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.

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!

That is an awful trying to say.

If it was your family member would she just be an egg?!

Why is it the responsibility of just the surrounding countries?

I never claimed anything of the sort, please read carefully. I believe it is ALSO incumbent on the Gulf States to offer places to live to refugees. It's hardly an unreasonable viewpoint.

They're not a disease you know.

No idea what you mean by this.

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

As are the disenfranchised, neglected, abused, damaged and traumatised children already in our care system, whom LAs are struggling to house and care for.

Do explain why one of these children is less deserving of a limited resource pool than any other child.

Savewildlife - I'm curious who do you think here may belong to the No Borders group?

One more time. Save The Children say these children are not safe in camps alone across Europe. 10,000 have gone missing over the past year. I think that if an organisation such as that - as close to experts as one can possibly get in this situation, says so, then it is hard to refute the idea.

Cheeseburglar - I've hunted for those figures about child ages and I'm not sure they exist. Country of origin is easier - UNHCR have all of those figures. The youngest unaccompanied child in Calais is 8. I have no idea about other camps across Europe.

You inferred that fanak. Your attempts to pit UK children against refugee children are sad.

BadKitten - If there is an 8 yr old in Calais, why has he/she not been taken to a place of safety in France? There are some young children who present as 'unaccompanied' but in fact there is a sibling or other relative with the child, keeping a distance to perpetuate the notion that the child is by himself.

Emily, not sure if you understood. I have pitted nobody against anyone. The situation, finite resources, means someone loses out. I asked why one group should automatically be given preference.

Concluding that I find a group of humans to be 'a disease' is an interesting, if surreal, place to arrive at.

I won't bother responding to any more of your posts as I'm afraid your cliched words and twisted arguments are of no interest to me.

Maybe because the authorities in France have abandoned them and done nothing tó help them, save?

I have no allegiance to any group. I just have humanity.

I was trying to point out that by taking people who are not what they say they are we are putting people in danger. The policy of not checking the age of the 'child' question led to her being in a dangerous situation with a very violent adult male. This ultimately led to her death. Many people have raised questions as to how we are going to determine which children we take in and how do we genuinely verify that they are indeed vulnerable minors. Do we raise that question or do we just go ahead and leave another family in this country picking up the pieces?

This is why we need planning, to make sure we are taking the most vulnerable children which may indeed mean the very youngest initially as they would be least able to cope alone.

Strangely recalling the Bosnian lads I worked with, there was never any trouble that I can recall, they were all very respectful, although there was quite a bit of sniggering in the parts of the body lesson.

As a foster carer I would absolutely agree with you Sporting that better checks on the ages of teenagers is essential. I sometimes have vulnerable girls and also boys living under my roof. Foster children do not have locks on their doors and a degree of trust is needed for the family unit to work. Noone in the family should be put in danger when looking after children.

Ask the French authorities that SaveWildlife, I don't know the answer.

I imagine the no locks rule is in case a young person may try to harm themselves Cheeseburglar? I think in these situations being able to have a degree of trust is essential and that may mean being sure of the facts and being aware of the issues a young person may be presenting with, so that they can be better cared for and able to be moved forward in life. This is why planning and accurate knowledge of what is available and where.

One other thing is that not all locations may be suitable for these young people, for example very rural places where there may be no mosque or easy access to halal food for them or indeed links with their cultural heritage. These are things that need to be considered when placing them too.

This is pointless.

Will someone who advocates bringing the 3000 "children" here please answer ONE question.

Where/with whom will they live?

The Gulf States are taking Syrian Refugees:

europe.newsweek.com/gulf-states-are-taking-syrian-refugees-401131?rm=eu

So can we put that bit of whataboutery to bed now?

As for those claiming the UK has no responsibility to help, you might want to look into the UN convention and protocols concerning refugees, both oh which the UK is a signatory too, and no leaving the EU wouldn't change that fact.

You need to face up to the facts. We are facing the worst refugee crisis since World War 2. On top of over a decade of regional instability, on the edge if Europe, a country of 20 million people has imploded with no end in sight. There is no escaping this and we need to do our duty.

I wouldn't hold your breath, BMW6

Sarah's winsome pictures of cute little kiddies are all very well, but I'd also like to see some hard evidence of the ages of those we're being asked to accommodate. If it's correct that Norway have found that 9 out of 10 "unaccompanied refugee children" aren't children at all, I'd suggest a halt in the virtue-signalling until better arrangements are in place

Sarah Brown would do better to target her not-insubstantial political clout towards the people-traffickers. These criminals exploit vulnerable people and rob them of their life savings on the promise of a future in the UK. The duped victims are transported in inhumane conditions across Europe, and those that survive are dumped on the shores of the English Channel and pointed towards the white cliffs.

If the UK accepts yet more economic migrants, it only adds to the business for the people-traffickers.

Let me repeat that genuine refugees, child or adult, in Calais or anywhere in Europe, can claim asylum and be spared the horror of the Jungle or similar camps.

Ipity

This article, unless I have misunderstood, refers to Syrians who are workers in KSA and the author states I cannot verify the statements from the Gulf State countries because their publicly available government documents are in Arabic

I have extensive experience of working and living in the Gulf States and I can assure you that 'workers' will not be afforded any particular humanitarian aid.

Thus, I remain unconvinced that the Gulf States are taking refugees.

Even a cursory ten minute Google fails to show any proof to the contrary.

Feel free to prove me wrong though. The alternative is as depressing as it is hypocritical.

IPityThePontipines

"There is no escaping this and we need to do our duty."

As long as people keep posting this rubbish, I'll keep asking this question: how many of them will you be keeping in your house, in accordance with this so-called "duty"?

The fact still stands that we cannot take anybody with inadequate preparation or without knowing where we are going to house them and have the right services in place to make it a safe and caring experience with positive outcomes for those children brought over. We also need to make sure that the most vulnerable are automatically the ones prioritised as they are most at risk from harm.

So I would say work needs to be done on identifying this, then the answer needs to be on how many places can be provided without impacting our ability to care for other children whose needs may be as greater or greater. Suitability along cultural lines of locations taken into consideration too. Then we would be able to say ok we have X places which we can take children immediately into and then ongoing work could be done to create more places as we go along. We would also need to identify funding and also where NGOs and volunteer groups could be of assustance.

It's all very well having an emotional response but the big part of this is saying ok, it's really bad how do we then make what we want to happen, happen in the best way possible.

We also need to acknowledge the complexities of the situation in that adults may lie to get preference and that people traffickers have certainly decided to expand their business in response to this. It has become a very complex situation and it's not just about Syria really as people are not just coming from there.

Fanakapan This was two minutes googling "http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html"

Also, I know people in Saudi and they've verified this for me, particularly the part about the children being provided free education.

OneWing - even if anyone said they would house a child refugee, you'd be back to complain about tax payer's money. That's why no one is answering you.

Sportingguista - what makes you think this preparation work isn't happening already?

IPityis right, we have an obligation to help. To call compassion 'rubbish' and virtue signalling is truly absurd. What are we without it?

10000 unaccompanied refugee childen have already gone missing in Europe The UK and other countries are currently sidestepping international law and treaties that were put in place to ensure childrens' safety.

There is no evidence that accepting and helping refugees would increase people trafficking limer. If European governments were truly interested in ending people trafficking, they would put in place measures for safe passage, rather than allowing boats carrying refugees to be shot at and people fleeing Syria on the Turkish border to be executed as eight women and children were.

Are there no children in your family, onewing? If you were fleeing your town that was an empty shell after being bombed, where would you go? What would you do if there were armed men taking women off to empty buildings? What if you were injured and there was no hospital? Would you simply be responsible for yourself? Would you not try to seek the safety that is your right as stated by the Geneva Convention? As I have stated previously, you cannot encourage or discourage those leaving a warzone. To claim youcan is truly absurd. It is an inevitaility that they will run and not look back.

Sporting, I think you are overemphasising the incidences of children being adults that lied. Many very vulnerable child refugees need help. There is no escaping that.

UN Convention on Rights of the Child below, which many European countries are currently flouting. Unaccompanied children have been allowed to dwell in appalling conditions in the camps at Calais and Dunkirk.

www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

There is a wine cellar in our garden where people hid from soldiers at the end of the Second World War that were raping and looting. The past is never very far away. Your luck may change with the roll of a dice. While you worry about encouraging more people to seek help by helping them, treaties that represent our values of tolerance, generosity and freedom are slowly being abandoned and tossed to the wind. While you worry about the impact of accepting those that are different to live amongst us, I urge you to mull over the consequences of throwing away those treaties and thus eroding all our values and freedoms. How can our supposed democracy that values freedom deny help to those running from terrorists?

The mistakes of the past are being repeated because of misplaced fears. History will judge us all.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue-signalling-putdown-passed-sell-by-date

Children or not; as a country that has no qualms spending millions bombing thier country and neighbouring ones...this gov has a responsibility to provide shelter to these refugees in our country. Totally uncivilised and morally depraved behaviour!

www.unhcr.org/4534f1e713.pdf

Some info above on teenage refugees for those that think they are no longer vulnerable or not really a child.

I have not read all the posts (apologies - too many), but what if we were to take under 5's only.
As a country we evacuated many very young children from central London to escape the bombing and they were housed with families who had spare beds in Wales, Cornwall, etc, all safer places than London at the time.
I am sure that there would be enough families able to take very young children rather than teens.
Anyone who knows teens must be aware that they are more challenging, and without language or knowledge of our culture it will be very difficult for families to house or communicate with them.
We did it before in times of war and crisis. But I do feel it should be the youngsters who will still be able to learn our language and culture in time to enter the school system. (Overloaded and under enormous pressure already, I know, but it may not be something we can say no to).