General Chat

Haven't read all the posts as we're going out in a min, but although it was decent of Oz to apologise, it was Britain who sent them over!! Should be Britain apologising too. I have 2 lads in my tree who were sent over from Warwickshire, the Overton brothers.

lol Sue, no need to apologise. Having had a late night last night I'm capable of misreading anything at the moment.

I've bookmarked the links you and Janey have posted and will read them when I'm a little more awake.

Thanks Cat, Sue and Janey for adding to this , it has added a new dimension to the thread and I will read properly tomorrow, am yawning fit to drop at the moment,

night night and sleep well ( not you Janey lol you have to stay awake ! )

Rose xx

Oops Cat - I owe you an apology. I've just re-read what I wrote and it sounds very "school ma'am". Plus it was anything but clear.


I do stand by what I said, but I could've said it differently

Sorry

Sue x

Sorry, Sue, I've managed to combine your post and an earlier one. Plus I managed to assume that only 5% having their claims upheld meant that the other 95% were sent back. I really should know better than to assume that.

Thanks for the link.

Janey, thanks for your links too.

I think Cãt was just expressing concern, and also didn't catch the distinction between having the claim denied and being removed.


This is about the National Register for Unregistered Children:

http://www.nruc.gov.uk/about_nruc.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/
national-register-of-child-refugees-may-help-protect-them-from-abuse-534046.html

Agent took £6,000 fee to transport Mohammad to safety in Britain

Sixteen-year-old Muhammad sits with his social worker, Laura Gomez, in a meeting room at Croydon town hall in south London. Looking young for his 16 years, he seems low and hardly speaks. Until last year, Muhammad had a normal childhood living with his parents in Karachi, Pakistan. The only child was looking forward to attending college after finishing school.

Then one day in December, his mother and father ­ both Shias, a minority in Pakistan ­ disappeared after attending a religious ceremony. Muhammad says his parents were kidnapped but the crime was not reported because his family feared the authorities. His father's business partner and friend arranged for Muhammad to leave the country for his own protection. An agent was paid £6,000.

"He arranged a passport for me and an agent took me here," he says. "The agent did everything. I didn't know the agent. I had no relatives here or anything. I didn't know where I was going." On 27 February this year, they arrived at Heathrow airport where Muhammad cleared immigration after saying he was only staying for four weeks. At Heathrow bus station, the agent disappeared.

Muhammad says: "I waited an hour. I went to the information desk and asked if there was an Asian area nearby. I took the 105 bus to Southall. I had £30. I asked many people for help. A boy helped me. He took me to his home and to a solicitor the next day." He found his way to the Refugee Council, who directed him to the Home Office where he was photographed and social services called. The teenager has been granted leave to remain until his 18th birthday, but is too homesick and has opted to return to Pakistan.

Ms Gomez says: "While other children are focusing on their lives, refugee children find it hard. In many cases, children suffer from torture and in some cases relatives have been murdered in front of them. The families send them to protect them."

Hi Cat

If you want to find out more, you'll find it at http://www.communitycare.co.uk/

I didn't say anything about these children having no documentation, nor did I say that 95% are "sent back".

What I did say was that only about 5% have their asylum claims up-held.

Sue x

95% are sent back?????

If they have no documentation/identification where do they send them back to?

There's nothing wrong about the UK apologising about things past - and I don't mean any disrespect to the "forgotten children"

Shame that our country hasn't put it's own house in order, though.

Do you know that at present only about 5 per cent of unaccompanied minors arriving at our (caring) shores have their asylum claims upheld each year.
These are unaccompanied children.

Which means that 95% of unaccompanied children don't. These are children, many of whom will have travelled for miles to escape horrific incidents in their home lands.

By all means, let's apologise for the past. In a few years we'll have another past to apologise for.

Sue x

Happens in Canada too.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GlobalVoices/article/587381


When seven-year-old Sasha spoke to her mother on the phone, she begged to go home.

Tears ran down the girl's cheeks as her mother explained. But, Sasha (not her real name) could not understand.

She had arrived in Canada from Angola with her two teenage sisters as refugees. It had cost almost $10,000 to arrange visas and the smuggler. The mother couldn't afford passage for herself.

The mother knew the girls would fare better in Canada. So, she sent the girls alone.

But, Sasha believed she had been abandoned.

... Many children travel with smugglers who are either ill-informed or fear arrest. They tell the kids to say the smuggler is a relative or otherwise risk deportation. Then, the smuggler either abandons the child or drops them off at a shelter.

Sasha couldn't grasp the danger posed in Angola. ...

Saw that Daily Mail article. I tend to prefer less hysterical sources. ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7220014.stm

Unaccompanied child asylum seekers who are denied the right to stay in the UK are to be deported before they reach 18, the government has announced.

Currently, the Border and Immigration Agency waits until the young person turns 18 before beginning proceedings.

... Immigration minister Liam Byrne said the current policy was a "green light" to organised gangs of child traffickers who knew children would not be sent home once they were in the country.

But Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "The government should not try to force any child to return against their wishes where their safety and welfare cannot be guaranteed.

"These are not children who come here seeking a better life, with their families waiting for them in peaceful homes. Many of them are children from war zones."

Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Children's Commissioner for England, said he welcomed the government's efforts to tackle the problem, but he remained concerned about plans to withdraw support from unaccompanied children, especially those from "conflict-affected countries".

"If they feel unsupported in the UK, these children could disappear from a local authority's care well before their 18th birthday. This puts them at serious risk of harm..."



They are children, after all.

Interesting to see the considerations about trafficking. People who will exploit children will have no hesitation to exploit compassionate child refugee policies.

One does hope Barnardo's has got better at this:

http://www.barnardos.org.uk/barnardo_s_response_to_uasc_consultation_alison_webster_0705.pdf

They're involved in the care of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the UK.


I believe the those most likely to arrive in the UK to escape the fate of child soldiers are African and their parents fear they will be kidnapped by one of the sides in the many internal conflicts there.

Just reading this,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1067569/Child-refugees-young-abandoned-UK-airports-startling-figures-reveal.html

it was just that I hadn't thought of unaccompanied children , not young ones anyway, just in terms of them actually being 'allowed' to travel .

Bear in mind Rose, that in many of the countries they are coming from, they are taken from their families and trained to fight from as young as 8.

Thanks for adding that Janet, staggering amount, I had not thought there would be so many .

Since the year 2000 over 15,000 unaccompanied children have entered the UK seeking asylum. On arrival these children have no identification, information, documentation or guardians.

Children who arrive in the UK alone are currently put in refugee detention centres, existing children's homes or short term foster care if they are lucky.

I don't know that many do Dermot?

I wonder how we treat youngsters who arrive in the UK unaccompanied these days?

The first act of the newly elected Australian Labor Party when parliament met following the 2007 election was an apology to the Aboriginal people of Australia, part of the stolen generations. The previous Liberal (conservative) government refused to apologise, for two reasons.
1. They did not think that they - the then federal government - were responsible for policies of previous colonial, state and federal governments, and
2. They thought that an apology would leave them open to claims for compensation.
On the surface, both of these seem reasonable, but many if not most Australians saw them as typical of a mean spirited government.

Support for an apology to the deportees from the U.K. is more muted.
I do agree with Rambling Rose's comments to Caththecat at 11.37 that the British, Canadian and Australian governments were not directly involved in the abuse, or even knew about it. Nevertheless, and apology and a plea for forgiveness are appropriate.
In Australia (and probably in Canada) these were state/provincial government responsibilities. Government departments failed in their duty of care, and continue to do so to this day, as evidenced by certain high profile cases recently concluded in our courts.