FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Is there a case for a new kindertransport ?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Bearing in mind the contention caused (in certain quarters) by allowing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers into the EU from Syria / Iraq / Afghanistan et al, is there a case for a modern day kindertransport ?

By this, I mean, rather than bringing in whole families, we bring in those children in immediate danger and house them with EU nationals of Islamic descent and beliefs ?

I am not going to debate the pros and cons of such a process, either morally or financially, (as there exists massive arguments both for and against), I just thought it would add another dimension to the 'refugee' discussion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

yes but it wont happen as nobody has the political will to do it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"yes but it wont happen as nobody has the political will to do it "

The Kindertransport initiative was direct action - it had eff all to do with political will, just one man with a mission, his secretary and a lot of letters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes, I'm sure they'll love being taken away from their parents

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge


"yes but it wont happen as nobody has the political will to do it

The Kindertransport initiative was direct action - it had eff all to do with political will, just one man with a mission, his secretary and a lot of letters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport"
and who has the resources and conections to this now ? Branson

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

why only kids though? they need their parents at times of stress.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It seems to me that most of the terrorists, that have hit targets in Europe are of European birth, and radicalised in their countrys of birth, wouldn't shipping in children who would be a long way from home, and a long way from their families, just be bringing in children that are vunerable to radicalisation, if your worried about extremists being let into the country, this is not the answer, in my opinion any way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adyboy-DaddyCouple
over a year ago

Andover

It's an interesting idea and with finite recourses gives a lot to think about.

As we have promised to take 20'000 refugees it could easily be argued that it would be better to take 20'000 kids than just 7 or 8 thousand with accompanying adults.

And there's a very harsh bit of Solomans wisdom in there. If your in that much danger, you would send your kids to safety.

If you don't want them to go unless you can accompany them, maybe your not in that much danger after all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd say this motion could be used as a pragmatic resort. For example, if you have say 30 children in a camp, separated from their parents, with no way of contacting and locating them. This programme could be used in the short term or in the case of an potentially orphaned child. It would be better in my opinion for the child to be housed and cared for atleast.

Obviously the preference is for refugee families to be together

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's an interesting idea and with finite recourses gives a lot to think about.

As we have promised to take 20'000 refugees it could easily be argued that it would be better to take 20'000 kids than just 7 or 8 thousand with accompanying adults.

And there's a very harsh bit of Solomans wisdom in there. If your in that much danger, you would send your kids to safety.

If you don't want them to go unless you can accompany them, maybe your not in that much danger after all. "

Not necessarily. I wouldn't trust my kids to any country that is bombing my country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why don't we just buy Mongolia, it's the size of Europe and only 3 million people live there!.

It could be used as a temporary transit country for various conflicts!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *adyboy-DaddyCouple
over a year ago

Andover


"Not necessarily. I wouldn't trust my kids to any country that is bombing my country."

We are talking about refugees who are seeking asylum in said countries. So clearly that's not an issue for them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top