Demographic statistics for the UK demonstrate that our population is aging and the pensions we are receiving are having to be paid for. At the same time the government is rightly showing ambition to improve the welfare and education of our children. Trapped in the middle are people of working age who are having to sweat to pay both bills. Noting this the Health and Safety Executive has said “the effect of migration will be to reduce average age slightly, since migrants are predominantly young adults.†Implicit in this is affirmation of the desirability of the right sort of immigration. Logic demonstrates that the maximising the number of adolescents without adult carers included in our population is far and away the best means of taking advantage of the opportunity noted by the HSE.
Looking at the question coldly and pragmatically children who arrive in this country without adult carers are the perfect match. Generally speaking they are at least teenagers and are nearing the end of their time in education. By definition, being without adult carers means they do not have any dependent relatives either younger or older. Finally the circumstances from which they have escaped has motivated these young people to contribute to the community in which they spent their formative years.
The prevailing catch all excuse for irrational government decisions is the buzz phrase “National Securityâ€. Sadly the simple fact is that by abusing these lone refugee children we are risking turning our closest friends into our sworn enemies. How do young people who have grown to love Britain and the communities in which they reside react to being expelled to an unfamiliar war zone where they know no one and go in fear of their lives?
Three, four or more years in the life of a teenager is a long time. It can seem forever. During that time they become comfortable with where they are and who they are and settle in to being teenagers. One cannot underestimate the traumatic impact of being forcefully torn from the familiar and comfortable and sent to a strange and frightening place.
These young people who escaped on their own to this country had moved, while still children, from one value system to a totally different one. In many cases the place they came from had experienced a level of social breakdown that had moved to a point where there was little value system at all. In these circumstances they readily accept and adopted standards of liberty and law which enable them to be comfortable in the UK. Thus our value system has become their value system. In their formative years they have grown to love this country and the people in it whom they view as their friends and their community. They are a rare thing, positive teenagers. CAYR activists are familiar with this affection and are constantly amazed by how it persists after expulsion. In spite of this the options our brutal immigration policy has imposed on these young people, by expelling them to a now unfamiliar and frequently chaotic country, represents a real danger to them and to us.
Their first option is to try and survive and build a life such as it is. This is not easy, given that the reason for most of these young people to come to the UK was an issue of their safety in the region from which they came.
The second option is to engage with strong and apparently reliable people in the new community to which they have been expelled. Sadly in many of these communities the strong and reliable are frequently far from benign. The harsh reality is that fit young people (particularly fit young men) who understand the British way of life and speak English will be seen as a real potential resource for people who feel they have reason to be hostile to this country. Within unstable countries such as the ones these young people are being expelled to groups prepared to act aggressively against British people and interests are frequently led by these sorts of individuals. These Fagans of terror will be licking their lips at the potential activists being created by British expulsion policy. The possibility that two young men, one British born and a soldier and the other a lone refugee who once lived in and loved this country should be involved in each others deaths is quite horrifying. In a sensible world they might have been playing in the same local town football side.
This desperate scenario need not occur if the government views these children as deserving of the same care and affection as British born children.
As child welfare legislation stands its interpretation by the courts is clear and unequivocal. The legislation specifically states that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount considerationâ€. This provision related to the “upbringing of a child†is not qualified in any way and most particularly not based on the nationality of the child or his/her parents or lack of them. It is noteworthy that on any and all occasions where professionals are discussing the needs of a child that the always repeated maxim is “the welfare of the child is paramountâ€. It is this axiom which is the first principle of responsible professional social work practice and every social worker would agree that it is a principle that can never be breached.
Sadly, social work is seen by many as a relatively low status “professionâ€. This may contribute to the fact that where non-British children without adult carers are concerned the principle of paramouncy is constantly and continuously breached and qualified social workers are required by their employers to assist with and conspire in this breach.
The Immigration Acts are presumed to take precedence over the Children Act and other child welfare legislation. Thus actions proposed by a social worker as in a child’s best interest may be vetoed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Further the management of the social worker acting out of financial considerations or as directed by IND may instruct her/him to set aside the best interest of the child regardless of their professional principles. Further, as a result of this precedence for immigration regulations Social Services departments compel professional social workers to put aside their code of conduct and confidentiality and assist IND with the removal of lone young people. This includes the requirement (frequently for budget reasons) that the social worker provide confidential information about a child to the detriment of that child’s welfare.
The weakness of the social work “profession†prevents individual professionals from standing up against these professionally compromising pressures and results in social workers having to betray clients in a way that no lawyer or doctor would abide. It is essential that through their unions and professional bodies social workers fight back and recover their professional integrity. Neither the BMA nor the Law Society would tolerate their professional members being treated in or behaving in this way.
