This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/we-cannot-break-our-promise-to-take-in-child-refugees
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| We can’t break a promise to take in child refugees | We can’t break a promise to take in child refugees |
| (25 days later) | |
| The government is hoping the public will conveniently forget about the crisis it is ignoring | |
| Sun 24 Dec 2017 00.05 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| Is the plight of lone child refugees yesterday’s news for this government? Is it hoping that the public will simply stop caring and the outrage, the headlines and the problem are just going to melt away? | Is the plight of lone child refugees yesterday’s news for this government? Is it hoping that the public will simply stop caring and the outrage, the headlines and the problem are just going to melt away? |
| It appears that the Home Office isn’t filling the spaces reserved for unaccompanied child refugees under the Dubs scheme. This year, the places, which were expected to number around 3,000, were announced to be limited to 350. After a public outcry and intervention from the House of Lords, this was increased to 480. | It appears that the Home Office isn’t filling the spaces reserved for unaccompanied child refugees under the Dubs scheme. This year, the places, which were expected to number around 3,000, were announced to be limited to 350. After a public outcry and intervention from the House of Lords, this was increased to 480. |
| Amber Rudd, the home secretary, now says that the number of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK specifically under the Dubs scheme is “over 200”, which sounds carefully vague. (The government has been steadfastly unco-operative about committing to numbers.) | Amber Rudd, the home secretary, now says that the number of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK specifically under the Dubs scheme is “over 200”, which sounds carefully vague. (The government has been steadfastly unco-operative about committing to numbers.) |
| Yvette Cooper, in the role of chair of the Commons home affairs committee, says that government promises are looking “hollow” regarding unaccompanied child refugees (who are at grave risk of trafficking and other exploitation) and that the Home Office response is “completely inadequate”. It also sounds chaotic, the mess further complicated by the government saying that there were already around 4,000 lone asylum-seeking children in care in the UK. This figure, if accurate, was brandished at Cooper and the committee as if it were someone else’s doing – that it somehow wasn’t the government’s fault that there was such widespread disorder. | Yvette Cooper, in the role of chair of the Commons home affairs committee, says that government promises are looking “hollow” regarding unaccompanied child refugees (who are at grave risk of trafficking and other exploitation) and that the Home Office response is “completely inadequate”. It also sounds chaotic, the mess further complicated by the government saying that there were already around 4,000 lone asylum-seeking children in care in the UK. This figure, if accurate, was brandished at Cooper and the committee as if it were someone else’s doing – that it somehow wasn’t the government’s fault that there was such widespread disorder. |
| Similarly, when Cooper pointed out that 3,000 unaccompanied child refugee places could still be made available by local councils, should further central government funding become available, the response was that this wasn’t an actual target, just a figure relating to the maximum number of child refugees who could be helped. But, or so went the implication, they sure as hell wouldn’t be. Well, thanks for clearing that up. Merry Christmas! | Similarly, when Cooper pointed out that 3,000 unaccompanied child refugee places could still be made available by local councils, should further central government funding become available, the response was that this wasn’t an actual target, just a figure relating to the maximum number of child refugees who could be helped. But, or so went the implication, they sure as hell wouldn’t be. Well, thanks for clearing that up. Merry Christmas! |
| It bears repeating that the figure of 3,000 lone child refugees wasn’t plucked out of the “handwringing do-gooder” ether. It was part of the original campaign for the Dubs amendment – in that it was deemed fair and appropriate for Britain to help 3,000 of the estimated 90,000 unaccompanied child refugees, in the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War. (Of course, there are innumerable other child and adult refugees.) To give it some context, around 200,000 asylum seekers were accepted into the UK over a three-year period after the break-up of Yugoslavia. | It bears repeating that the figure of 3,000 lone child refugees wasn’t plucked out of the “handwringing do-gooder” ether. It was part of the original campaign for the Dubs amendment – in that it was deemed fair and appropriate for Britain to help 3,000 of the estimated 90,000 unaccompanied child refugees, in the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War. (Of course, there are innumerable other child and adult refugees.) To give it some context, around 200,000 asylum seekers were accepted into the UK over a three-year period after the break-up of Yugoslavia. |
| When the figure of 3,000 was so drastically reduced, there was widespread public disgust bordering on national shame. How could the UK restrict the Dubs scheme to helping such a small number of vulnerable, unprotected children? Let’s be clear, nobody, among campaigners or the public, said: “Let everybody in the world come here if they want to”; “Ignore British citizens in need – I prefer helping foreign people!”; “I insist that you let in grown men with beards, and wives, as ‘child refugees’ under the Dubs scheme.” Or write your own ludicrous rightwing smearing of “woolly liberals” that kicks off whenever helping refugees is on the agenda. Rather, there was a very specific reaction to the predicament of lone child refugees – kids who’d gone through so much and were at such high risk. | When the figure of 3,000 was so drastically reduced, there was widespread public disgust bordering on national shame. How could the UK restrict the Dubs scheme to helping such a small number of vulnerable, unprotected children? Let’s be clear, nobody, among campaigners or the public, said: “Let everybody in the world come here if they want to”; “Ignore British citizens in need – I prefer helping foreign people!”; “I insist that you let in grown men with beards, and wives, as ‘child refugees’ under the Dubs scheme.” Or write your own ludicrous rightwing smearing of “woolly liberals” that kicks off whenever helping refugees is on the agenda. Rather, there was a very specific reaction to the predicament of lone child refugees – kids who’d gone through so much and were at such high risk. |
| This seems to be the very gut instinct that this government would prefer the British public to forget it ever had. Which makes it even more important for them to be held to account, not just by the Commons committee, but also by public vigilance. The government can’t make insincere “oh dear” noises about lone child refugees and then not even meet the puny total it permitted via the Dubs scheme. It should also respond to ongoing concern about all the other child refugees languishing in dangerous, unsuitable camps and shelters across Europe. | This seems to be the very gut instinct that this government would prefer the British public to forget it ever had. Which makes it even more important for them to be held to account, not just by the Commons committee, but also by public vigilance. The government can’t make insincere “oh dear” noises about lone child refugees and then not even meet the puny total it permitted via the Dubs scheme. It should also respond to ongoing concern about all the other child refugees languishing in dangerous, unsuitable camps and shelters across Europe. |
| As 2017 draws to a close, it would be nice to think that the lone child refugee crisis is top of the agenda for 2018. | As 2017 draws to a close, it would be nice to think that the lone child refugee crisis is top of the agenda for 2018. |
| Refugees | |
| Opinion | |
| Immigration and asylum | |
| comment | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |