From across the pond, we have been alarmed, but not surprised by Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor’s ruling to allow a Palestinian family into the UK under a scheme meant for Ukrainian refugees; not surprised because we face similar challenges in the US where, as in the UK, the Left often use the judiciary to circumvent the will of the people. This ruling exposes a dire need for the UK to adopt a “nation first” approach, akin to the robust executive policies championed by Donald Trump in the United States.
The ruling in question has sparked a fervent debate about the integrity of national borders and the sovereignty of British laws. Suella Braverman former Home Secretary known for her stringent stance on immigration, has described the decision as a “constitutional abomination” and “human rights gone wrong.” Her critique points to a system where judges, perhaps swayed by a distorted interpretation of human rights, are overstepping their bounds, thereby undermining the democratic will enshrined by Parliament.
As here in the US, the UK’s legal framework is being manipulated to serve an agenda far removed from the interests of British citizens. The argument here is not about lacking compassion but about ensuring that compassion does not override national security, economic stability, and cultural integrity.
Keir Starmer’s criticism of the judges ruling feels purely performative.
Getty Images
However, in the UK, you have an additional hurdle to contend with, namely the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which exerts external influences that result in erosion of national control. This case, where a judge seems to have usurped Parliament, only amplifies the point that Britain needs to reclaim its legal sovereignty to address immigration in a manner that prioritises British interests.
For his part, former human rights lawyer, Keir Starmer’s criticism of the judge’s ruling feels more performative than substantive. Historically, Labour has leaned towards policies promoting open borders, often at odds with the public’s demand for controlled immigration. If we are to accept Starmer’s criticism of the judge’s ruling at face value, his willingness to let judicial decisions dictate policy indicates a lack of executive fortitude, especially when compared to Donald Trump’s approach in the U.S.
Under Trump’s administration, the likelihood of the US accepting Gazan refugees appears slim. Rather than accept them in the USA, Trump has proposed a plan to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to other countries, including Jordan and Egypt, while the United States would take control of and redevelop the Gaza Strip.
Trump’s proposals suggest an objective of regional containment rather than international resettlement. However, this idea has not been met with unadulterated glee from those countries, wary of the security concerns, political implications and the potential for permanent displacement. Recent executive orders and policy directions from Trump’s second term have further indicated a continuation of his robust and effective stance on immigration and refugee resettlement, with an executive order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Program that would directly impact any potential plans for Gazan resettlement.
It is grim to accept the reality that the UK is saddled with appalling leadership for the near term and to consider the damage that can be wrought during these remaining four years of Labour leadership. Looking ahead to 2029, whichever party takes power in the UK must learn from these examples.
Many American’s want the Trump inspired “nation first” approach of Reform UK for Britain.
Getty Images
Like many in the UK, barring the miracle of a return to sanity on the part of the Tories, many of us Yank’s are praying for the clear-eyed approach of Nigel Farage and Reform UK, inspired by Trump’s “nation first” approach, to rescue the destiny of our staunchest ally. The UK’s executive needs to reassert its authority over the judiciary, ensuring that judges do not dictate immigration policy through interpretations that stray from the law’s original intent. This isn’t about curtailing judicial independence but about rebalancing powers to reflect democratic choices made by the electorate.
This is an urgent call for a reevaluation of how the UK manages its borders, its legal obligations under international human rights frameworks, and its commitment to its citizens. A “Britain First” approach would mean revising or possibly exiting treaties like the ECHR to safeguard British national interests, much like Trump’s plan for US withdrawal from international bodies detrimental to American safety and prosperity.
This latest example of activist judges trying to impose their will over people and parliament is a clarion call for Britain. Viewed from our shores, it is evident that the stakes are high: Just as in America, Britain must prioritise its sovereignty, culture, and security. The UK needs leaders who are not just critics of individual rulings, but are proactive in dismantling the structures that allow such overreach. Only then can the UK reestablish itself as a nation governed by its people, for its people, rather than by a select few interpreting laws to fit a misguided internationalist agenda.