Benches without borders

Does the right of someone seeking residence, protection and benefits in Britain trump the rights of the host to weigh the risk, cost and damage to society of granting that wish? In case after case, Britain’s immigration tribunals pass judgments that appear predicated on this absolutist legal assumption. Again and again they make judgments which undermine the ability of the British state to control its borders, and create more incentives for those without an entitlement to live in Britain to mount spurious asylum claims once they are here.

This week, we learned that a Gazan woman has been granted permission to bring 18 members of her extended family to Britain because the woman had “suffered mental health problems” due to her “relatives’ situation in Gaza”. The woman’s parents, one of her brothers, his wife and four children, a sister and her four children, and another sister, her husband and three children will all be allowed to live here. This is despite the fact that “most of the adult applicants” can’t speak English, and only the parents would be able to live with the claimant. So the British state will have to find social housing for three families and one single man. These people will likely wipe out the entire lifetime tax contribution of around six average British households.

Even worse, there’s nothing to suggest these 18 wouldn’t be able to bring similar claims for their own extended families. Chain migration via this one Gazan mother might end up bringing hundreds of Palestinians to live in Britain. It’s worth remembering that last year we allowed “at least 75 Gazan students” to move to this country.

The judge in this case was Gemma Loughran formerly of Garden Court Chambers, and prior to that a director of Haringey Migrant Support Centre. Since her appointment as an immigration judge in July 2024 she has made rulings with enormous implications for border enforcement and migrant status she 

In February 2025 Loughran granted asylum to a woman who had been rejected eight times before. Even though the judge acknowledged that the woman had joined a political movement “in order to create a claim for asylum”, and it did “not represent a true reflection of her genuinely held political views”, she still granted the asylum claim. The result, of course, is that future asylum fraudsters will know that if they join the right political movement they will be allowed to stay in the UK.

In May 2025 she ruled that a “hairy Sudanese asylum seeker with a deep voice”, a “very mature face and beard”, “a receding hairline” and “a prominent Adam’s apple” was not, as the Home Office and a local council believed, in his mid-20s, but was actually 16 years old. Loughran said at the time “we have reminded ourselves of the importance of not over-emphasising physical characteristics”. 

And now this Gazan case. What makes it all the more egregious is that Palestinians are probably the worst migrant group on the planet. We know this because in March 1992 Denmark granted residence to 321 of them. By 2016 over 63 per cent had been convicted of at least one crime, and 67 of them had been jailed. Almost 60 per cent were on benefits. As a group they are highly criminal and have very low levels of economic activity.

Gazans, of course, have been ruled by Hamas for almost two decades. In that time Hamas has ensured that every child is raised with violent propaganda. Children as young as eight learn verses such as:

 “I vow I shall sacrifice my blood, to saturate the land of the generous and will eliminate the usurper from my country and will annihilate the remnants of the foreigners”.

So with this judgment we are potentially welcoming hundreds of people who have a far higher propensity to engage in criminal act, are unlikely to be economically productive and likely to be radicalised by violent Islamist ideology.

In Loughran’s judgments, and many others by other immigration judges, there is not a hint of consideration for British taxpayers, nor the slightest suggestion that human rights should ever be balanced against the national interest, nor even our national security. Through such an approach, the legal system is  upended to champion one set of objectives at the expense of all other legal considerations. 

What should be a tool for ensuring human flourishing, stability and prosperity for the people of Britain has instead been made a weapon, forcing society to house, clothe, feed (and often jail), vast numbers of foreigners who should not be here.

I spoke to Alp Mehmet, Chair of Migration Watch UK, who said:

“This absurd decision not only flies in the face of common sense but tramples all over the rights and interests of the British people. It also opens even wider the door to chain migration and potentially millions of people around the world whose relatives have been granted refuge here. That was never the purpose of the Human Rights Act. The sooner we withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the HRA, the better off the British public will be.”

Mehmet is right — the Human Rights Act has become perverse legislation. We must see through its feel-good name and recognise it for the societally destructive force it has become.