The Absurdity of Open Borders Law By Richard Miller (London)

     Many utterly illogical judgments have been delivered by the Higher courts, usually motivated by politically correct ideology, thus leading to absurdity, and here is the latest:

“Britain’s Supreme Court has thrown the country’s deportation policies into chaos by ruling that a foreign criminal cannot be deported to a country with poorer free healthcare than the United Kingdom. Justices including the top court’s infamous former president, Lady Hale, and two colleagues who also serve as ad hoc members of the European Court of Human Rights, agreed with a Zimbabwean migrant who should have been deported more than a decade ago that his removal would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that “No-one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. The migrant’s lawyers cleverly reinterpreted this European article, understood by most to be a prohibition against physical torture and holding people in unsanitary conditions, as a right for his client to remain in Britain so long as his home country could not provide him with the same expensive, taxpayer-funded HIV medication as the British National Health Service (NHS) free of charge — and the Supreme Court concurred. The court also “ordered that no one shall publish or reveal the name or address” of the Zimbabwean, restricting the freedom of the press to provide the public with the full facts of the case — although it did reveal that he was “convicted of battery” before the government ordered his deportation and further convicted of “offences including possession of a firearm and ammunition” after the order was given but not carried out. The government, already deporting ever-fewer migrants amid ever-rising levels of illegal migration, now fears the precedent set by the judgment will jeopardise many more deportations, including that of ISIS fighter-linked gang rapist Yaqub Ahmed — who was on the verge of finally being flown out of the country in October 2018 before a mutiny by passengers, who were seemingly never punished, allowed him to stay and lodge more appeals.”

     Even the Americans are astonished at this piece of judicial craziness, seeing it as part of a wider movement where reason is replaced by politics:

“A politicized court rules against an elected government. Leftists cheer and whoop and post admiring profiles of the judges who agreed with them. Conservatives complain that the judiciary is overstepping its authority and ruling on the basis of what it thinks the law ought to say rather than what it actually says. American readers might be familiar with this scenario, but not the Brits. When our Supreme Court declared that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had behaved improperly by advising the queen to prorogue Parliament — that is, to suspend prior to a new session, normally a standard procedure — it tore up our constitutional settlement as it had existed for 330 years. You didn’t know that the United Kingdom had a Supreme Court? Neither, until this week, did most Brits. That body was created in a characteristically slapdash way by Tony Blair, from no higher motive than wanting to look modern. Unlike its American cousin, the British Supreme Court is not interpreting a written constitution. It is there, at least in theory, to uphold a system based on the supremacy of Parliament. Our 1689 Bill of Rights, large chunks of which were cut and pasted by James Madison when he drafted the American version, differs from yours chiefly in that it elevates Parliament over the judiciary, laying down that “proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court.”

That sounds pretty clear-cut, doesn’t it? But, this week, the judges got around it by claiming that “the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision.” Hmm. So, the prorogation happens in Parliament, but somehow or other, it isn’t in Parliament. Whatever you say, M’Luds. A prorogation normally happens every year. But Theresa May was reluctant to hold a new legislative session because she feared that MPs would take the opportunity to vote against her agenda and thus precipitate her departure. The current session became the longest since the appropriately named Long Parliament, which sat for 13 continuous years until 1653.”

     If the courts by sophistry can get over the prorogation rule, then of course, they can get over anything. And so, they do. Consider then the implications of not being able to deport foreign criminal, criminals mind you, if their country has a poorer healthcare system than the UK. What should a healthcare system have to do with this judgment at all? Relevance? You might have argued instead for library systems, it makes as much sense. How is it possibly relevant? It would mean that no Third World criminals at all could be deported, which is I suppose the globalist agenda, to have open borders for absolutely everybody. And, it is not clear how the rule would operate between developed countries (e.g. UK and France), but it was a rule made especially to keep Third World migrant criminals from being deported. Don’t we have enough home-grown criminals? Apparently not. But, the end results of globalism, this equality of all resources, is the tragedy of the commons,  that the UK health care system will crash, leaving the UK free, insofar as it still exists, to deport as before. But, I imagine that the judges did not think that far ahead!



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 13 August 2022