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.

It was stated above if you read the thread. Many of the the child migrants pictured do seem to be more that age bracket. They look older than my DSS who is 19 and at Uni and he most definitely is classed as an adult under law.

3k for the whole country would be more feasible but again with the correct planning and support structures.

Sweden do appear to be struggling somewhat with those numbers, it isnt all plain sailing. 3k for each local authority comes out as 990,000.

A million teen boys and some men saying they are teens with PTSD from a misogynistic culture, please No!

Oh don't be daft, saying numbers will be agreed with local authorities doesn't mean we'll take a million, it's the opportunity to take even less than 3000, or to concentrate on putting them in a few areas which it's agreed can cope.

...3000 in each authority what a load of scaremongering bullshit.

...3000 in each authority what a load of scaremongering bullshit.

That's what he said. On LBC this morning. He intends to vote for unlimited numbers of migrant children to be admitted.

Stated above by someone who is chatting shit sporting? Don't fall for it

This is how one supporter of Sarah Brown's genuine proposal has decided to despoil this thread with vile abusive accusations because another poster has the temerity to offer an opposing view.

If that offensive statement is representative of the way they treat their fellow posters you really do have to wonder how genuine his oft-stated concern for their follow human beings actually is.

People who insist on having their way, against all other opinion, against common sense, against what has been decided by their elected Government are fascists. It's there way or no way.

In my understanding the amendment is to address the fears that 3,000 is too many.

To put it into context, even if we were to take 3,000 that is around 5 per constituency.

The new amendment focuses on government gaining agreement of local authorities as to how many they could take - that is likely to mean LESS rather than MORE than the 3,000 previously suggested.

And we're back to square one.

These young people are already in Europe and could claim asylum in the country they are currently in.

There are millions more refugees, too poor or sick or traumatised or weak or displaced or unable to leave wounded relatives or just plain afraid to travel thousands of miles.

It is they who need immediate care and aid.

And I ask about the Gulf countries as I have yet to hear a single argument explaining why they are refusing practical assistance to their brothers and sisters.

We should be lobbying at a governmental level, through diplomatic channels, in the media, however we can, to put pressure on countries close by to help refugees in the region and offer homes to these thousands of youths who are apparently at terrible risk unless they are allowed into the UK.

Iraq have taken 250,000 Syrian refugees.

Jordan have taken 640,000 Syrian refugees.

Lebanon have taken 1,048,000 Syrian refugees.

Egypt have taken 119,000 Syrian refugees.

Turkey have taken 2,749,000 Syrian refugees.

Not quite sure how that equates to countries surrounding Syria (these are the countries that border Syria) not playing their part.

154,000 refugees arrived in Greece between January and 23rd April this year - these people are not making the journey lightly, they are literally running for their lives.

They are my brothers and sisters too Fanakapan. They are human, just like you and I.

Some people desperately in need of care leave precisely because they are not getting care where they are fanak. There have been very elderly people, people without limbs, people with lacerations from torture and blind people arriving in Lesbos. Do you think the people with injuries that had the audacity to leave don't deserve help?

If your child was blinded by a barrel bomb would you stay where you are or would you leave? How would you feel if you left to try to make your child's life safer and people said you didn't deserve help because you left?

Why is it the responsibility of just the surrounding countries? They're not a disease you know.

They're OUR brothers and sisters too.

To those claiming all sorts of crap about their culture and how dangerous these children are, I say it doesn't matter where they come from. They should be helped.

This January, a young woman was murdered in Sweden by an adult refugee pretending to be a 15 year old.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/12153428/Child-migrant-who-killed-asylum-centre-worker-is-an-adult-Swedish-migration-rules.html

"The asylum seeker who stabbed 22-year-old Alexandra Mezher to death at an accommodation centre in Sweden last month is an adult, not a 15-year-old as he had claimed, Sweden’s migration agency has ruled.
Ms Mezher was stabbed at the centre for refugee children aged between 14 and 17 who are without any adult guardians in Molndal near Gothenburg on Sweden's west coast."

"It will add to growing suspicions that a large portion of the 35,000 unaccompanied refugee minors who claimed asylum in the country last year have lied about their age, claiming to be under-18 in order to take advantage of more generous asylum rules."

Virtue-signallers should be made to house every single migrant we take, instead of basking in their self righteousness while society shoulders the burden they so loudly invite.

And I ask about the Gulf countries as I have yet to hear a single argument explaining why they are refusing practical assistance to their brothers and sisters.

We should be lobbying at a governmental level, through diplomatic channels, in the media, however we can, to put pressure on countries close by to help refugees in the region and offer homes to these thousands of youths who are apparently at terrible risk unless they are allowed into the UK.

Repeat the above as many times as necessary.

Bicnod

"They are my brothers and sisters too Fanakapan. They are human, just like you and I."

Wonderful - how many will be living in your house? Or do the rest of us have to pay for your conscience?

I pay my taxes thanks OneWingWonder

The OP seems to convey that the unaccompanied children are young children - hence the photograph showing toddlers. The unaccompanied children are clearly savvy enough to have made a long journey, and presumably had someone negotiate and pay for the sea crossing. I just do not believe that junior school age children are the ones who are unaccompanied.

Mrs Brown says "we have obligations to the children who are here in our continent". But they are not on our continent, they are in Europe and there are at least 20 EU member states who could take the kids. I think others have got wise to this 'children' scam, because the majority of 16+ yr old boys, strong, hostile, self-possessed and with their own agendas.

Bicnod

"I pay my taxes thanks OneWingWonder"

So do I, and I don't want them here. You have no right to make the rest of the country pay for your private conscience.

We all know the number will be zero. It always is with virtue-signallers.

Well it wasn't in fact said by Springing was it? She just repeated what had been stated in the press. There seems to be quite a bit of variation of thought as to what the amendment might mean, there seems to be alot of going around in circles generally. Lack of clarity as to what ages is classed as a child, what will happen as regards of capacity with practical logistical matters to facilitate bringing these children/young people here.

To be honest I think what is required is the government to go back to local authorities and get detailed, firm information on what can be provided by each and for how many. Then a vote needs to be taken on that number.

Then we would know that we can reasonably offer those children and I mean they should genuinely be under 16, the right care and facilities. There is no point people in the Tory party or otherwise grabbing numbers out of the air and saying they are going to put that forward as a motion. Even I can see that is absolutely daft.

The No Borders contingent is operating on this thread. If you were honest, you would declare that allegiance to MN.

In the op Sarah links to the story of Naj, 14, from Afghanistan who travelled alone at 13 to escape. Karen, his foster carer seems to have a great relationship with him.

Are there any facts and figures regarding these child refugees? How many under 5s, how many under 10s, how many under 16s? What was their country of origin?

If there is a Syrian child who has for example travelled across Europe with his parents who have sadly died and ended up somehow in France would it not be kinder to repatriate him to a properly run orphanage in an official camp as close as possible to Syria? I can't see how bringing a bereaved and orphaned child to a country so very far both culturally and geographically from his own home country would be very kind or reassuring?

We provide government funding for official camps - I'm sure many people, me included, would be more than happy to raise money for official, properly funded orphanages within the camps so that these children could be looked after by Syrians and repatriated once it is safe to do so?

I'm a foster carer and have worked with refugee children, along with children from many other parts of the world and know how very difficult it is for children to adapt to new families, learn new languages.

OneWingWonder - I have every right to have an opinion on how my taxes are spent. That's how democracy works.

Onewing, I believe the young lady in Sweden is what is known as collaterall damage. After all you cant make an omelette without breaking eggs!

Bicnod

No, you have no right to force an additional burden on other taxpayers. These migrants are not British, they are in Europe, and Britain has no obligation to them whatsoever.

If you think they do, then you can go ahead and pay for it. Anything else is pure virtue-signalling.

sportinguista

You're absolutely right - to the open borders crowd, just because that young woman was murdered doesn't mean the man-pretending-to-be-a-child who did it is dangerous! How can we overcome this insanity?

Cheeseburglar - I agree. As much as possible, orphaned children should be cared by carers of the same background, i.e. Syrian children cared for by Syrian workers in well-run orphanages. Why add culture shock to an already distressed child. There is comfort in the familiar.