Add Comment

I don't want an amnesty for everybody it will send the wrong message to the world , but we must deal with the families that have been here waiting for years for a desittion from the home office to clear their status ..and then after years waitng ...with childrens integrated with childrens born here ...fully integratted .. mm I think is soo unfair asking them to go ...is not their fault anymore ...they are after all victims of the bad system we used to have .they were feed by hope during the years here . no amnesty for criminals, and illegals, and no benefits . first feed the ones from home .. and be gentle with the childrens please

Fair play to Glasgow City Council if it is considering entering into this! Few organisations would relish being in a situation whereby many of the young people they looked after were to face deportation on turning 18. Most would run a million miles from the political risk and the practical difficulties involved. On the other hand, there are few Councils better placed than Glasgow to deal with this problem. I hope they make a hard bargain with the Home Office to resource this. I wonder if such a deal will survive a coalition administration if there is one after May.

Why are all these children and young people unaccompanied? Are there reasons why they can't remain with their families. Surely remaining within a family unit is best? Regardless of their situation however are we expected to look after them until adulthood and then then pack them off back to wherever they came from. That cannot be right under any circumstance.

The truth is when you walk round Glasgow you do see dire poverty. Its a city that now looks great and they keep saying its booming but the children here in most large housing estates need proper care and help. Large amounts here are in serious poverty. I am all for helping other children from other countries but I wonder how many of these childrens parents are here too and as usual are abusing our system that is not fit for purpose. The whole asylum and illegal immigrant issue in this country is adding to the poverty of our own children.

Is it selfish to suggest we should be concerned first by Scotland, mostly the greater Glasgow area apparently, having the second highest child malnutrition in Europe and rising levels of poverty, now we are told equal to c. 20% of the Scots population. Further more is it fair, responsible or proper knowing this, to actually bring more children into these horrible circumstances. What kind of future will they have if dumped amongst such dire poverty, and should by implication, the limited resources which have demonstrably failed to have tackled the problems of the indigenous population be diluted further. Will anyone gain?

To Mr.Brodie in The Highlands I have to agree with everything in your post.Logical and well thought out argument.However the usual cabal of pc idiots would deem your kind of logic racist,hence halting any debate.The asylum system is in chaos,it is not fit for purpose and noone gains from this scenario.It is shocking to suggest that a child without family is better served by placing them in an alien land and is at odds with successive Governments suggesting the best place for a child to be raised is within a stable home.However do not expect logic and what's right to have any effect on the policy makers who attempt to justify this kind of action.They are right and everyone else just doesn't realise that yet.Make Poverty history-well it is not going to happen pursuing ill thought out policies like this.

i think the asylum seekers they need amnesty coz they have been here for long time and after that they will send them back to their country and the home office they dont do fair because they come to their house and take them from the beds with hand cuffs

Often, children who arrive in the UK as unaccompanied asylum seekers have been trafficked. The gangs who traffick them intend to make the children work in the sex trade, as domestic servants, or in cannabis factories. When the children first arrive, they are put into care. Later, they go missing. Often this means they have been snatched by traffickers. So why not give these children a safe home in Scotland, far away from the South of England, where the majority of trafficking takes place? Returning trafficked children to their homeland is a dangerous business - the traffickers who sent them will be angry, as they may lose out on payment. Their families may not want them back - often they are complicit in the trafficking.

When a family is subjected to persecution or harassment on the grounds of their race, creed or social grouping, it is sometimes difficult for the whole family to escape. Such families often take an agonising decision to send one of their children into safety. I am delighted that Glasgow City Council is considering offering asylum to these children, but I suggest that they make it a condition of accepting the charge that such children are given indefinite leave to remain, with no age limit. Scotland has a falling population and needs young people to strengthen the economy. They should be looked on as an investment in the future rather than a burden in the present.

Is Scotland to now become the dumping ground for those poor unfortunates who fall into the too hard basket? No wonder Government wants Scotland to remain in the Union! Who, in their right mind, can seriously believe that taking a child at a young age from their natural environment and family, dumping them in a foreign land, looking after them until they are 18 and then throwing them back into their own culture can possibly be good for that child's wellbeing? Please, give me a break! Any governing organisation is bound to think twice about this scheme - where there's money involved. And is it any wonder that Glasgow City Council declined to comment or discuss this with the Herald? No, their discussions will depend upon the financial outcome of their negotiations with the IND and Scottish Executive. If it's not lucrative enough, I doubt we'll hear any more about it. The trafficking that goes on with young children is indeed, a serious matter but do you seriously think for one minute that the traffickers don't get their money up front? Of course they do, and what's more, for a price they would take these children back to their own country in a flash. It's just stupid to suggest that they will become angry if they don't get paid - they have already received their reward! To the member of the One Issue Green Party I would like to say this - wake up and smell the roses! You seriously need to go back and look at your social history, in particular, look at the "stolen generation" of Aboriginal children in Australia during the 1940s. Did the so-called missionaries do the right thing by taking these children away from their homes and families, just because "they" didn't think their financial, cultural and political setting was suitable for the children? I don't think so! It is only in the last 4 or 5 years that the "white" Australian has had the guts to apologise to the indigenous people of Australia for the appalling trauma and family disintegration that occurred during that time. Think of the effect that that terrible time had on all those affected by it. Is [italic]this[/italic] what you want for thousands of children from all over the world today? Think again! The best solution for these thousands of children is to plough all this money passing between England and Scotland back into the countries these children come from. Establish them in their own land, with proper care and welfare (and I do mean proper, not simply food and medicine, vital though these things are). Teach their parents how to farm, irrigate, and grow their own food. Teach them how to be self-sufficient and overthrow the corrupt governments in these countries, so that people stand a chance of surviving in their own land. At the end of the day, amidst all the political wrangling and the financial back-handers, please remember that these are children we are talking about, from whatever country they come, and the decisions we make on their behalf will affect them and subsequent generations for years to come. We simply can't play with these children's minds, hearts and souls like they are toys. Oh and by the way, the reason that we have a declining population in Scotland, and probably the UK as a whole, is because hard-working, decent and law-abiding indigenous Britains are leaving this country at the rate of 5,000 per week, sickened by the fact that Great Britain has more non-indigenous people in it now, more than ever before. Am I a racist? Far from it - but I do believe in the right to freedom of speech, while it still remains a freedom. Maybe one day, this too will change. Let's pray it never happens. It is a sad day when a Scottish person cannot passionately be proud of his own inheritance and culture, without the fear of politicians accusing him through political correctness of being a racist. It is also a tragedy that one now has to differentiate between indigenous and non-indigenous Britains!! Whoever thought we'd see the day! No wonder there is no pride left in this country. It is the politicians of this country of all parties that have become a burden on the people.

I am fully in favour of public investment being made available to provide support to unaccompanied children, and that this support should be shared by all areas. However, for Glasgow City to become a specialist area would be entirely inappropriate. Whilst Glasgow became a centre a few years ago, (probably due to unoccupied housing stock), the services required to provide support to unaccompanied, neglected and abused children are qualitatively different. Of all authorities within Scotland, Glasgow City is least prepared to respond to this challenge. It is Glasgow's misfortune to have the greatest number of children in poverty, which is often heightened by parental drug and alcohol misuse. Glasgow City is already in crisis in terms of meeting the demands of its existing accommodated children. Add to this the number of children on at risk registers for abuse, and specifically neglect, many of whom would have been accommodated if assessments of the children focused on need, rather than resource. Glasgow should address this, rather than volunteering for additional work.

Deborah (3.37pm) - Well said. I read the comment from Rosemary Burnett, Glasgow Green Party prior to reading yours. Like yourself, I was staggered by the stupidity of her comments. Seems like we have the wrong people standing for election. Before Glasgow City Council takes this almighty step of accepting more asylum seeking children into care they should consult the citizens of Glasgow, i.e., a referendum. Haven’t our councillors learnt anything from the present volatile situation whereby asylum seekers and their supporters continually use the children as a bargaining tool to pressurize the executive.

I wonder if Deborah is aware of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the resulting refugee crisis. I work with 'unaccompanied minors' in Leeds and have become aware of the journeys that these young people make. It is common for them to travel, by foot from Afghanistan, for over 4 months just to get to Europe. Where they end up after that is dependent on where the traffickers put them. If you honestly believe that these young people plan to come to Glasgow, Leeds or any other city in the UK, with no English and parental support, then you are mistaken. I agree that the sentiment of the Green Party members comments is too liberal but the comments posted here are just symptomatic of our countries willingness to judge before seeing the evidence. If we spent less money on fighting unnecessary wars, creating situations in which people no longer feel safe, and spent a bit more on securing our borders and supporting those that do arrive safely in the UK I think all of this spin doctoring would just disappear. Just like a good magic trick we are all so distracted by the asylum issue that we forget to ask why there are still poor areas in our cities and why our children have been let down by a rotting education system. Don't let yourself become drawn into this, supporting 100 young people is really a small gesture to the world that we still care.

[bold]there should be an amnesty for familes who have spent large number of years waiting to be given a proper status. i dont think that anyone should have any objection. asylum seekers dont want to leave their country but they are forced to do so because of the harrasment they face. no one is ever willing to leave their home country, a country where they were born and brought up. i dont think asylum seekers lie about the problems they come across in their own countires. they come to UK with a hope of living a better life and a safer future but unfortunately the government sends them back and also the public do not treat them well, they dont respcet them. they should appreciate the benefits some of the asylum seekers bring to thier country,, i think most of asylum seekrs are tortured more in uk, they are not allowed to work , they cannot interact with the local people because of the language barriers. they survive on few pounds a week. they are given poor accommodation and rude support workers. couple of years ago asylum seekrs were given vouchers instead of cash which realy made their lives miserable. asylum seekers are made to wait for so long, and then asked to leave country simply cz they were unable to prove that they were harrased.[/bold]

Reply to NIMRA:- I think everything you have just posted is an absolute load of rubbish. It is typical of that which we, the indigenous people have had to listen to for years. For any of your asylum seekers who think they are ‘tortured more in the UK,’ let them seek asylum somewhere else. You go with them as a support worker. Bon Voyage.