Our Dialogue with BASW

On May 24th, 2007 in News

The British Association of Social Workers was proposing to look at the wording of CAYR’s policy to consider modifications that would enable their organisation to support such a position. CAYR’s policy wording is currently “To seek alteration to regulation to entitle individuals admitted to this country as ‘unaccompanied asylum seeking children’ to automatically receive right of residence”. We did not ask for unequivocal support indeed almost the opposite.



CAYR’s policy is primarily the presentation of a desired outcome which will enable children currently abused by the domination of immigration priorities to be protected. With such an outcome in mind we were very pleaded with BASW to propose to us a wording in pursuit of such a goal which would be acceptable to BASW members. If CAYR in the end did not like the wording put forward then it would be “tough luck on CAYR” and we accept that.



The reasonable and comradely options open to BASW were:



1. To amend CAYR’s policy in a manner which was consistent with BASW policy.



2. Write to CAYR saying “BASW has considered your request and regrettably we are not prepared to amend CAYR’s policy in a manner which is consistent with BASW policy”



There is no 3. in which you simply do not respond to a responsible and business like request and subsequently label that request as a demand for “unequivocal support”. Such a 3. is unfair and even could appear disingenuous.



Sadly in the case of the RCC, perhaps for various motivations, the decision was to adopt 3.



Enough history, we are asking BASW to once again propose a rewrite of our policy. One of the recently used attempts at paraphrasing may be of help to BASW in suggesting alternatives. The words I used were “that any child (person under 18 years) who arrives in this country without an adult carer is treated exclusively as a child welfare subject, Following from this such a child shall be immune from expulsion from the country before or after their 18th birthday” . Once again this is a declaration of a goal with a real purpose to that goal. It is quite simply aspirational. In Kent we are currently facing a situation where people who attended our schools and lived in our communities as children are being expelled to a war zone on adulthood. We believe there is a very clear distinction between a child who has never lived in a particular country as an adult and someone who had lived in that country as an adult, come to the UK and is then being returned to that country. It is distinctions of this type that have led to British child welfare provision to progressively extending into post care support and protection. A child who experiences disruption in their adolescence is rightly seen as a special case.



“On the RCC’s sterile justification as to what they believe the government can be persuaded of. If their position had been adopted in the past we would not have inconvenient things like women voting to bother us. If making a justified request of the government is going to damage the RCC’s relationship with that government then the relationship itself is clearly a very unhealthy one. If either BASW or the RCC feel that CAYR’s aspirations are wrong or incorrect or the outcomes sought are undesirable then CAYR is prepared to hear that stated and explained and such a response will be treated with respect.”


-Wes McLachlan - CAYR Chair



BASW’s Website: http://www.basw.co.uk/

IMMIGRATION GOES ON FINANCIAL OFFENSIVE AGAINST CAYR WORKERS

On February 26th, 2007 in News

CAYR Workers Charged for Fleeing Young Afghani

In a new twist an Immigration Court has faced a demand from IND that CAYR workers and friends of detained young refugees be punished for their support. The message below has alerted CAYR to this new more aggressive reaction from the Immigration Directorate.

Members of the CAYR Committee have consulted on this most recent turn and have agreed to attempt to raise this money from our supporters. The raising of finance by CAYR is an entirely new turn as to date no money has been requested from supporters. The Chair and Secretary have been asked to make this situation a part of an overall review of finance.

Why does “The Asylum Industry” fail to stand up for lone refugee children?

On December 10th, 2006 in News

The large number of civil service and local government staff dealing with lone refugee children is significant though most of these have broader responsibilities. At the same time various “voluntary” and charitable organisations are offering their services for appropriate fees. These are supplemented by a number of NGOs such as for example the Children’s Society, NSPCC, Refugee Council etc. These latter deal with issues related to all refugee children through the Refugee Children’s Consortium. They declare that making representation collectively in this way increases their influence. Sadly to date, in spite of several requests from CAYR they have refused to either endorse CAYR’s campaign to “Seek alteration to regulation . . .” or to suggest an alternative representation of this goal. This continued effective silence as a response to CAYR’s request needs to be explained.

Some harsher judges may consider that there is significance in some of the contracts and service level agreements assigned to some of these NGO’s. Such critics might suspect that there is fear that the renewal of such arrangements might be jeopardised by a forceful stance on behalf of these children. A more sympathetic interpretation might be to recognise that the Consortium membership is drawn from large organisations with extensive agenda’s. The child welfare groups like the NSPCC, Barnardos and the Children’s Society to name three reach across child welfare issues of every sort which may somehow conflict with the very specific political needs of lone refugee children. The refugee specific organisation such as the Refugee Council may find similar conflict of priority for their more general refugee focused goals. The most generous and in my view most likely explanation for this inaction is that the Refugee Children’s Consortium has simply settled into being a bog standard QUANGO. Conferences, reports, meetings with VIP’s and little else. A group of well intentioned people from well intentioned organisations who ultimately are doing little but talking.

This inaction cannot continue. Member bodies of the RCC (a list is published on this site) must either urge action on the issue of these vulnerable young people through the RCC or they must stand aside from a moribund group and make clear and emphatic decisions as to whether or not to challenge these unfair regulations. This particular abuse of these children must be brought to a stop. A FULL STOP!