Sir Mo Farah - why did the Home Office tell him he wouldn’t face any immigration action?

[AngryBirdsNoMore]

I’m really behind the times here but I’m just watching Sir Mo Farah’s documentary on the BBC, and thinking about the illegal migration legislation at the moment.

Why did the Home Office assure Mo that he wouldn’t face any immigration action, given he got his citizenship illegally and he entered the country illegally? is it because he’s famous / knighted, or is there some technical reason?

How can they pursue their current legislation and at the same time make exceptions like this based on someone being famous?

personally I think he’s a good example of integration and and of the way immigrants including those unfortunately illegally trafficked in can help this country.

And no action against his teacher who knew he was representing lies to the Home Office? It’s an amazing thing he did for this trafficked child but it’s also illegal.

does your google not work ?

Because morally and ethically it would be abhorrent for the Home Office to penalise and/or deport a trafficked and abused child for actions they had no control over.

Hence the new bill allowing them to penalise and/or deport trafficked and abused children (and adults) for actions they had no control over.

Hope that helps clear things up.

I’m am in no way an expert , but it would be a pretty sad state of affairs for a child who was illegally people trafficked into the county and made a modern slave to face deportation alone .
I understand that children in these circumstances are considered non complicit in regards to what happens to them.

What about the teacher who lied on his citizenship application?

☝️

Sadly it's nothing to do with the ethics of it (as if the Home Office has a moral conscience!). It's explained in a BBC article that he can't be deemed complicit as he was a child at the time of the application, so the fraud argument wouldn't stand up on appeal.

The threshold for proving fraud in relation to citizenship is quite high in practice. It's a big deal to remove citizenship from someone once it's been granted. It's not likely to happen in a case where the person was basically entitled to citizenship but there were a few irregularities in the application. There's an example here of someone whose citizenship was removed because he lied about his country of origin, and even then he won the appeal :

www.otssolicitors.co.uk/news/losing-british-citizenship-because-of-deception/

Not the sort of thing that happened in Mo's case, that wouldn't get anywhere near court, and I'm sure it was only put to Mo like that for a bit of dramatic effect.

Are you really not able to understand that he was a child when he was trafficked into the country? And thus not in control of anything that happened to him? And not able to get documents or apply for citizenship. What is wrong with people that can't grasp that??

Thanks @Jeannieofthelamp that’s very clear and helpful.

@RoseslnTheHospital i do understand that. But I suppose im looking at the last ten years of the way children who arrive in the UK have been treated and seeing through that lens - treated as being ‘illegals’ and the government trying to find ways to remove them.

I agree he was just a child and not culpable. I’m just looking at the way the Home Office talks about children arriving now.

Because the home office doesn't punish trafficked and abused children for crimes they have been a victim of

hope that clarifies

But they do

Really surprised at the hard time you're getting here OP. I completely understand your point. It's abhorrent to think of someone so iconic as Mo Farah being denied citizenship for something that happened to him as a child.

But the reality is that's exactly what will be happening to children who are in his position who don't have the safety of fame. The next Mo Farah will be deported.

Well, they will start punishing children for being brought to this country, if their new policies are put into effect.

It doesn't have to make sense or be consistent. The govt have moved to take a harsh and aggressive line towards people seeking asylum in the UK coming via boats. They're doing that because they think it will be popular and gain them support and ultimately votes. Which is deeply disturbing that so many of the UK population want to see people treated harshly and punished for attempting to enter the country.

Thank you @YetiTeri ! And yes I suppose that’s what I find so difficult - and the fact that this legislation hasn’t come out of nowhere, it’s a culmination of political decisions for ten years or more.

Thank you everyone for the answers even the ones implying I’m stupid. It’s helped me to understand.

I'm also surprised at the hard time you're getting here.

I think the latest government policies will mean that if a Mo situation happens in the future, the government would be able to take some form of action. I think they didn't enforce on Mo because its not allowable in law yet?

The issue with having had several different PMs and leadership teams in the last 10 years is that there hasn't been a consistent cumulative approach to developing legislation. Policy is based on what the PM at the time thinks will be popular, either within his/her party or within the electorate. None of the current bunch of politicians from pretty much any party have any kind of political conviction and clarity of political vision. They're all populists and/or concerned with their own careers.

Send them to Rwanda?

I’ve heard the interior decoration is wonderful, and somewhat takes the edge off getting shot or conscripted into a foreign military.

Re trafficked child slaves, the new legislation will criminalise them too. Theresa May has apparently been trying to get that changed.

Imagine having the former leader of your own party trying to get you to treat trafficked child slaves humanely? If that's not a wake up call, there isn't one.

I'd love to know what happens to you if you are Rwandan and enter the UK illegally. Given how utterly spiteful this government is, they probably punt you to Syria or something rather than putting you on a flight home.

The same Theresa May whose aim in her home office days was to create a very hostile environment for "illegal immigrants"? The one who shipped Caribbean elders to countries they'd last seen as mere kids?

Shocking if true.

but they don't.

How many do you know?

Children in this situation will normally get refugee status