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.

I have to say I don't see the connection with the Kindertransport. I saw a recent documentary on that issue and apparently the UK Govt at the time insisted on specific foster parents/ family being identified for each child and a £50 bond so they weren't a burden on the state.

So it's not that a large number of children were allowed in with the details to be sorted later, (such as who is taking care of these children) which seems to be what is being advocated in this thread.

The Government needs to stand firm against this insanity - supporting 3000 extra will cost at least £100 million a year, and create a colossal pull factor once the word gets out that there's an open door to the UK for anyone in Europe claiming to be a child.

Perhaps we could levy a super tax on the virtue-signallers to pay for it? £10,000 from 10,000 VSs would make a good start. That's per year, so remember to start saving up for next year's payment now.

HMRC is waiting for your cheques:

HMRC
Direct
BX5 5BD

The Government needs to stand firm or it will never stop.

We agreed to take 20,000 Syrian refugees.\

Then we agreed to take a further 3,000 unaccompanied Syrian children from the camps outside the EU.

Now you want us to take another 3,000 children.

When we've taken those you'll be demanding we take yet another 3,000 children.

Will you be happy when we have 23,000 unaccompanied 'children' like Sweden has - because activists there are still demanding Sweden take more..

We are doing far more than our fair share.

Your attempts to 'shame' us into taking more and more migrant children will not work as we are rightly proud of the immense efforts we are already contributing.

Nothing is ever enough for No Borders, Springing - the clue's in the name!

I find this thread utterly depressing. I didn't realise we were such an uncaring, heartless nation of people. I hope that you children are never in the position these children are (and although there are obviously some over 18 etc etc but not all so can we please stop the tarring). I would be devastated to think of my child alone and unable to fend for themselves in a strange country having fled the horrors of war, or worse they have ended up in the hands of human traffickers.
And countries like ours which are rich (yes we are compared to most others in the ear of the world) turn their back and say "sorry nothing we can do, just not practical".
I don't know whether I am more angry or saddened by the lack of compassion.

MiniMum - Totally agree with you. I'm hopeful this thread isn't indicative of public opinion. I don't think I know anyone IRL who wouldn't support this amendment.

Bebe - that's how I feel. #couldbemychild

Many people are not lacking compassion, they just want to see things done the right way so that the most vunerable are helped in a way that is not at the expense of helping other vunerable youngsters.

Having helped with refugees in the past I know that many different things need to be put in place before we can help effectively. Consultations on these things should help define where and how we can best help. Refugees don't need people going "Oh my that's terrible" they need action being taken so they can make informed choices about what to do.

Helping child refugees more effectively inside the camps may be the best way of keeping them out of the hands of the human traffickers. Some of the organisations are doing work there to keep children and families together, keep extended support networks together and making sure children keep the normality of education there. These are all things that are being done and we should all try and contribute to. It's not always the right thing to bring them here. Sometimes it will be, but we need to make sure we give those that do come here the very best chance of becoming the best they can be, which will mean the right support - which takes planning.

I would suggest that the UK has taken a huge amount of refugees in, considering we are a small country.

OP - It is very wrong of you to speak of Kindertransport. This country's population was very small in the 1940s, even for that era, and the children had people (who were known to them) already in place in GB to care for them. If the 3,000 children are under 10 then it is feasible to give them sanctuary temporarily. No one over age 10 because then we get into difficulties, such as 20 yr old men pretending to be 16.

Another difficulty is cost of interpreters, catering to different food taste, possibly providing counsellors (again interpreters) and religious education. If you want to mirror the Kindertransport effort, then the 3,000 children should be financed by the Muslim Council of GB or indeed independent mosques around the country.

In that way, accommodation can be sought & provided in a similar mileu with understandable language and habits. BUT this should not be a green light for their parents or relatives to be given Permanent Leave to Remain.

Minimum97

"I don't know whether I am more angry or saddened by the lack of compassion."

Will you be housing them and / or paying £30,000 a year towards their upkeep (per child)? If not, you're being awfully compassionate with other people's money!

Will you be housing them and / or paying £30,000 a year towards their upkeep (per child)? If not, you're being awfully compassionate with other people's money!

Save Wildlife - mosques are already donating plenty to help refugees and I'm sure they would help refugees arriving in the country.

I'm curious as to why you've singled out mosques though. Surely you aren't saying people who aren't Muslim don't care about child refugees? That would be a terrible thing to say.

I pay tax, it's my money too, I'm happy for it to be spent helping children in such a dire situation.

IPity: Why? Because the Kindertransport effort was organised by a Jewish charity. (It has gone through a name change since 1940s). I am suggesting that that model is followed because The Muslim Council and the larger mosques have resources, can place the children and give them as much familiar surroundings as possible. To be at least in a home in which you recognise 'ways', language, the food is similar - I believe that familiarity must offset some of their trauma.

Save - the period of the Second World War was pre the founding of the modern welfare state. Do you suggest we go back to the pre NHS funding of healthcare too?

Besides which, Muslim charities can't circumvent immigration policy, no matter how much money they have, the government still has to allow them to enter the country.

This is a really obvious point and that you seem to somehow be missing it in order to try and pin the blame on the British Muslim community strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.

The Muslim Council of Britain isn't a charity, either. Google harder.

The children will be checked in by Immigration in the usual way. Obviously. Details of the temporary homes they are placed in wll be provided to Immigration. The Muslim Council is a RESOURCE and can find organisations within the community who can coordinate the whole exercise. These organisations/charities in turn will circulate info through mosques that children are in need of foster care. You appear not to understand how wheels within wheels work.

The pope stepped in to save some refugees didnt he?

Where are the Muslim Leaders making the same such visits?

I would rather take children directly from Syria who have the most need. Children who are sick and disabled and can't get appropriate care. Children who have been the victims of war crimes and are traumatised.

I don't want to prioritise those with the sharpest elbows and the most money to pay people smugglers. And I don't want to encourage more of the sharp elbowed to come when there are children in far worse danger and need who need helping.

You appear not to understand how wheels within wheels work.

You appear to be totally unaware of the statutory duties that Local Authorities must comply with. It's not a matter of funnelling kids off to live in placements found by the mosques.

The prospective families would be subject to the same vetting and suitability as other foster parents. That takes time. That costs money. That involves Social Services who are already stretched to the limit trying (and sometimes failing) to protect the children who are already here.

In that case, the country does not have any spare £ or resources to support 3,000 children.

We simply don't have enough to foster carers were short at the moment and that's for uk children

We also don't have enough to foster cares willing to take on teens let alone ones whom we have no idea there actual age it's unsafe for foster cares with current placements to take on these children even if they would and the scandals if we placed a "child" in a care home who turned out to be a grown man

The current systems of checking how old a child is in the uk is not currently good enough

And it's all well and good people saying I will take a child in but

You would be subject to the same checks and assments as any other foster carer so it begs the question if you want to take a child in why haven't you become a foster carer already ?

Oh and also can I just say that BME are the worst at offering homes I say this as a black person myself but the reality it's that social services currently struggle to place Muslims children often having to place them with non Muslim families because there is not enough enough Muslims foster carers and I do no adoption is considered haram in Islam

The average annual cost of keeping a child in care is £200,000. And that's a child with no additional needs

Also there is almost 0 prospect of these children being adopted as sw are still very much obsessed with matching by religion and again very few Muslim adopters I just hope all these people saying we would take the children in have sighned up to become adopters

Love your post bebe.

I think some people are very naive ...the older male teens didn't make their way here independently ...the people smugglers aren't charities -they were paid. A lot of money...So by who? Why are they mainly male and not female?
I would suggest the 'children's' families have paid for them ...get them into Europe and then they can get a foothold and then get the rest of the family across. They can't send the girls because it isn't safe (and they need to make sure they don't become spoiled goods -be sure their reputations are kept intact). Send 'children' because they are more likely to get sympathetic treatment...as illustrated by this petition.
And the photo with this OP is an insult to our intellect, misleading, a direct attempt to misrepresent the true situation. Manipulative in the extreme. I would like to know the ages (and sex) of the 3000 unaccompanied 'children'. What percentage are female? What percentage are under 10?

(I know in a previous guest post it said in Calais there were some children 'as young as 10' - so I am guessing 0% under 10 ...)

Also we have to be careful -if we say we will take the under 10s how many will suddenly become 'unaccompanied' - only for their family to miraculously turn up later?
And if we take the teens - as others have said it will be a green light for more to be sent - more risking their lives to get into Europe. (And more money for the smugglers to feed into the criminal underworld)
And how are these older teens going to react to structure and rules?
What about the Moroccan 'children' who were causing problems in Stockholm station - the ones who were refusing to stay in the government provided accommodation and choosing to live on the streets/in the station instead...they valued their 'freedom' more than safety/warmth and food.

I read the same had happened with some of the unaccompanied children in Calais...refused to stay in the homes provided. How are we going to do any better? We can't even keep UK teens in care homes.

Well said Bicnod. I am astonished by the lack of humanity shown in the comments to this thread.

Regardless of their exact age these are vulnerable young people. Do none of you have sons? Imagine them alone, having fled half way across the world to avoid a war aged 15 or 16. Would you not hope someone would help them?

I think we should help the children from war torn countries.

I think we should help the children in refugee camps.

I wonder if British muslim families here might be willing to foster refugee children from Syria when they might not be willing to foster a resident child with special needs.

Fostering a healthy child with no physical or developmental difficulties who is likely to want to go back to their home country when the war is over is very different to fostering a child from an abusive home who might have learning difficulties.

If the UK govt worked harder to eliminate inequalities and improve the lot of the 20% of children living in poverty in this country, there might be less need for foster carers.

My sisters MIL came in on the kindertransport age 12. She had no family or friends to come to. They all got killed in the Holocaust.

Age assessment is not an exact science. There is very little accuracy to physically establish the age of post pubertal human beings under 25.

I think we should welcome as many as we can. Perhaps create orphanages for them if foster carers wont come forward.