What is Priti Patel so afraid of? Is it British children orphaned during the conflict with Islamic State who want to return home? Or is she scared that fellow rightwing Tories may accuse her of being “soft” on terrorism? The home secretary says the stranded children, about 60 in total, pose “security concerns”. As the Observer reported last week, Patel and her predecessor, Sajid Javid, helped block a rescue plan that could have ended their ordeal.

Thanks to the intervention of a Birmingham judge and a welcome show of compassion by the Foreign Office, the barrier to returnees erected by Patel was partially breached last week. A handful of orphans, apparently all from the same family, were allowed back into the country anonymously after a British diplomat travelled to meet the Kurdish officials holding them. Their parents, who took them to Syria in 2015 and later died, reportedly had links to Isis.

This repatriation should be the beginning, not the end, of a larger operation to bring back all the affected British children. Their suffering in the terrible conditions prevalent in the makeshift prison camps of north-east Syria can only be imagined. The risk that they could be radicalised if they are forced to stay is high. Let’s be clear. We are not talking here about jihadists wearing suicide vests hellbent on destroying the British way of life. We are talking about blameless children marooned abroad.

It is outrageous, morally and legally, that Patel and others in the government are continuing to block additional child repatriations. Home Office officials said last week that no more children would be allowed home in the foreseeable future and that any applications by families or charities acting on their behalf would be treated on a “case by case” basis. Boris Johnson also refused to commit to rescuing the children, maintaining lamely that it was all too difficult.

No, it’s not. Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, has shown commendable leadership on this issue. Refusing to accept Patel’s cold-hearted indifference, Raab argued that repatriation is the “right thing to do”. He should continue his efforts with vigour. Those familiar with north-east Syria know that the present military situation, while not risk-free, does not preclude further rescue missions. And then there are Britain’s legal obligations, which Johnson and Patel must not be allowed to shirk.

Since it appears to be needed, here is a brief summary of the government’s responsibilities under the UN convention on the rights of the child, which Britain ratified in 1991. It states that – in all cases – “the best interests of the child” are paramount. Every child has a right to “life, survival and development… whatever their ethnicity, sex, religion… whatever they think or say, whatever their family background”.

Articles 38 and 39, covering trauma and reintegration, are particularly relevant. “Children who have experienced neglect, abuse, exploitation, torture or who are victims of war must receive special support to help them recover,” the convention states. “Governments must do everything they can to protect and care for children affected by war and armed conflicts.”

This is plain and unambiguous. It is not open to argument. Other European countries better understand their legal obligations and have taken a more humane approach. So what, apart from her own political ambitions, is Patel thinking of? As a matter of urgency, the government as a whole must reconsider its unacceptable and callous attitude to these orphans.

The related questions of what to do about surviving British mothers and their children in Syrian camps and, indeed, all 850 British citizens, male and female, who reportedly joined Isis must also be revisited. To say Britain’s legal system could not cope with the challenges implicit in their return is a poor excuse for inaction. Leaving these people to rot and plot is not a rational or responsible policy. It will simply create bigger “security concerns” in future.