The government has been defeated in the Lords as peers voted to allow 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees into the country. Peers voted by 306 votes to 204, a majority of 102, to amend the immigration bill in order to require the government to let the children, currently in Europe, come to Britain.I wonder how many the peers will be taking into their own homes?
Labour peer Lord Dubs, who proposed the amendment to the bill, said the step would protect children from exploitation, people trafficking and abuse. Dubs, who was rescued as a child as he fled the Nazis, called on the government to remember the spirit of the Kindertransport and take the lead in Europe in giving homes to child refugees traveling alone.The Kindertransport involved genuine children fleeing genocide, not ‘children’ of indeterminate age fleeing …. refugee status in Calais?
To draw a parallel between the two is grotesque.
They described their anger and frustration after meeting boys such as 12-year-old Kareem from Afghanistan, who told them he was exhausted after a night spent trying to hide in the back of lorries to get to England. “He wanted to keep hugging people, he wanted comfort. He has no one looking after him. He is about the same age as my son,” Cooper said.Is he? Are you sure?
They also met Majid, 17, from Syria, who has spent the past year trying to reach his mother and brother who are already in Birmingham. He showed them the scars on his hands from barbed-wire injuries incurred during his nightly attempts to board trains to get to England. He told them he was hoping to return to school and wanted to study to be a surgeon in England.Yes. Of course he does. He’d hardly tell you he wants to spend the rest of his life smoking weed, on benefits and committing street robbery, would he?
But which is most likely?
The (slightly) good news is that for this amendment to the government bill to become law, it has to be passed by the Commons which is not - I hope - a certainty.
ReplyDeleteBTW I don't recall reports of kindertransport children actually demanding entry to the UK. Moreover those sponsoring those genuine refugee children nearly 80 years ago had to guarantee personally that there would be no cost to the taxpayer created by giving these children entry to the UK. The contrast between those fleeing (as it turned out) murder in mainland Europe and their sponsors pre-WW2 and today's parasites and their virtue-signalling enablers couldn't be more obvious.
From the Lords debate 9th Feb 2016: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/160209-gc0001.htm
ReplyDeleteThe Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con):
In the year to September 2015, 1,570 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arrived in the UK, and 61% of those children were 16 or over. Only 7% were 14 and under.
Lord Green of Deddington:
On that very point, is the Minister aware that something like 40% of these unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are involved in an age dispute? Quite often, those who claim to be 16 are found to be 18. The point is that many of them are older than one might think.
Also mentioned was that 90% were trafficked by criminal gangs.
And once they're here what's the betting their families will want to come too?
ReplyDelete"...it has to be passed by the Commons which is not - I hope - a certainty."
ReplyDeleteA forlorn one, in today's Virtue Signalling times, I fear.
"Moreover those sponsoring those genuine refugee children nearly 80 years ago had to guarantee personally that there would be no cost to the taxpayer created by giving these children entry to the UK."
Those who forget history are indeed compelled to repeat it...
"Also mentioned was that 90% were trafficked by criminal gangs."
Not a good start to life, is it?
"And once they're here what's the betting their families will want to come too?"
And will then have the right...