A British High Court judge has ordered that “refugees” who claim to be minors must be given priority in schools, healthcare, housing and other benefits—over and above the rights of British people.
A picture dating from 2016 showing a “child refugee” from Calais after he was brought to Britain by the British government when the “Calais Jungle” invader camp was closed down. The latest court ruling does not refer to this individual.
According to reports, Justice Peter Jackson said the “child refugees” must get school place priority even when schools are oversubscribed—which means that local British children, who might have been on the waiting list for years, will be bumped down in favor of the “refugees.”
Jackson made the ruling in a case of two “refugees”—who claim to be aged nine and ten, who mysteriously just “appeared” in Britain during 2016.
The two claimed that they had travelled for a year and four months to get to England, but no-one actually knows how they suddenly appeared in the North West of England on August 18, 2016 “alone but well-dressed,” as the judge said.
Jackson also called on social workers “to make sure that children who arrive to claim asylum without their parents or anyone else to look after them should have priority in getting medical care or NHS therapy.”
The test case—which will now apply to all “minor refugees” in Britain, means that all local authorities will now be under a legal obligation to actively discriminate against British citizens and legal residents.
In addition, the judge said that “older children arriving as unaccompanied asylum seekers might be given housing under less sweeping court orders.”
The court heard that the two Afghans are “currently living with a Pakistani foster family” with whom they have a cultural background in common.
Jackson added that “they would undoubtedly be a first call on the local authority’s resources if subject to a care order, and, depending on the education legislation, qualify for priority in the allocation of educational resources.”
Social workers would also be required to pursue their “asylum application.”
Last year 3,290 “unaccompanied children” claimed “asylum” in Britain, 754 of them from Afghanistan. More than six out of 10 claimed to be 16 or 17—the age group believed to include a high proportion of older people falsely saying they are aged under 18, media reports said.
The fact that the two Afghans suddenly “appeared” in the North West of England—hundreds of miles away from Calais or the European continent—is of course proof that they were illegally smuggled into the country, and werewell taken care of until they were dumped onto the local taxpayers for their subsistence.
Most often, these “child refugees” are deliberately sent ahead by their families to Europe as part of an organized smuggling ring in order to stake their own claim for “asylum” in white countries by claiming “family reunion rights.”
* In 2016, the UK Home Office ruled that it was “unethical” to verify the ages of “Calais Refugee children” by dental checks.