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.

Yes but we would still need to make sure we can absolutely meet theirs and the needs of the vunerable children of this country for fostering. Those that have family members in the UK should be easy to place always assuming that the family members have conditions to take them. I think that Save the Children would be the first to say that the arrangements for these children need to be of the highest quality in terms of producing a good outcome for these children. I would think they would be involved in placing and planning, no?

I think that as Save the Children are calling for this action right now, then probably it ought to happen right now. Because at the moment these children are in the absolute worst possible place they could be (other than back at home risking death through war!)

WhirlwindHugs it is a fact that migrants are pretending to be children to get into the UK. There was a recent case of one Afghan migrant (who came via Calis) assaulting his foster carer and claimed to be 12, was registered as 16 but turned out to be 18-21. Another case where the carer was being sexually assaulted by a “teenager” she was looking after. If we look around the other countries in Europe, there are numerous cases of sex attacks and rapes by migrants.

To call it faux-feminism is a lie and deeply insulting. Migrants in the french camps are in a safe country and we have no moral obligation to help them further at the expense of our own children.

"Children in Calais are teargassed regularly - inside their shelters"- where is the proof that french police are doing this, its a lie.

Why aren't Save the Children campaigning for french government to look after these children. What is the reasoning why they have to be taken to a different county?

Why are save the children not looking into why the children are not staying in foster care in other EU countries? Why would they stay in our foster care?

Faux feminism, really? Save the children should be looking at the welfare of school girls, looked after girls and female foster girls too.

To only take the welfare needs of teen males possible men posing as children and ignoring the needs of girls would be misogynistic.

They are taking them. Do you really think there are only 3000 of them?

Are other countries being asked if they have foster carers available? Fostering is not purely a British phenomenon I'm sure. EU wide we might be able to come up with far more than 3000 places.

There needs to be risk assessments put in place to ensure the safety of foster carers and any other children in the foster home whether they are the carers own children or other foster children. This might be an assessment of the needs of the young person based on a medical assessment of age. It wouldn't be perfect but it would help eliminate risk and ensure that the services provided to the young person would be tailored to their age and needs.

I will restate - Save the Children say they are not safe. Not just in France, but much more so at many borders across Europe - look at Hungary for instance. So many news articles of people being beaten, shot, teargassed.

The moral argument is two fold - while we are involved in bombing, we must also be involved in healing. And if you think the burden of 3000 children is too much for England, why is it less of a burden for countries such as Greece and Italy, with much more challenging economic circumstances to look after 10's of thousands?

And yes, of course, whenever tear gas is fired into the Calais camp, children are teargassed. The shelters are so flimsy, they provide no shelter against tear gas. watch a child run with their family from the tear gas
They were with their family, but many weren't.

There is an average of 18,000 refugee children arriving in Europe every month. We are being asked to care for a tiny percentage

3000 is the figure we are supposed to be taking is it not?

Is that Save the Children have placed a number of children with carers in other European countries?

It would seem that Kent County Council are already looking after a large number of unaccompanied minors already so we are doing some of our share it seems.

Last year an estimated 26,000 unaccompanied children entered Europe. 3000 is said to be our fair share.

The children in Calais can claim asylum if they're refugees.
If Europe starts housing and providing for every economic migrant arriving on her shores, the people trafficking will only get worse.

That isnt what is being asked for though is it Limer?

"Only 3000 children"

Yes..this time

How many next time?
And the time after that?

We do need for the right care to be in place though. We cannot provide these children with substandard care once they get here as that will be storing up problems for later. Look at the issues our own care leavers face. Many do not end up doing well in education, they face MH issues.

I have no problem with any child coming as long as there is the right care for them at this end.

FWIW my DS school has had children from refugee situations in the school. The staff do a very good job with them and the children help them settle. Most (as they are little children) are with their families. I understand our city has already taken more families already as we have regular events for new arrivals. I think there is often more happening than we see in the papers.

My next door neighbours daughter plays with a little girl who is recently arrived. She doesn't speak much English yet, but she is picking it up at a fair pace!

One of the concerns is that people trafficking has become big business. These people are not going to like to lose their income are they?

These people create utter misery and at worst kill people. That needs to be stopped too.

You are right about the profit the people smugglers make sporting. People make money from fake life jackets too. Call for UK and European government to provide safe passage then maybe sporting, if you are concerned about people trafficking. People will inevitably leave war torn countries and will resort to illegal means until legal measures are put in place.

There will be people making money from trafficked women and kids too.

3000 is a shamefully small amount and it has been rejected. It's unbelievable.

Limer, you are wrong. People will leave war anyway, they don't need encouragement. I hate some of the punitive almost Victorian attitudes from some here, that offering kindness will 'only encourage them.'

They are kids, not barbarians about to rape your daughters. Anyone can do bad shit but denying help on the premise of what someone may or may not do is so wrong and pretty stupid too.

It's a thorny problem though isn't it? It's not just refugees as well. There's a horrendous trade in girls for sex trafficking. Some of those reports are horrendous. I read one about a lady who was recruited to work in a hotel in the states only to find out that she was being taken to a brothel. She did get away but not for quite a long time.

There do need to be safeguards in place so that foster carers wellbeing is taken into consideration too. Otherwise we will find that people are not willing to take children.

I thought it hasn't been outright rejected and there will be amendments but some children will be coming.

May I ask, how did you find the refugees you volounteered with settled in, sporting? I realise it must have been some time ago.

sport - they have agreed to take 3000 children but not from Europe - from camps around Syria, over a period of four years.

I was involved in language teaching and not the actual settling in. Most of them settled in ok but I would say most were quite homesick for the families that were still there. They had a lot of support in terms of counsellling. They did try to place them together and not alone as that would have been very isolating.

Most of them returned to Bosnia, one I know of stayed and he married a local girl and got his dream job as a mechanic. I hope things worked out for all those who made the journey back too, they wanted to go because they still had family there.

I gather there was quite a bit of planning behind it all and it did work out I think.

I don't know if it would replicate quite the same in this situation as it is very different and it's not just one area that people are coming from but a very wide range of countries it seems.

Half of women in the UK have been sexually assaulted and a quarter raped. Hoe dare you suggest that teen males some men happy to fabricate they are children suffering PTSD would not hurt women and girls in any way. We have enough of that already. I am all for taking small children not more males physically stronger, from a misogynistic culture, suffering PTSD, thus being likely violent towards women and girls. Little children instead please.

Thanks sporting. They must have missed their country a lot. It sounds like they got a lot of support.

There was a programme on years ago where they made a boyband. One of them was a Bosnian refugee and he had such a strong Cockney accent you would never have known!

It must be hard for those that went back as many of the people that committed atrocities are still aroundin the same villages.

A girl in a school I worked in was a Kosovan refugee and was very settled and spoke with a broad Yorkshire accent.

I think it could work this time too. The support is very important. I think Bosnia and Kosovo have different cultures but they managed ok in the UK.

Yes the people that committed the atrocities are still there and it will be hard to heal the wounds, but time does help. In my DH country they still live with the legacy of the dictatorship and the atrocities that happened there but time is the healer. It's much the same in Spain I think. Mostly people pick up the pieces and go on, there is a lot of resilience in the human spirit as well.

They went back for their loved ones.

They did have somewhat different cultures to us, but they were not culturally as close to the middle East as the present refugees. Yugoslavia was popular with tourists before the trouble happened, I well remember school friends of mine going there on holidays.