The Immigration Tribunals have long been an obstacle to Britain’s keeping control of its borders. Now they should be abolished and control returned to the Home Secretary, who is responsible to the British Parliament.  Unelected judges should not have the last word in matters which affect the British people as a whole.

The latest judge-facilitated immigration scandal (21^st January) relates to a case brought by a group called the Refugee Council before two judges McCloskey and Ockleton.  This pair agreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) “Article 8 – right to family life” should apply to four relatives of Syrian migrants already living in Londonistan (as the French officials in Calais refer to the British capital city).  The four are currently living in the “Jungle” camp in Calais blithely refusing to seek asylum in France because they want “to go to England”.

Origin of the ECHR

When the ECHR was ratified by Britain in 1957, it had been specifically framed to protect people living under Communist rule in Eastern Europe (hence the qualifying term “European”). The United States, although the most powerful upholder of human rights in Europe since 1945, conspicuously did not sign up to a convention potentially open to the widest interpretation by unelected judges.  As themselves products mainly of the universities’ left-liberal mind-set in the 70s and 80s, British judges have unilaterally widened the scope of British “Human Rights” using legislation (notably the 2003 Act) to apply to virtually anyone in the world, i.e. 7,000 million people on the planet who are not British citizens.

Role of the Refugee Council

This organisation, originally set up uncontroversially to help people in far-off war-torn lands in Africa and Asia, has now morphed into an agency using its funding to facilitate entry into Britain of those with no legal entitlement to come. Although the present case was brought in respect of four specific individuals, the judges based their decision on Article 8 of the ECHR, which has no territorial or citizenship limits whatsoever.  So under their argument any migrant or asylum seeker already physically in Britain, not content with our generosity to him or her and not yet a British citizen or even resident, can claim some relative however distant in a camp somewhere in Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, etc, and judges McCloskey and Ockleton will be prepared “to order” the Home Office to bring them to Britain at tax payers’ expense, no conditions applied[1].

Well might Judith Dennis from the Refugee Council crow: “This judgement has shone a welcome light on the plight of refugees seeking protection in Europe. Everyone has a right (sic) to live in safety with their loved ones”.

To which the reply is of course, “British people have rights too, and one of these is to live in their own country with their loved ones and fellow Britons, free from the everlasting threat to be surrounded by foreigners in their own towns and cities”. With only 36% British citizens, Central London is already a foreign city.

And guess what? Who pays for the Refugee Council and its expensive legal fees?  Why it’s the Home Office itself.  Thus the British taxpayer is forced to pay for its tormentors, just as Lenin once quipped: “We will hang the capitalists, but first we will sell them the rope”.

End Note

[1] Incredibly the Home Office has implemented the judges’ order with 24 hours.  Has any court order involving British citizens ever been implemented so swiftly before, even on appeal against the judges’ decision.  Why are British government/court decisions which put new burdens on the British people always acted on swiftly to defeat any appeal – which the Home Office lamely, pathetically said it was going to make?

Which official at the Home Office signed the Eurostar invoice for the migrants’ fares?   Can we have a Freedom of Information request to find out?

 Email this article