State caring for children seeking asylum (Woman's Hour)

[ImaCleverClogs]

Didn't really hear all of this thanks to my toddler.

But I caught the woman from Kent Council saying the council pay for childcare for children arriving in the back of lorries at Dover because the worry is if they don't they will turn to theft, prostitution and cause social problems. Not because they are innocent children who need to be looked after, ffs!

Very civilised of us.

[EclecticShock]

I guess the council views it as an economic and social problem rather than a humanitarian one. Thank god charities exist.

[Northey]

Does it matter what their motivation is as long as they do what we would want them to do (feed, clothe and shelter the children)?

[EclecticShock]

I agree, sometimes you can't enforce motivation but the fact something is being done is a positive.

[ImaCleverClogs]

I think it does matter what the motivation is. If they did some research and found actually if they didn't look after the children they didn't turn to crime but just chucked themselves off a cliff, well problem solved no need to spend any money on it then if its not going to cause economic or social problems.

If they were doing it because the state believes children have a right to security and a decent quality of life it wouldn't matter what the alternative was.

It bothers me that we only see things as worth doing if we can convince that it will create money or atleast save money being spent elsewhere. What about just doing things because it is the right thing to do?

[EclecticShock]

I completely agree with you but when it comes down to budgets, people tend to think in terms of known facts and costs rather than unwanted possibilities. I guess it's prioritisation as this money could be spent elsewhere. Opportunity cost is usually based on evidence rather than altruism. In fact I'm not sure altruism is something that exists or is encouraged within organisations. They work on different principles... Ones that can have a figure put against them. I agree with you in theory, I just think the reality is more practical, unfortunately.

[EclecticShock]

That's why charity is so brilliant, it fills the gap hopefully.

[ImaCleverClogs]

But should we just expect charity to fill the gap and leave it to the do-gooders while we get on with what we want?

I know I'm being terribly idealistic but it makes me feel a bit ill tbh. Not posters on here but the way the council woman put it across. Poor woman is just doing her job though and probably has someone higher up than her leaning on her over budgets.

[EclecticShock]

I'm not sure it's a choice of want... More of what we have to... It's wrong but if we decided to take any child who was an immigrant and look after them... How would it be funded? By tax payers, some who can't afford their own children... It's priorities, sadly IMO, but I do believe charities get past this problem partially by allowing those who can afford it to help others. An imperfect world.

[EclecticShock]

My last post came across a little harsh, had my practical "hat" on. It is awful that these children are not protected from the point of view of protecting their human rights, rather than protecting kents. I wonder what the alternatives are... Maybe some else will have some ideas or knowledge in this area.

[ScroobiousPip]

I wonder how much of the statement was truth and how much rhetoric aimed at anti-immigration voters? Local authorities have duties to children in their area under the Children Act so would be quite surprised if crime/prostitution etc was the only underlying factor. If so, I do think it's pretty depressing that the council is buying into the whole anti-immigration debate instead of being proud of their commitment to children.

[ImaCleverClogs]

Yes I imagine immigration is a very hot topic in Kent (I'm nowhere near).