The UK government has revealed plans to take the children of asylum seekers who refuse a flight home into care, presumably as one of a number of coercive measures. You can read more about this here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3240836.stm

The story concerns the leader of the opposition's response to this and other proposals revealed in the Queen's Speech.

Lest this be a topic only of interest to British board members, I'll give you a little background. Michael Howard is the recently selected leader of the British Conservative Party and the leader of the opposition in Parliament. When he was a government minister some years ago he was notorious for his harsh treatment of asylum seekers. When a man like Mr. Howard can attack the shamefulness of your asylum policy, you're doing something badly wrong.

To be honest, I don't think that this policy will ever be workable. To take children into care you need both the intervention of childcare professionals and the assent of a magistrate, neither of which will be forthcoming. You also need to prove that the child is at risk of serious or continuous harm or neglect.

Nevertheless, for even considering such barbarous measures, the UK government have lost my vote in the next election.

Any thoughts?

I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the bill. Is it to basically hold the children hostage in an effort to force the asylum seekers to leave? Is it to allow the children to stay, even if the parents have to leave? Is it a temporary measure to make sure the children are safe while the parents' request is being heard? Or is it something else? And would the parents have access to their children? It all seems a bit odd to say the least, though.

To answer your question, here's an extract from the linked article:

'Despicable provision'

He accused ministers of proposing to "use the children of asylum seekers as pawns to cover up their failure to get a grip on their asylum chaos".

"Children of asylum seekers are to be taken into care in order to force their parents to leave the country," he said.

"You and the home secretary should be ashamed of yourselves," he said to Mr Blair.

I read the article, but I wasn't sure if that was just Howard's interpretation of the bill, or if that was the actual intent.

How did that possibly get by the guys who are supposed to check for common sense? Using children as political levers is a little passe. It's a little tough to pick up exactly what is being proposed as the linked article presupposes a general knowledge of internal British politics of which, I confess, I lack knoweldge. However, the meaning is loud and clear: Legal kidnapping to extort a ranson paid in the absence of the parents. Nice.