Migrant children sue UK Government could set precedent for millions of claims

Ukip

Migrant ‘children’ sue Government for not letting them into Britain!

DOZENS of ‘children’ who arrived in the UK from the Calais ‘Jungle’ migrant camp have launched a legal challenge against Home Secretary Amber Rudd, claiming Britain has let them down!

Lawyers representing 36 children say the Government broke its promise to bring vulnerable unaccompanied minors to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act, which is known as the Dubs Amendment.

The majority of those involved in the legal action – 28 – have had their applications turned down while the others involved are still waiting to hear.

Precedent could be set for millions of child claimants not even within the UK yet to sue 

This could potentially open up a precedent for migrant children who are not even within the UK as yet, but who just wish to come here and feel that they have been denied and let down.

Ukip and Conservative student forums have been left outraged at this obvious abuse of the British people’s goodwill.

Many hundreds of thousands of children, even millions around the world are displaced and would love to come to the United Kingdom, many are also in Africa and would surely have the right to a better life if they so wished.

If denied entry to the UK then wouldn’t there also be a case for compensation for all children?

We have to take into account that the ‘children’ currently putting in claims to sue the UK are the Calais Migrant Children that the UK allowed from the so called (Jungle Camp) which was in France, itself a safe secure EU country.

So, why would it be unreasonable for children who want to come to the UK who (really are) currently in very dangerous unsafe countries to be allowed to sue for not being allowed to come to the UK too?

If anything, it’s a nice little earner for perceived human rights injustice and could quite rightly set a migrant ‘child’ up for life financially off the back of the taxpayer, they cannot be blamed for wanting to better themselves, however they can under the circumstances they are in.

Lawyers

Lawyers acting for the children argue the Home Office has failed to bring many of the vulnerable refugee children to the UK and has not given proper written decisions when refusing applications.

The UK Government agreed to take in vulnerable, young migrants after pressure from Lord Dubs and left-wing liberal elite politically correct Corbynists and leftist luvvies, before the migrant camp was demolished by French authorities in October.

Ukip

Toufique Hossain, director of public law at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, told the left-wing (Guardian) “The Government has rendered these children, including some as young as 13, to effectively be without any legal remedy until well into the new year, which is the earliest that the relevant Home Office officials have agreed to give reasons for refusing some of these children.”

He added: “The way that this has all been handled by both the UK and French authorities is nothing short of shameful.

“It is morally reprehensible and, we argue, simply unlawful that these ‘children’ have not been given written reasons as to why their applications were refused and that these children were told about the refusals in group meetings without a proper procedure in place.”

The Home Office had come under fire for tightening the criteria over who would qualify for asylum in the UK.

Under the new provisions, a child must be either 12 or under, at high risk of sexual exploitation, be 15 or under and either of Syrian or Sudanese nationality, or be under 18 and a sibling of someone fitting these criteria.

Lord Dubs said at the time: “I think in those new eligibility criteria they have breached both the letter and the spirit of the amendment. I think they have gone back on their word.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “It would be inappropriate to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

The first wave of child migrants arrived from Calais in October, but many provoked controversy by appearing to be much older than 18-year-old.

Indeed, several were later proven to be adults in what was a monumentally embarrassing episode for the Home Office, which was powerless to conduct age defining dental checks because it would have infringed on the migrants’ human rights.

Advertisements