Guest post: "Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

I can only imagine my desperation if I had to consider sending my boys away just to keep them safe.

But if I ever had to, I’d want a mother like Karen to be there for them. Karen is an amazing woman who told her story of fostering a refugee boy and brought huge attention to a campaign to get more refugee children settled safely in Britain.

This week, MPs had the chance to vote to let mothers like Karen keep doing what they want to do - opening their homes and their hearts to refugee children who are in Europe all alone without a mum or dad to look after them. I'm ashamed to say that they did not, and that the government decided to close the door to the thousands of children who need our help. The campaign was only asking for 3,000 children to come to Britain. To put that in context – that would be just five children per parliamentary constituency, and nowhere near the 10,000 mostly Jewish children that Britain saved through the Kindertransport before the Second World War.

I took a special interest in this vote because I have been working at Theirworld to help create school places for Syrian refugee children in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, where many fleeing families arrive first. I have been focused on how to make sure that children never embark on a further dangerous journey to find a safe haven. When I saw that the British parliament was considering a vote to offer a welcome to 3,000 lone children who really need us to open our hearts and homes, I wanted to add my support. So last week I wrote to my local MP for the first time ever. I wanted his backing for refugee children, an issue that goes well beyond party politics. I know lots of Mumsnetters contacted their MPs too and have heard from many of you on Twitter. It was devastating to see the government vote down the proposal to give safety to lone refugee children in Europe.

But this does not stop there. The House of Lords last night voted to back the bill thanks to the efforts of Lord Dubs and other campaigners. So it goes back to the House of Commons next Tuesday with a chance for MPs to reconsider their vote and help 3,000 lone children.

One of the ways you can help them think again is to sign this petition. If enough of us do it then perhaps a few more MPs will listen and reconsider their vote. In pushing for this change we won't be on our own – we have the backing of lots of energetic dedicated groups like Citizens UK, Save the Children, HelpRefugees and others. This weekend the former Archbishop of Canterbury gave his blessing, arguing that this is a chance to honour what our parents and grandparents did in the face of an earlier catastrophe.

This is not a question of sparking a new political controversy - that is not my way and not the Mumsnet way, I don't think - it is a matter of simple humanity. While we can't ensure that every child is safe in his or her own country, we can act to prevent children dying on our doorstep here in Europe, and ensure a safe home and education and hope for a better future.

As long as this terrible crisis runs on and horribly on - then we have obligations to the children who are here in our continent. Our MPs now have a second chance to help these vulnerable children and we should help them to take it.

Please join me, and sign here: Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe.

[sportinguista]

Possibly worth the deletion! But we must all try to reamin calm and vaguely pleasant!

[ThisCakeFilledIsle]

Logical!

[ThisCakeFilledIsle]

That would be the logica conclusion Jim..

[sportinguista]

At worst it could split that group of countries off from the EU. We have quite a few friends from those countries and they do echo the sentiment of that the expectation that living standards would go up much quicker and in line with other Western European countries. It has not happened and many of them have family that struggle to put the basics there every month, it is why many come here and send money home. That said they could possibly acommodate a smaller number but at least some. Given the feelings of some (and I do mean only some) from that area towards Muslim refugees integration it would have it's challenges at least outside the major cities. It is exemplified in the discussion over what to call the refugees in the article where the name Islamist was put forward seemingly without much thought for what that actually implies, something we have already I think separated in the west from the general religion of Islam and meaning the more extreme end of the spectrum.

What will happen in this respect with these countries? I don't know. At least at the moment it doesn't appear that they will take their quota anytime soon.

[Yukduck]

Thank you Shakeeba. It makes far more sense to me to support refugees with shelter, food, medication education and a place of worship closer to the country they fled as per the spirit of the 1951 convention. All loving families want their children safe, but also want them back home with their family when the conflict ended. I would not want my children sent to another, very different, culture, and risk losing them to UK foster care or even adoption. I would imagine that the Syrian relatives are too poor to visit their fostered children in the UK so the risk is that they will lose their children forever. I am sure that is not what Sarah Brown would like for her boys. I could not imagine losing my children to the other side of the world and not seeing them again, even to save their lives. I would want them close so they could return to me when it was safe. These children are as safe as they can be close to their country of birth and could be supported better there to respect their culture and way of life.

The British people have a history of stepping in to do the right thing. I remember Midge Ure and Bob Geldof motivating the world to donate to Live Aid in 1985 - ok so this was a famine, but they motivated the world from being on lookers and sympathisers to people of action. It saved lives.

I am not xenophobic by being concerned over how our infrastructure would work to support refugee children. I am not xenophobic to be concerned for those parents whose children come as refugees to the UK and who feel that their children may forget their country of birth or their culture over time. I feel for those relatives and parents.
Live Aid was not xenophobic for working in Ethiopia rather than bringing all the Ethiopians to the UK.

This country that I love, has a big heart and has always had deep pockets and a willingness to do the right thing for refugees and victims of war. We would show our respect for the children and the relatives of those children if we did what we did in Ethiopia and sent help to where it is needed rather than removing the children and causing further trauma to them when they realise they will never see their country of birth or relatives again.

[FannyFanakapan]

I like this one. Nimby-ism? "We dont want them here, but you must have them or you are lacking in compassion...."

[StepintotheLightleave]

gnoring vulnerable people, opting out of human rights legislation and leaving people to a life of destitution or death is far more likely to have 'doom'like consequences


No, people that are safe in Germany are being targeted and turned by Islamic extremisits.

[StepintotheLightleave]

Dictionary definition of 'subjugate', to defeat and gain control of (someone or something) by the use of force : to conquer and gain the obedience of (a group of people, a country, etc.)
Christians in the crisis, in refugee centers are reporting attacks, pressure and threats to convert to islam yes. On top of that we also have too many reports of in appropriate sexual behaviour.

Do you not think its strange that so many cities and towns have had to modify the way they live, they way they have lived for decades, because of some of the refugees and their behaviours!

[Shakeeba]

People in mainland Europe definitely do feel besieged. Their environments are out of control because they are experiencing hostile behaviour in the streets, open contempt, young men walk around in large groups talking very loudly, gesticulating, etc. What do you think this behaviour conveys to people? Disorderliness, physical demonstrativeness, gross obscenities spoken to women by leering strangers. It's an unfriendly behaviour plonked in the middle of a modern European city, and it is clear it is deliberate. Of course people are going to feel trapped. My friend in Germany does.

Are you suggesting that crassness of this magnitude does not have an effect on a town or city? Of course it does, and sooner or later it will modify and inhibit inhabitants' habits.

[StepintotheLightleave]

You clearly don't understand that to others your posts sound like personal attacks and full of abuse, as if you are a Teacher scolding children

Your spot on there howtorebuild, thank you.

I couldn't put my finger on why this poster always irked me, and made me feel like rebelling.

Naughty children preached to by someone who is doing very little themselves, in a country that is doing even less , preaching to people whose lives she has no idea about!

[HildurOdegard]

Shakeeba The cynics amongst us might suggest that it's a "tremendous coincidence" that a lone "child's" brothers/uncles/parents/siblings are located just days after UK papers are signed... Very interesting to hear first hand of what is going on in your own community - on the front lines as it were.

[emilybohemia]

Why would Europeans have to subjugate themselves, shake? Seems a bit of an unsubstantiated sweeping statement.

Dictionary definition of 'subjugate', to defeat and gain control of (someone or something) by the use of force : to conquer and gain the obedience of (a group of people, a country, etc.)'

Are you suggesting that refugees fleeing war are a conquering force?

Ignoring vulnerable people, opting out of human rights legislation and leaving people to a life of destitution or death is far more likely to have 'doom'like consequences.

[Cheeseburglar]

Shakeeba, thank you for posting. That's very interesting.

[HildurOdegard]

Emily - do you know where the largest refugee camp in the world is situated? What are you doing to help? I notice you ignored a plethora of questions asked multiple times earlier in the thread.

I also noticed you said that people "like you" could help by joining Facebook groups. Effective. As effective as sprinkling unicorn dust.

[Shakeeba]

"I don't understand the point about family members joining them. It is in the best interests of the child to be with their family."

I meant that some of the children are not unaccompanied, but it is arranged so that it looks like that. A relative or sibling is close by looking out for them but the connection is disguised. It's a known ploy, according to my cousins.

The 1951 Convention definitely needs adjustment, otherwise you are saying that regardless of how many people become refugees Europe has to provide housing for them in Europe, clearly a doomed venture. The money would go further elsewhere as cost of living in Europe is very high, especially accommodation. You seem to be on a trajectory of being inhumane to Europeans and demanding that they subjugate themselves. All unaccompanied children 10 and under (and those who obviously look their stated age) should be taken in on the proviso that this is temporary refuge and does not mean their families can join them automatically.

[emilybohemia]

Britain does have a responsibility to take in refugees, shake. It was the horrific abandonment of so many Jewish refugees that led to the UN Convention of 1951. It doesn't need to be revised. It needs to be adhered to.

A number of people in the Calais camp would be eligible for asylum in the UK. Unfortunately, the UK government has not recognised their rights or its responsibilities to them.

‘We have been persuaded by the evidence that the government has indeed been
practicing a deliberate policy of destitution of this highly vulnerable group [asylum seekers]. We believe that all deliberate use of inhumane treatment is unacceptable. We have seen instances in all cases where the government’s treatment of asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers falls below the requirements of the commonlaw of humanity and international human rights law'. 2007 Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.

All refugee children deserve help, regardless of age.

I don't understand the point about family members joining them. It is in the best interests of the child to be with their family.

[sportinguista]

You clearly are somewhat unaware of how you come across emily and it isn't as a very polite or socially aware person. You came across as particularly unpleasant towards Yuk who was quite diffident in the way she posted. There was no call for that. I don't know how you come across in real life, it may be that you are more generally less confrontational in person. But you do come across that way here. Myself and many others can put across our point without resorting to the internet equivalent of shouting and snide remarks. Do you think if we were a group of friends discussing the issues here in person that people would want to just sit and take that treatment?

If you can discuss the issues without resorting to the use of the word xenophobe or racist or implying that others lack intelligence then you are welcome to join the discussion.

If not I for one will be ignoring any remarks or reporting them.

[Shakeeba]

The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees needs to be reviewed and revised in light of the population growth everywhere. Somewhere along the line responsibilities have been taken on by European countries and the EU empire to permanently house refugees, instead of giving sanctuary.

Britain has no responsibility to take in refugees and to specifically build housing for them despite the EU forcing this. This is happening in my area, houses being built specifically for incoming. GB has a responsibility, along with other nations, to give medical aid, shelter and food to those fleeing a war zone into a safe country (this might be where the majority flee to, or a place chosen by the UN). The responsibility involves building accommodation outside of GB with a long-term infrastructure that will take care of health-shelter-food-place of worship, until it is safe to return which may be years.

All unaccompanied children that obviously look 10 and under should be taken into care. But I think you will find that in some cases as those children are being taken away, an adult or teenager would appear from the crowd and claim to be a relative.

I am Asian and live in well-known Asian suburb of west London, my parents were economic migrants many years ago. Our town is choc-a-bloc full of solicitors specialising in asylum claims; two of my cousins are in that business. The people in the Calais camp are there because they are not eligible. This is a given in the asylum industry and understood universally, though maybe the odd one or two may be eligible but have been given wrong advice by someone.

[emilybohemia]

No, as I said the only 'name' I called anyone was 'xenophobic.' I said 'poorly thought out' and 'morally redundant'. I said the post was xenophobic. These are phrases criticising a post, not personal name calling. If there are any personal nasty names I missed, feel free to state them as you are misrepresenting my posts.

My posts weren't full of hate. Full of anger, yes. I am angry at the compassion free posts on these threads masquerading as feminist theory and common sense.

[howtorebuild]

Do you think name calling other posters is a post full of hate?

[emilybohemia]

Very mild sarcasm and a post that inferred we can't know the identity of who posts here, while posts like hildurs and posts full of hate are left to stand. If you have a problem with abuse, then you should have a problem with all posting it. Instead, you seem to have an interest in only my posts.

[howtorebuild]

You also posted...