• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sturgeon: Cutting off Dubs child refugee route 'inhumane'

Celebrity

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While the UK is currently facing some tumultuous politics regarding the EU, it also faces the same challenge of how many refugees to admit. In an attempt to reduce the volume of refugees seeking asylum in the UK, the number of children acceptable has been limited to 350.

The scheme in question was set up as part of an amendment attached to the Immigration Act 2016 by Labour peer and former child refugee Lord Dubs. The government had come under pressure from campaigners and members of the public to take in children from the "Jungle" migrant camp in Calais.

The legislation required the Home Office to allow "a specified number" of vulnerable unaccompanied children into the UK.

Lord Dubs and his supporters suggested this number could be as high as 3,000, but the government said the 350 children eventually accepted satisfied the "intention and spirit" of the amendment.
Click to expand...

Wow. How many child refugees are there? I should like to think that we can accommodate every last one of them, but then again, some of them might be terrorists. Now we are compromising the lives of children because some people want 0 refugees and other people want 3,000 refugees. What a shameful state of affairs.

Watch the video where MP Amber Rudd outlines her position on the government's continued support of unaccompanied child refugees. It is her belief that sheltering child refugees is an "encouragement to people traffickers." I disagree with that claim. Although I do agree that ultimately a state should be responsible for the upkeep of its own children, and not put that responsibility on other sovereign states by flooding their welfare programs with child refugees, I don't think that trafficking is an excuse for broadly refusing child migrants.

Campaigners have sought to challenge the decision in court, saying the consultation process by which Ms Rudd decided on the figure of 350 was "fundamentally flawed".
Click to expand...

In short, MP Rudd just pulled the number out of thin air. While commendably decisive, her decision to mitigate immigration does not make a conscious effort to be compassionate to vulnerable migrants and supply child refugees with much needed support. This sets a poor example for other countries in the EU. Does the UK really want to be like a person who farts before leaving a room?

Sturgeon: Cutting off Dubs child refugee route 'inhumane' - BBC News
 
Celebrity said:
Wow. How many child refugees are there? I should like to think that we can accommodate every last one of them, but then again, some of them might be terrorists. Now we are compromising the lives of children because some people want 0 refugees and other people want 3,000 refugees. What a shameful state of affairs.

Watch the video where MP Amber Rudd outlines her position on the government's continued support of unaccompanied child refugees. It is her belief that sheltering child refugees is an "encouragement to people traffickers." I disagree with that claim. Although I do agree that ultimately a state should be responsible for the upkeep of its own children, and not put that responsibility on other sovereign states by flooding their welfare programs with child refugees, I don't think that trafficking is an excuse for broadly refusing child migrants.
Click to expand...

I'm curious...are we talking about orphans or accompanied minors?

In either case there seems to be a problem on both sides of the coin.

For accompanied minors do they become the lodestone that allows parents, and other family members to come in with them? Or limit adults to the number of children they have accompanying them?

For unaccompanied minors...who is supposed to take up the burden of raising, housing, feeding them for however many years before they are considered adults?

For unaccompanied minors, how effective would the care be when many western societies barely take care of their own orphans?

Questions, questions. Perhaps we should find ways to help them live in their own countries of origin? Better yet, help their families in their own countries of origin. :coffeepap:
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'm curious...are we talking about orphans or accompanied minors?

In either case there seems to be a problem on both sides of the coin.

For accompanied minors do they become the lodestone that allows parents, and other family members to come in with them? Or limit adults to the number of children they have accompanying them?

For unaccompanied minors...who is supposed to take up the burden of raising, housing, feeding them for however many years before they are considered adults?

For unaccompanied minors, how effective would the care be when many western societies barely take care of their own orphans?

Questions, questions. Perhaps we should find ways to help them live in their own countries of origin? Better yet, help their families in their own countries of origin. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

It is a curious situation and I don't expect that we in America, nor the Brits, will easily find resolution. I strongly oppose the idea of a lodestone, as you said, and I certainly believe that applies to DACA. We should accept children, but that alone does not merit the acceptance of families. This is trivial in the case of orphans, whose family members are minors, if they have any at all.

Your questions are pertinent... the answers are far, far beyond the crude accusations made by MP Rudd about traffickers. I can't say I will answer them definitively, but I will try to indicate how we should proceed.

Here in the US, we have DACA. Neither DACA nor DAPA constitute citizenship, and it is possible that the child may either be stateless or a foreign national. They should be treated as such, which unfortunately opens up a whole new can of worms and potential abuses, particularly US citizens. That model portends a society in which two very distinct political classes of people exist, either citizen or not.

In terms of how effective the care will be, it is marginal. We barely do enough here in the U.S. Our need for immigration reform is paralleled by a need for foster care reform. I don't know who will take care of the children, but it should be effective care. At minimum, child refugees should be subject to the same pediatric care to which any minor citizens may have access. If we vaccinate our children, we should vaccinate their children. I've heard this is a requirement for schoolchildren in Canada.
 
Celebrity said:
While the UK is currently facing some tumultuous politics regarding the EU, it also faces the same challenge of how many refugees to admit. In an attempt to reduce the volume of refugees seeking asylum in the UK, the number of children acceptable has been limited to 350.



Wow. How many child refugees are there? I should like to think that we can accommodate every last one of them, but then again, some of them might be terrorists. Now we are compromising the lives of children because some people want 0 refugees and other people want 3,000 refugees. What a shameful state of affairs.

Watch the video where MP Amber Rudd outlines her position on the government's continued support of unaccompanied child refugees. It is her belief that sheltering child refugees is an "encouragement to people traffickers." I disagree with that claim. Although I do agree that ultimately a state should be responsible for the upkeep of its own children, and not put that responsibility on other sovereign states by flooding their welfare programs with child refugees, I don't think that trafficking is an excuse for broadly refusing child migrants.



In short, MP Rudd just pulled the number out of thin air. While commendably decisive, her decision to mitigate immigration does not make a conscious effort to be compassionate to vulnerable migrants and supply child refugees with much needed support. This sets a poor example for other countries in the EU. Does the UK really want to be like a person who farts before leaving a room?

Sturgeon: Cutting off Dubs child refugee route 'inhumane' - BBC News
Click to expand...

Ich saw an article that Eoropol estimates that more than 10.000 refugee children have disappeared in the Eu over the past two years.
 
joG said:
Ich saw an article that Eoropol estimates that more than 10.000 refugee children have disappeared in the Eu over the past two years.
Click to expand...

Please share. I think that would constitute child trafficking. I'm getting a "Children of Men" / War torn African refugee camp vibe. The communities might be transient, but the law should protect international travelers from abuses.

If only we paid as much attention to these children as we did to our own lawmakers. It's pathetic how much of an illusion of protection they require for themselves. Someone in the legislative or executive branch is always making up a law, or executive order to punish people who punish members of the government.
 
Celebrity said:
Please share. I think that would constitute child trafficking. I'm getting a "Children of Men" / War torn African refugee camp vibe. The communities might be transient, but the law should protect international travelers from abuses.

If only we paid as much attention to these children as we did to our own lawmakers. It's pathetic how much of an illusion of protection they require for themselves. Someone in the legislative or executive branch is always making up a law, or executive order to punish people who punish members of the government.
Click to expand...

I saw it here, but it's in German. Google can probably translate it okay. https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.foc...ern-aufklaerung_id_5395541.html?client=safari
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom