Whatever a government publicly desires, it appears as though the lawyer classes will always find one human rights clause or another to do the opposite.
There have been numerous calls this week for Parliament—and therefore, ultimately, the British people—to have control over who can settle in the UK, rather than judges. This comes after a court granted Palestinian migrants the right to live in the country.
A family of six seeking to leave Gaza and join a brother in Britain applied through a scheme meant for Ukrainian refugees and were originally refused on the grounds their case was outside the programme’s rules. Understandable, given that they are Palestinian, not Ukrainian.
But a report in the Telegraph reveals that this decision has since been overturned by an upper tribunal judge—the son of a former ‘anti-Israeli’ Guardian journalist—on the basis of their right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This judge, said Alp Mehmet of Migration Watch UK, “epitomises the thinking of our courts and judges when it comes to immigration and asylum.” He told europeanconservative.com:
They see themselves as the ultimate decision-makers and guardians of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. The rights of the British public, who foot the hefty bill, are overridden and trampled on with alacrity.
Critics are particularly concerned by this ruling because of the door it opens to more Gazans being granted the right to live in the UK under a scheme set up for Ukrainians.
“We do not want more pro-Hamas, antisemitic attitudes being brought into the UK,” said Reform chairman Richard Tice, noting that “other Arab nations will not accept them, and nor should we.”
Think tanker Sam Bidwell added that after this case, and many others like it, the immigration tribunal system should not simply be reformed but scrapped altogether. Mehmet agreed, telling this publication:
It is high time our immigration judges made their way out of the self-serving cloud cuckoo land they now inhabit.
The home office claims there is no resettlement scheme for Palestinians, and that such cases will be contested, but it is easy to imagine their disputes being thrown out of court. Likewise, Labour prime minister Keir Starmer said today he thought the ruling was wrong, but is unlikely to be able to overturn it.
The ruling is further proof that Starmer’s migration rhetoric is of little-to-no worth while ECHR rules continue to apply—not that any more proof was needed. This could be said to make a mockery of democratic systems, though the government is within its rights to democratically withdraw from the ECHR, if it so wishes.
