Hasn’t Britain done enough?
A Palestinian family has been allowed to settle here after a judge overruled the Home Office.
They applied through a scheme meant for Ukrainians, and despite the government rejecting their case, the court ruled in their favour on ‘human rights’ grounds.
A judge ruled that rejecting their application would breach human rights law—even though they weren’t eligible under the scheme’s actual rules.
Matt Goodwin fears the decision taken today sets a troubling precedent
GB NEWS
The Home Office has warned this could set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for more cases like this.
This isn’t an isolated incident—immigration tribunals have made other controversial rulings, including blocking the deportation of an Albanian criminal because his son refused to eat foreign chicken nuggets.
It’s worth noting, Judge who granted the scheme, Hugo Norton-Taylor's father, is a former Guardian journalist who has written extensively on security and defense.
Richard Norton-Taylor is known for his online campaigning against Israel, particularly in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Now there is an argument that Parliament should be making these decisions, not the courts.
The blunt reality is that we have allowed unlimited foreign aid spending whilst also allows judges to override immigration policy.
The family were living in a Gazan refugee camp after their home was destroyed by an air strikeGETTYPolling shows two-thirds of British people want foreign aid reduced, yet the government refuses to act.
The U.S. is starting to rethink its approach—so why isn’t Britain?
Britain has done its share.
The UK has already taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees in recent years, from Syria, Hong Kong, and Ukraine.
The Ukraine schemes alone have brought in over 200,000 people—one of the most generous responses in Europe.
Britain has always provided sanctuary, but at what point is enough, enough?
While Britain has a proud history of providing refuge, including to Hong Kongers and Ukrainians, mass immigration today is stretching our resources, eroding social cohesion, and reducing trust.
Who are they?
Many of those now seeking entry from Gaza will hold views that are deeply problematic in a Western democracy.
Polling has shown that significant numbers in Gaza support Hamas and its extremist ideology.
The UK must ask: are we importing people who share British values—or those who fundamentally reject them?
Dana Abu Karma, a law student from Gaza studying in the UK, expressed pride and joy over the October 7th attacks at a pro-Palestine protest, leading to her visa being revoked by the Home Office.
Heba Al-hayek, who claimed asylum in the UK citing danger from Hamas due to her family's criticism of the group, was photographed with two friends on a pro-Palestine march wearing images of paragliders after the October 7th attacks. Despite this, Judge Tan Ikram decided not to punish her, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the immigration system in preventing individuals who glorify Hamas from entering the UK.
A study by the Arab World for Research and Development found that most Palestinians support the October 7th attacks, have a positive view of Hamas, and believe the West supports Israel due to the "Israeli lobby," a mindset linked to recent arrests in Greater Manchester over a plot to attack Jews, the police, and the British Army.
It’s not just about values, it’s economic too: A 1990s Danish study of 321 Palestinian refugees found that nearly two-thirds acquired criminal records and many became dependent on welfare.
You may like
