No matter what a government openly intends, legal professionals always seem to find a human rights provision to justify the opposite outcome. This week, there have been growing demands for Parliament and, by extension, the British public to have the final say on who can settle in the UK rather than leaving such decisions to judges. These calls follow a court ruling that allowed Palestinian migrants to reside in the country.

A family of six hoping to leave Gaza and reunite with a brother in the UK applied through a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees. Their application was initially rejected because their case did not meet the scheme’s criteria, which was expected since they are Palestinian, not Ukrainian.

However, according to a report in the Telegraph, an upper tribunal judge, the son of a former “anti-Israeli” Guardian journalist, has overturned this decision, citing the family's right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Alp Mehmet of Migration Watch UK stated that this judge “epitomises the thinking of our courts and judges when it comes to immigration and asylum.”  Even he said europeanconservative.com that, “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 apprehensive about this ruling because it could set a precedent for more Gazans to be allowed to settle in the UK through a program intended initially for Ukrainians.

Reform chairman Richard Tice stated, “We do not want more pro-Hamas, antisemitic attitudes being brought into the UK”. Added, “Other Arab nations will not accept them, and nor should we.”

Policy expert Sam Bidwell argued that, given this case and many similar ones, the immigration tribunal system should be reformed and wholly abolished. Mehmet agreed and stated in the 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 argues that there is no resettlement program for Palestinians and insists that such cases will be challenged. However, their objections will likely be dismissed in court. Similarly, Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated today that he disagrees with the ruling but may not have the power to change it.

The ruling is another example that Starmer’s stance on migration holds little value as long as ECHR rules remain in effect—not that any further evidence was necessary. Some might argue that this undermines democratic systems, though the government can withdraw from the ECHR through a democratic process if it chooses to do so.