It is been reported that the Government has fought off an attempt by the by Labour Party to force Britain to take in 3000 unaccompanied ‘child migrants’ who have managed to arrive in Europe from the Islamic world. This is in my view a rare example of the members of the House of Commons looking at a difficult situation using their intelligence, and acting accordingly. The Left, especially the elected Left in the form of the Labour MP’s Stella Creasy and Wes Streeting, are of course whining loudly about this result, but their whines should be ignored. This is a situation where it is better to be safe, and keep these ‘unaccompanied child migrants’ out of the UK, rather than be sorry and allowing in those who may cause a lot of trouble and may not even be genuine ‘children’. Also, opening up yet another route for illegal immigration to the UK will not solve the problem of people trafficking, but will make it worse. The Government was on the correct side on this one. Correct politically and correct for security.
The phrase ‘unaccompanied child migrants’ is a really emotive one. It does conjure up images of starving children, orphaned by war or natural disaster. It also brings to mind the pictures of those children rescued by the Kindertransport from certain death at the hands of the Nazis. This is what many people may think of when they hear the words ‘unaccompanied children’. The reality, as has been experienced by the citizens of too many European nations, is that the definition of ‘children’ is drawn very widely. A hulking great 18 year old who pretends to be 14 or 15 is classified as a ‘child’ by some nations. Also even they are genuinely underage that doesn’t mean that they are the sort of people we should be welcoming into our societies. There have been a long list of abuses by these ‘children’ and those who pretend to be children. A by no means exhaustive list would include:
The 15 year old Lithuanian boy stabbed to death by an Arab teenager. The Lithuanian boy was an immigrant to Sweden and he was trying to protect a Swedish girl from sexual assault by the Arab teenager.
Then there is the tragic story of a young Swedish woman who worked in a centre assisting these ‘unaccompanied minors’ aged between 14 and 17, and one of these ‘children’ stabbed this poor woman to death.
Here’s some more of these ‘teenage migrants’, one too young to be named in the report, accused of raping a British girl
Or what about this case where a 14 year old is involved in an alleged sexual molestation in a German waterpark?
https://www.rt.com/news/334189-germany-pool-migrants-sexual-abuse/
These are but four cases out of a great many, where alleged ‘refugee’ children have been allowed into civilised countries and have proceeded to act in a highly uncivilised and sometimes lethal manner. The violence, aggression, sexual precociousness and incontinence of these often Muslim ‘unaccompanied children’ is worryingly common. Therefore although I believe that there may be genuine cases that deserve refugee status among these ‘unaccompanied children’, our security and the security of our children needs to come first. I’m not prepared to put my own child at risk by consenting to allow into the UK thousands of people about which we know very little, apart from the fact that they come from cultures that hate us.
No matter how much the Left engage in shroud-waving over this issue, I know from my own researches, that this lot of ‘unaccompanied children’ are a world away from the internal images people may have of them. These ‘unaccompanied children’ are not today’s Kindertransport, innocent people deserving of help, they are not the starving orphans that we keep hearing about. These ‘unaccompanied children’ are tomorrow’s jihadis, thugs and rapists. The people trafficking businesses have been so deeply penetrated by Jihadists that it is not beyond the bounds of reality to consider how many brainwashed children and teenagers are among these ‘unaccompanied children’, and they have been sent to cause Islamic havoc in Europe.
We need to remember that just because innocent Jews were rescued from Nazism, doesn’t mean that we have to import dangerous Muslims who bring little apart from destruction. One size in politics as in clothes does not fit all.
Lord Alfred Dubs, the proposer of the amendment to the Immigration Bill, is as far as I can tell a good man and had a reasonable reputation as a constituency MP for Battersea in South London. He is one of those who was given a chance of life by the Kindertransport, and campaigned for the man who rescued him, Sir Nicholas Winton to be honoured. He is also one of the very lucky Kindertransport survivors in that he did get to see his parents again, as many parents of Kindertransport children perished in the death camps. It’s obvious that Lord Dubs experience of flight and rescue has affected him deeply, and he has an emotional response to the issue of refugees. The problem is sometimes emotional responses can blind a person to reality. This seems to be one of those cases where the emotionalism of Lord Dubs and his supporters in Labour has overruled reality.
Lord Dubs has failed to comprehend that the situation today is nothing like that in the past during the time of the Kindertransport. The Jewish children of Czechoslovakia had nowhere else to go and the options for parents back then were, put their children on a train to who knows where, or keep them in the country and have them die. That’s not the case with these alleged ‘unaccompanied children’ today. Too many of them have crossed safe countries in order to get into Europe, they have also not been rescued, they have often been trafficked for profit. Opening up the country to these three thousand ‘unaccompanied children, who have been trafficked, will merely encourage more trafficking.
Then there is the issue of the content of the character of these ‘unaccompanied children’, a few examples of which I gave earlier. It makes for a sobering comparison with the children of the Kindertransport. As far as I can ascertain very few of the children who came over on the Kindertransport, bombed, raped, thieved or killed to anything like the extent that the mostly Muslim ‘unaccompanied children’ have done already. I doubt that the rate of criminality among Kindertransport children was any greater than that of the majority British population. Sadly this is not something that can be said of Muslims or even these Muslim alleged ‘child’ refugees.
Many of those who benefited from the Kindertransport rescue went on to forge great and useful careers in medicine, science, business, the arts, politics and public service. They gave back to the world a whole lot more than it cost the rest of us to help them. A great many of these Muslim ‘unaccompanied children’ on the other hand, are likely only to end up on benefits for a long time if not forever. Britain gained from the altruism of those who sponsored and supported Kindertransport refugees, I cannot see any gain or advantage we could have by taking in tomorrows jihadis today, can you? If the government or Labour could guarantee that all of these ‘unaccompanied children’ were from the genuinely oppressed minority of Christians and other non-Muslims, whose families have been slaughtered by Muslims, then I may be more willing to say let some in. I don’t see why we should take in yet more Muslims, not even children, when we have enough Islamic problems of our own.
If people want to help children in distress in some Islamic hell hole, then by all means do so. Put your hands in your own pocket and fund an aid or education charity that works with, and for, such children. What we should not be doing is risking our own security, draining our own welfare coffers and endangering our own society, culture and children by importing the Islamic hell hole in the form of alleged ‘unaccompanied children’. It’s right that people care about those in distress but that care should not take the form of putting the rest of us and our families in harms way.
There are times in life when the head has to rule the heart, and this is one of them. I applaud those MP’s who saw through the emotionalist clap trap spouted by those in favour of this ill thought out amendment, and instead made reality, facts and the nations security, their primary guide.
Link
BBC news story on the defeat of Labour’s open door policy amendment
