country.php?id=83.

UNICEF. UNICEF Urges Full Hearings For Refugee And Migrant Children Stranded In Greece. April 6, 2016. Accessed April 13, 2016, http://www.unicef.org/media/media_90818.html.

UNICEF. “Using the CRC and Protocols for children.” Convention on the Rights of the Child. Last Modified June 25, 2014. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_using.html.

Wright, Bruce. “Calais Camp Refugee Children Missing: After Demolition, Unaccompanied Minors Disappear From French ‘Jungle.’” April 4, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.ibtimes.com/calais-camp-refugee-children-missing-after-demolition-unaccompanied-minors-disappear-2347903

Taylor 22