The Mail Says We Should Give Sanctuary To Calais Camps Children, Do You Agree?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3562690/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Mail-s-robust-migration-lost-children-sanctuary.html

/// Mr Cameron should consider that of all the countries in the Europe, Britain has the longest established tradition of offering sanctuary to refugees from war and oppression. ///

Yes but these have been fellow Europeans, and why have we been able to that? It is the fact that we have in the past fought and died to defend our lands, so as to keep our country free from invasion.

Why should we give up all this now?

[Baldric]

Not for the first time I find I am in total Disagreement with the DM.

[RandyMarsh]

Do you see these children as invaders?

[retrocop]

No. I see them as an entry ticket for parents or relatives in the future.

[Khandro]

It depends a lot on what is meant by "children". If they were orphaned toddlers I would say yes, but I think it is mostly economic migrant teenage men without passports.

[Baldric]

Just beat me to it Retro, reunite them in this Country, at our expense.
I mean it's their Human Rights innit?

[jomifl]

Give them sanctuary....and their parents appear.

[retrocop]

Any so called 'orphan' aged 5-6 yrs who can find their way half across the world without sponsors, papers and money, parents or relatives are potential rocket scientists by 10 yrs so perhaps they should be given consideration before the Soviets or the U.S. realise their potential. Have the smugglers got charitable hearts after all?

[Ellipsis]

This is a very tough question.

I think when you sit at a distance from it, it's easy to be hard-hearted.

But if you were a visitor to those refugee camps, walking among those children, talking to them ... it would be very difficult to refuse them help.

The provisos recommended by the DM seem reasonable. For example, it should be an aim mostly met to repatriate the children with their parents, rather than the other way around.

[youngmafbog]

No I dont.

1) As pointed out above it will be a gateway for their huge families, aided and abetted by tax payer funded scum lawyers.

2) France is a safe country. Apply for asylum there, as per the rules.

[Baldric]

///But if you were a visitor to those refugee camps, walking among those children, talking to them ... it would be very difficult to refuse them help.///

Trust me, it would not be at all difficult.

[dave50]

Since when has France NOT been a safe country?

[Islay]

yes

[Ellipsis]

How many has France already taken? How many has Britain already taken?

You, as the DM puts it, "should consider that of all the countries in the Europe, Britain has the longest established tradition of offering sanctuary to refugees from war and oppression."

For example, have a read of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport

Then imagine how that would read had we done literally nothing then, which is what appears to be the alternative now.

[Baldric]

We are talking "Now" not "Then" I believe.

[anotheoldgit]

What is interesting about this problem is the fact that there has been little or no offers for the fostering of these children by our Muslim community.

[Ellipsis]

> We are talking "Now" not "Then" I believe.

Do you look back on "then" with pride? How would you like future generations to look back on "now"?

[mikey4444]

For once, I agree with the DM !

Phew !

Britain, along with every other European nation, should be providing humanitarian aid to these children.

[douglas9401]

Could we please stop with the Kindertransport stuff? Next we'll get the Niemoller poem and eventually by some convoluted route, end up at Sun Tzu.

It's NOT the same thing, it's a Trojan horse and we're falling for it.

[Baldric]

There is the World of difference between the population and economy of the UK then to what it is now, there is no comparison.