Should we accommodate them

[KateLMead]

Cameron says we will take and give innocent immigrant children sanctuary.,"Thank God " I have been writing about the heartless attitude with respect to these little ones to date where they have been ignored. Yes let us welcome and open our hearts to these little ones and young ones who must be traumatised beyond belief, and who are at terrible risk. The thousands of males give us reason to question why they insist coming to UK inspite of the fact we know the answere. What a crazy world we are living in.

[Kaz]

I do believe we should take the children, they are young enough to grow up with our values xxx

[TheOstrich]

I rather got the impression from the BBC News tonight that Cameron had somewhat backtracked on that, in the sense that he said he would only allow sanctuary "in exceptional cases", and the ideal is that these children should still remain in their Lebanese and Jordanian camps close to their Syrian homeland.

It would be a humanitarian gesture to allow them into the UK, yes, but there is a saying about wedges, and the thin edge of same. I certainly do not agree that we should bow to the pressure put on Government by charities (who is running this country, might I ask?), and I also do not agree with suggestions we should take them from Europe, especially Calais. That is all part of Merkel's mess, and she should sort it out herself.

And none of these 14 year olds going on 26, either ....

[medsec222]

I think Cameron had a point when he said to take those children already in Europe may send a signal and encourage others to undertake the hazardous journey, but I hope some agreement can be reached to take some of the very young ones.

[KateLMead]

The pictures of these innocent's haunt me, do we have to watch them perish due to damnable politics.we know how we feel when faced with tension and stress let alone bad weather, imagine how these frail little and young ones feel,hungry, wet,cold, confused .and frightened Enough is enough

[Suff]

The pictures are designed to evoke that response. The reality is the murdered Swede by one of these "Orphan"children.

If we are going to start that, there are hundreds of millions of starving children in Africa, no less and in some cases even more deserving.

Where do we draw the line?

[cromwell]

Exactly Suff. The population explosion in the third world means that there is going to be no shortage of distressed looking children trying to get into Europe.

No, a million times no. We shouldn't let one of them in. I'm sick of illegal immigrants (because that's what they are) forcing their way into Europe.

The problem with unaccompanied children (when they aren't actually young men lying about their age) is this.

Family re-unification. It's a card that's played by people who actually have (or say they have) relatives in Britain. Only this week some of our wonderful judges decided that four Syrians had a perfect right to live in the UK because they already had family here.

So when you give a home to that cute little orphan (how did they manage to get to France from Syria, "unaccompanied", by the way?) you can be absolutely certain that before too much longer their brothers and sisters will be turning up, then maybe their loving grandparents, then maybe the brothers and sisters of the grandparents... and so on, and so on.

Getting the child in is just another foot in the door tactic.

I would have armed guards on Europe's borders telling the "migrants" that they will be shot if they try to get in, and leave it up to them to decide.

[Workingman]

There appears to be gender, political and generational divides on this, and I am on the "wrong" sides in some minds.

"Orphans" travelling thousands of kilometres unaided: I think not.

All of this 'tsunami' of humanity from the ME, and beyond, is not spontaneous, it is organised, and organised for financial profit. The traffickers gain, money wise, and Europe 'pays' if it does not play the trafficker's game. The losers are the 'refugees' and Europe.

Europe is being held hostage over the 'refugee crisis', especially in the media and UN, and sadly some governments are caving in to semi-popular but libertarian pressure.

It is late to act tough, but it has to be done.

Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan refugees could travel to Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan - they are nearer than Europe.

Why don't they - their cultures and religious beliefs are similar? Ah, but, they are poor and backward, unlike Europe.

Yes, I am an arch cynic.

[KateLMead]

I cannot bear to look at The Women with babies in their arms and little children clinging to their mothers,I agree that our country is in a state of anarchy, that we have terrible problems simmering frighteningly that will lead to more violence, I like many have lived and worked in underdeveloped countries, have seen the misery first hand, when we see it on our own doorstep, and equally seeing our ex military homeless abandoned by society and governments. We are in a cleft stick, damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[Suff]

Kate, I'm not without compassion. However I'm sure doctors are absolutely torn every time they find they have to leave people to die because the resources they have at their command could save 10 people at the cost of one life that they may, in the end, not be able to save.

That's triage.

In this situation we have to use triage. All truly at risk refugees are already in camps outside of Syria and Iraq, or even within Iraq. Which means that those pictures of those "poor" mothers with children who have dragged themselves a thousand miles across Europe (often by bus and train by paid ticket), are nothing more than an attempt to elicit exactly the response which you and to a lesser extent, I, have.

Now let's look at what Cameron has done. The truly at risk, the truly lost, the truly needy, are those mothers and children who are in the camps. Those are the one's with no money, totally dependent on the food and clothes handed out in the camps, those who do not have the strength or resources to cross a thousand miles of Europe and sit in a squalid mess, worse than the camps in the middle east, demanding to get into the UK. Those people are at risk of abuse, murder, rape, extortion which all goes on in the camps, which have millions of people in them and are all but impossible to police.

So Cameron takes 20,000 of the most vulnerable direct from the camps.

What is the response? Derision, fury at not "playing the EU game, hints and not so much hints that Cameron is a disgusting amoral monster for not taking blackmailers. This is not a GAME, this is the lives of millions of innocent people who have been displaced by a vicious war. Also all those young people running away from the responsibility to defend that country and home they left behind.

Totally ignoring the fact that for every one woman depicted in dire straits (in Europe no less), there are a thousand more waiting in the wings and ten thousand more men and women around them, focusing ONLY on the fact that the most vulnerable are being totally ignored because those with means and money are trying to force our focus and resources on them; I am incandescently angry every time the press try to make money by emotional blackmail.

Until the camps are cleared, not one single person who has traipsed through Europe to try and force immigration should be accepted.

Germany, 75% of "immigrants" were not even from Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, not even from countries deemed by the UN as either war zones or areas of conflict from which they had to flee. Ditto 60% in Sweden.

I absolutely refuse to be manipulated by the press who are looking (as close to home as possible), for the best picture to get you to buy from them and so fill their coffers. I won't do it, I know far too much about the true situation and I won't be lied to.