Wednesday 9 June 2010

Let The Wailing And Gnashing Of Teeth Commence!

The UK Border Agency is to set up a £4m "reintegration centre" in Afghanistan so that it can start deporting unaccompanied child asylum seekers to Kabul from Britain, the Guardian can disclose.
Oh, this caused Twitter to almost melt down this morning! All the usual suspects were frothing with Righteous indignation.

And it’s not just children:
The terms of the official tender for the centre show that immigration officials initially hope to forcibly return 12 boys a month aged under 18 to Afghanistan and provide "reintegration assistance" for 120 adults a month.
About time too!
A decision to start deporting Afghan child asylum seekers who arrive in Britain alone would amount to a major shift in policy. Up until now, child protection issues and an undertaking that failed child asylum seekers would be returned only if adequate reception and care arrangements were in place for them on arrival have blocked returns.
Well, ‘major shifts in policy’ were the main reason we elected this bunch, wasn’t it?

And the left can’t squeal too much – this is not just any immigration proposal, this is an EU immigration proposal…
The British plans form part of a wider European move to plan the return of unaccompanied migrant children to Afghanistan. Norway has also announced plans to open a reception centre in Kabul. Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are also reported to be preparing to return Afghan children to Kabul.
Heh! Let’s see them argue against that!

Of course, with their cushy sinecures on the line, the first to whinge are those making a nice living out of the situation:
The development has sounded the alarm among refugee welfare and human rights organisations that the EU has given a green light to move ahead with deportations with too little being done to guarantee the safety of the children sent back.
And too little to guarantee the huge salaries that some are earning from these organisations…
Simone Troller of Human Rights Watch said: "Before deporting vulnerable kids to places like Afghanistan, EU governments need to make sure it is in the children's best interests."
Well, no. They need to make sure it’s in the best interests of the countries and their citizens, actually.
The Refugee Council said ministers should urgently review the plans to start removing unaccompanied minors to countries that are not safe. Its chief executive, Donna Covey, said: "There has been little said about how these children would be kept safe … if they have no family to whom they can be returned safely, should they be returned at all?"
Aha! The mask slips, and the Open Borders advocate stands revealed…


Quiet_Man said...

"should they be returned at all?"

Yes, they should be back on the next plane out, charity begins at home.

nbc said...

Perhaps we could start with this lot?

Dr Evil said...

I can think of a whole plane load of them that should be sent straight back too.

Did you read the Grauniad piece? Special pleading and so many contrived consequences. And the comments were almost all bleeding heart agreements with the article.

Timdog said...

And it all gets very emotive now, this is a taster of how hard the coalition is going to have it. Will be a huge test of their will, I hope they come through.

By the way, Simone Troller? I actually thought this might be a spoof for a second when I saw that. Great name.

JohnRS said...

Great state funding for:

The Refugee Council - chop
Human Rights Watch - chop

Plus move all public sector job adverts (of which there should be very few now anyway) onto and away from The Graun.

On the article - If these children have made it all the way here from Afghanistan I doubt they really need a huge amount of help when they get home. They sound like a tough bunch of surviors to me. So why are we tipping another £4m into the EU trough?

Also, I would bet that most of these asylum seekers (ie economic migrants) got here via La Belle France. So why aren't we just putting them on a ferry straight back there? Stuff funding a trip back to Afghanisatn. The rules say you apply for asylum in the first safe country, not travel across Europe until you get to the UK. If the French dont like it they can send them back some other country.

JuliaM said...

" begins at home."

Indeed. We can't afford it any more. And yet iDave has ringfenced the International Development budget. Why?

"Perhaps we could start with this lot?"

And send Jack Straw with them!

"Did you read the Grauniad piece?"

Oh, yes. There's been a lot of these since the announcement. I suspect there will be even more.

"By the way, Simone Troller? I actually thought this might be a spoof for a second when I saw that. "


"Also, I would bet that most of these asylum seekers (ie economic migrants) got here via La Belle France. "

Yup. Another post coming today points that out too.

dr cromarty said...

Well if they've no family to return to in Afghanistan, they're not likely to have one here, are they? Surely they'd be much happier in Afghanistan than in the racist, Islamophobic, [INSERT LEFTIE INSULT HERE] we have in the UK?

banned said...

The reason that the reception centre will be combined child/adult is that many arrive without documents, claiming to be minors hoping to be treated better as a result and it is difficult to prove which side of 18 they might be.
I'm all in favour of returning refugees to States that have been made safe but but I have a DVD that shows quite graphically just why and how they make the journey

Amazon, In This world

Well worth watching.