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.

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

And yet it's 3,000 more than a single Gulf State has offered to take. Even though charity is a pillar of Islam and I believe destitute orphans are mentioned in teachings.

May I ask those so keen to impose more strain on the UK foster system how exhaustively they have lobbied for other, richer, nations, who can offer similar cultural experience and upbringing, to take some of these children.

That to me is the huge elephant in the drawing room.

Why are you afraid to ask? I suspect it's much much easier to virtue signal come into these threads and shriek xenpohobia at polite Englisg types than it is to attempt to get some sort of cohesive action off the ground to ensure that EVERYONE does their bit.

Meanwhile, in Denmark The number of individuals who sought asylum under the status of an unaccompanied minor rose dramatically from 354 in 2013 to a total of 818 in 2014. Some 80 percent of these were classified as having a stated age between 15-17.

Of those 818, DIS investigated the age of 282 refugees and found that 203 of them, or 72 percent of the questionable cases, were actually above the age of 18 despite claims to the contrary.

Figures from Danish Immigration Authority.

So, Sarah Brown seems happy to misrepresent the truth about the migrant 'children' (nice pic Sarah, but very different to the reality).

This is an asylum seeker who claimed to be child. He is an adult and he murdered a Swedish social worker.

Who is afraid to ask? I agree that the Gulf States are behaving shamefully.

But that is not the issue at hand. Which is that there are thousands of unaccompanied children (and they are not all rapists posing as 10 year olds) who need looking after. Now.

I think the kindertransport analogy is spot on actually. Read this (and this article is nearly 15 years old): www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

Plus ca change ...

In Norway, they carry out dental x-rays which have shown that 9 out of 10 unaccompanied refugee children are over 18, in fact many were considerably older. One example is Asha, an asylum seeker from Somalia was 30 and claiming to be 19.

The naivety of some people absolutely stuns me.

One factor in the equation which makes it different from the early 1990's when I taught the Bosnian teens was that at that time we had not experienced the migration from the EU which happened 2004 onwards. It was much lower and emigration was much closer to the same level too.

It may have meant that the pressure on the services required was much less and could be comfortably accommodated. There was some reliance on volunteers like myself but there were paid professionals involved to a great extent. I don't know what the ratios of people to services are like now but it doesn't sound like it has kept pace enough for a number of years and that coupled with the cuts being made has created a situation where there is not enough to go round.

If I could solve all this I'd be in Whitehall and earning a lot more than I do at present!

Why are the Gulf States doing so little? I've heard various things mainly to do with cultural imbalance. Why is it that they are allowed to claim that when we are not?

It would be good if they could step in at least for some of these children. There is a lot of wealth in these states and giving a home to children would be a very good use of a small fraction of it.

Fanakapan please tell us what action you have taken to give us some ideas on how we can take the gulf states to task. I'm a bit confused whether you think we should be taking our share or not?

AnnaForbes - you seem to be really good at closing your eyes to all of the young children in the camps as well as the teenagers, who in the uk we still consider to be children. I won't start posting pictures of young refugee children as you seem to be quite proficient in googling.

I'll try and answer that properly later sportinguista if noone else has, but this amendment is about the children who are already in Europe. Ideally, the gulf states would take them from their region.
Got to get back to work now!

I unfortunately don't think we can force the Gulf states to take anyone as it stands and it seems governments would be reluctant to put pressure on them to do so. I believe they have put money in the pot but that is it. I'm not sure why they feel Europe is better placed to help in terms of placement of people.

Take in 3000 from France, then we will have to take their family, more immigrants will then use it as a route into England and send their children ahead, so it could actually increase the trafficking of unaccompanied minors. They are living in France its their job to look after them. We are doing the right thing by only taking genuine refugees direct from Turkey.

The House of Lords are holding another vote on yet another Dubs Amendment next week - this time they will not be asking for the UK to take just 3,000 children - this new amendment calls for *unlimited' acceptance into the UK of child migrants.

This is crazy. One Tory MO was suggesting that every Local Authority takes 3,000 children.

We don't have the resources or schools - our Local Authority's are already cutting essential services

These idiots need to stop their crazy demands

It's to much, I am on the fence about the EU but this is the sort of thing that will make me vote out. England can't afford its own children never mind unlimited numbers from France.

I was on the fence too urban but things like this is making me want to vote out

Surely it is better to take unaccompanied children directly from Syria, Turkey etc... The children in Europe have already made it to a safer place and have a chance of a better life in Europe. It's the children still in the conflict areas who are not currently safe. Why is France for example, not good enough when the UK is? There are very few unaccompanied "children" in Europe, the overwhelming majority of "unaccompanied children" will be teeneagers. It's not quite the same thing.

As others have commented, logic and precedent has shown that accepting teenagers/children already in Europe will send a deadly signal to attract more to make the dangerous attempt to reach Europe and to continue through Europe, rejecting the opportunities to claim asylum in multiple safe countries because they are clinging to the belief that they will make it to the UK. Stating there will be a limit of 3,000 is pointless and irrelevant to desperate people who will believe what they want to believe. We saw exactly this happen when Merkel stated that Germany would take all Syrian refugees, she meant those already in Europe stuck at the Hungarian-Austrian borders but as we all know now, people in countries including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Morocco, Algeria etc... heard her "invitation" and decided to interpret it as including them.

Genuinely unaccompanied children already in Europe should be taken in by child services of the safe European country they are already in. Why is this an unreasonable approach. We absolutely should help children directly in the conflict zones.

Oh please, since when was a teenager not a child rain?

They will leave war torn places anyway or harsh regimes anyway, it is not something that´can be encouraged or discouraged, rain.

Help those in conflict zones I agree with but the kids in Europe need help too before they disappear.

Help those in conflict zones I agree with but the kids in Europe need help too before they disappear

And you should be writing to the Givernments of the countries they are already living in and telling them this, instead of wasting time on here.

Every minute counts Emily

18 - 20 is not classed as a child under law I believe. If you commit a crime at that age you will be tried as an adult, you are classed as a young adult in all respects. Many people are in fact parents themselves at that age.

3000 for each local authority would be extremely difficult. Our city already has a shortage of school places and high inward migration from both inside the EU and outside it. There are long waiting lists. Putting 3k children into that equation would mean literally asking any parent who could to withdraw their child and home educate. Then there would be need for foster carers when there are already children here waiting for that service, then housing generally. If their families then asked for reunification there could potentially be even more people. Many doctors here and dentists have closed their lists. Basically we would need a huge cash injection and extra infrastructure built. I take it the person who suggested that had the cash and personnel lined up already?

Who is to say these war hardened teenagers won't disappear as soon as they get into the UK. How many of them are disappearing specifically because they don't want to be adopted into a French family. Where is the evidence that there is three thousand young children like those shown in Sarah's picture?

It's not 3000 for each authority, it's 3000 for the whole country over 4 years. We would cope!

It's not 3000 for each authority, it's 3000 for the whole country over 4 years. We would cope

No.

That amendment was defeated.

The new amendment is for unlimited numbers of unaccompanied children. Sweden already has 23,000.

The petition doesn't specify adults of 18 to 20 does it sporting? I don't know where you've got that from or the figure of 3000 for each authority.

If 9 in 10 unaccompanied minors are being found to be over 18 then it's highly likely many of the 3000 will be too. I am not willing to have grown men in my child's school, like is happening elsewhere.

The new amendment that will be tabled in the House of Lords next week:

But Labour quickly tabled an alternative proposal, which is expected to be debated in the Lords on Tuesday. Instead of referring to a specific number of refugees, the new amendment attempts to skirt the claim of financial implications by saying how many will be accepted, “shall be determined by the government in consultation with local authorities”.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/tories-vote-against-accepting-3000-child-refugees

One of the Tory MPs interviewed about this new amendment said he thought 3,000 per authority was OK.

Labour don't actually need to get into Government any more - they can get what they want by persuading enough people if they keep asking the same question over and over again
- the same tactics the EU uses when it doesn't get its way