In an article for the Guardian, this month it has been said that the Home secretary for the UK, Amber Rudd, has announced that the Dubs Amendment is to be scrapped. The Dubs Amendment was put in place to help provide refuge to unaccompanied children that were arriving in the UK. It was added to the anti-illegal immigration bill by David Cameron’s government by Lord Alf Dubs who himself was a refugee fleeing from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia.
The Dubs Amendment was seen as a way to protect the children coming into the UK who had nowhere to go and no means of understanding the new world they’d just entered. However, critics of the scheme have debated widely in parliament that the Dubs Amendment has instead just fuelled the entrance of people into the country because it gives them a pull to come here. It also is a massive incentive for child traffickers as they can get paid to transport the child to the UK and more or less guarantee they’ll be taken on.
The Independent has previously commented on the amendment and the developments surrounding the issue and in an interview they spoke to Shantha Barriga whom is the director of Human Rights Watch’s disability rights division. She has said:
“Shutting the door on vulnerable children is an affront to British values.”
“People with disabilities endure unimaginable hardship during conflict, and many faced huge hurdles in escaping the violence. That the UK now says it’s not prepared to accept refugees with disabilities is unthinkable.
“It’s an indefensible decision and blatant discrimination. The UK is not simply lacking ‘suitable accommodation’ in this case, but seems to be lacking political will.”
This has come after the government also announced they wouldn’t be letting refugees with disabilities in to the UK, because there was a lack of suitable accommodation for them once in the UK. As Barriga has said, the UK is not simply lacking suitable accommodation but they are also lacking political will. Many people have been unhappy with the parliamentary ruling and feel it is gross and blatant discrimination.
It is often the case with refugees that once in the UK, the accommodation they are given is not of a very high standard and is in fact often grimy and not well kept. However with the limited support from the government this is often the best they can be offered, which it has been said, is not good enough.
Yet it has been noted that the Home Office has requested UNHCR to temporarily limit the submission of cases with special mobility and education needs. Andrej Mahecic has said:
“We understand that this temporary measure is to assist the Government and local authorities with ensuring that suitable reception capacity is available for these highly vulnerable cases.”
So is the movement temporary or long term, it remains to be seen how long it will stay in place, but for the time being a considerable suspension has been placed on the free movement of people into the UK, especially those considered vulnerable.
Under the current PM Theresa May, she has been collaborating in a way that is similar to the goings on in America with the constant promise by Trump to build a wall to separate Mexico from the US. However Theresa May is building more of a wall in terms of the fact she is also restricting the free movement of people into the country. When majority of the UK population turned out in outrage at Trump’s wall promise, why did Theresa May feel it was the right move to do the same thing to the UK. In today’s modern age with all we know, why are we regressing to a state where we are so unwilling to help others just because of where they are from? Politics has taken a sharp turn in the wrong direction and has begun to oppress certain human rights for those who are at their most vulnerable.
It’s not all doom and gloom however, as there are many people within the UK who have opened their doors and welcome refugees into the country and their homes, offering them a safe place and protection until they are back on their feet. However, the Dubs movement has allowed more than twice this 350 amount in in the past, so surely the UK must be able to muster more than just 350 places.