Tuesday, 12 October 2010

At Last!

Thousands of child asylum-seekers are to be removed from Britain under savage budget cuts being drawn up by the Home Office ahead of this week's comprehensive spending review.

A briefing document sent to ministers sets out detailed proposals to remove child refugees before they reach 17 years old, and recommends bearing down on benefits given to asylum seekers.

I’m not sure which aspect of this gladdens my heart more. Is it the fact that the coalition at least seems to be taking the phrase ‘charity begins at home’ seriously?

Is it the fact that they seem capable, unlike Labour, of looking to the future, not just the present?
Under current rules unaccompanied child asylum-seekers are usually granted leave to remain in the UK until they can make a fresh asylum application as an adult.

There are more than 4,200 unaccompanied child asylum-seekers in Britain, with most being supported in local authority social services homes.
Or is it the fact that the squeals of outrage from the ‘Open Borders’ advocates is starting to reach a pitch only dogs and bats could hear?
Emma Ginn, of the charity Medical Justice, said last night: "Many unaccompanied children are orphans. Many have escaped various forms of slavery, war and being made into child soldiers. To deport vulnerable unaccompanied children is despicable. To do it to save money is indecent ... How we treat asylum-seeking children is already uncivilised, but to sink this low would cost our international reputation dearly."
Yeah, you know what? I think we’ll live with that just fine…

The news that there may be savage staffing cuts on the horizon too has galvanised the unions to begin their special pleading too:
Paul O'Connor, the Home Office group secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), said that cutting staff would lead to security risks from international criminal smuggling gangs and child and sex traffickers.

He said: "There should be no compulsory redundancies. In terms of frontline security our members are the first port of call to maintain proper border controls. If they decide to cut one in three this country will be less safe and lead to a massive exploitation of young people."
Yes, I’m sure fewer UKBA bungling clowns staff would indeed make the UK less safe
One of the proposals outlined in the document has already been implemented. The £50m Immigration Impact Fund, which gives aid to local authorities to help support asylum-seekers living in their region, was quietly dropped over the summer.
Perhaps that explains why councils are starting to say ‘Enough’s enough’?

Clearly, money talks louder than the wishes of their constituents…

11 comments:

Timdog said...

"Clearly, money talks louder than the wishes of their constituents…"

You know what, if the coalition can grasp this point, and use it to bend the councils to their will, then we may have misunderestimated them.

I truly doubt it though.

Bucko said...

""Or is it the fact that the squeals of outrage from the ‘Open Borders’ advocates is starting to reach a pitch only dogs and bats could hear?""

I laughed out loud at that one.

Angry Teen said...

Sorry, but I've got to agree with the squeals of outrage.

Anyone who wants to stay here should.

Captain Haddock said...

Angry Teen said...

"Sorry, but I've got to agree with the squeals of outrage.

Anyone who wants to stay here should" ...

OK AT ... You're entitled to an opinion, but assuming that you're not yet working & therefore not yet paying tax .. just think about what it would be like if the cost of keeping all these illegal children in the UK was to be paid by your parents ..

The fact that they're children shouldn't make a ha'porth of difference, if they're capable of getting to the UK from wherever on their own .. then they're more than capable of "making it" elsewhere on their own ..

We owe them nothing .. Then again perhaps Emma Ginn might like to house some in her home, or donate her entire salary to their care ?

James Higham said...

Is it the fact that they seem capable, unlike Labour, of looking to the future, not just the present?

Don't trust 'em as far as you could kick them.

staybryte said...

Angry Teen

"Anyone who wants to stay here should."

Why? Can I come and stay in your house? I want to. Why not?

Captain Haddock said...

I think Angry Teen got captured using the internet again by Mum ..

Who insisted that his/her homework was more important .. or there'd be no pocket-money at the weekend ..

Kids .. Don't you just love 'em, in their idealistic little "bubbles" ?

Anonymous said...

I've been in situations where I'd have liked to bring every kid within a 50 mile radius back to Britain. Never did though - you have to swallow hard and get over it. Shit as it is, we have to take a firmer line.
To the bleeding hearts, I can only say you make it all worse. These matters need stopping at source. The help should be there.

JuliaM said...

"Anyone who wants to stay here should."

Here's where I always part company with libertarians, no matter how much sense the rest of their policies make.

Anyone? Anyone at all? Where does that stop? Are we not overcrowded and under resourced - in urban centres - already?

"Don't trust 'em as far as you could kick them."

Oh, I don't! ;)

"To the bleeding hearts, I can only say you make it all worse. These matters need stopping at source. The help should be there."

That's the key. If the best, brightest and most determined all up sticks and leave, how will they ever improve?

Umbongo said...

"Anyone who wants to stay here should."

Sure, as long as I don't have to pay for them or have them provided with food, accommodation, education, clothes, fuel, lawyers etc etc courtesy of the taxpayer. If that were so we could adopt a very libertarian position because they wouldn't come here.

RAB said...

Maybe I'm a bit thick and missing something obvious here, but how the hell do "Unaccompanied" children get to the UK in the first place?

Are they saving up their pocket money for their great bid for freedom, or what?

Somebody is buying their tickets and putting them on the planes. There is a reason for that, and the reason must be a scam of some sort.

And why are the Carriers carrying them?

A friend of mine tried to put his own son on a flight to the South of France where his mum has a house (they are divorced). The kid was 11, had a passport and all the correct documentation but the Airline refused point blank to fly him unaccompanied.

So I repeat, how the hell are they getting here, and who's paying for the flight?