Forum Topic

Palestinian refugees given right to come to Britain

Palestinian refugees given right to come to Britain under Ukraine settlement scheme - as Home Office warns the move could open 'floodgates'The family of six from Gaza - a mother, father and four children between seven and 18 years old - had reportedly applied to the Ukraine Family Scheme asking to join their brother already living in the UK, but the Home Office rejected their application.The scheme allowed Ukrainians and their family members to find refuge in Britain if they have a relative who is either a UK national or settled in the UK. It closed last February, nearly two years after it was set up in March 2022. An immigration tribunal initially refused the claim because the scheme for Ukrainians did not apply to the situation of the Palestinian family.The judge ruled that it should be up to Parliament to decide which countries should benefit from resettlement schemes. But this decision was overturned by judge Hugo Norton-Taylor at a higher-level tribunal.He granted the Palestinians the right to live in the UK with their brother under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which outlines the right to a family life. Judge Norton-Taylor reportedly said that the family's 'extreme and life-threatening' situation was outweighing the 'public interest' of rules regulating the entry to the UK.Shadow secretary Mr Philp criticised the 'alarming and dangerous' ruling, telling the Telegraph that it provides 'a basis for anyone in any conflict zone anywhere in the world with relations in the UK to come here'.https://mol.im/a/14386875So a senior judge uses Article 8 of an ECHR dictate to overrule an asylum claim that had already been rejected twice by the Home Office.This is why we MUST leave the ECHR and only Reform U.K.will do this if it forms the next government!

Sue Hammond ● 422d48 Comments

Well look up Sweden, they are doing their best to get rid of them. Even giving them £25000 to go back, which is cheaper than feeding and housing them here. You also need to stop all these endless stabbings, perhaps to foreigners this is the norm. But it's only since they have come here stabbings is endless.  I know it's not just foreigners, but they could be encouraging ours to stab or even carry knives for their own safety.

Barbara Stevens ● 416d

Well, I agree with you legal immigration should be controlled by the government.  Arguably, those controls have been too lax in the past but we do need immigrants to fill gaps in the labour force, unless or until state and private sectors plan properly to train people for what is and will be required.Illegal immigration has to be controlled too.  But just how can that be done when successive governments have singularly failed to do so?  And what do you do with the ones that are already here? Absorption or deportation are the only two options as far as I can see.  But it's not easy to deport people who have fled a warzone or people who have genuine claims to political asylum.

Jonathan Callaway ● 416d

I know a lot of people feel sorry for people in other countries, but surely our own should come first. The prices for our own youngster's to rent is dreadful. Also they need a good deposit if buying. Our people should come first on housing.  Also in places up North their Council tax is high, makes you wonder why people don't want to work when they can get everything paid for them.  Most of us were brought up to work, but look how many foreigners don't, but also use our NHS.  If you stopped handing out all this free housing they might not be so quick to come here.

Barbara Stevens ● 416d

Mr CallawayThe issue is should immigration into this country be controlled by its elected Government when the issue is a contentious one and one which has an impact on our social services and the overall nature and demographic of our society.'In the year ending June 2024, there were 38,784 detected irregular arrivals, 26% fewer than in the year ending June 2023, and 81% of these arrived by small boats'.The people you encountered in the NHS are probably of a similar ethnic profile to those I have also.No one doubts they are obviously needed and do a splendid job.But the key point is that we controlled their entry and entered into a contract with them - residency for services required and rendered.Not many of them I am sure arrived by dinghy from France.

John Hawkes ● 416d

Yes, Jonathan, something many companies fail to grasp. Remember the old saying; accountant to training manager "what if we train our staff and they leave", response "what if they don't and they stay" ...Of course, in financial services regulation dictates maintaining a certain level of training and competence. 

Michael Ixer ● 417d

I have made the exact same point on other threads.  It's a systemic failing and it's not just the NHS.  Training is an investment not a cost, although try telling that to any number of private sector companies.

Jonathan Callaway ● 417d

Or ten years earlier"Figures show extent of NHS reliance on foreign nationals"https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-serviceOr 23 years ago"Influx of foreign nurses helps NHS"https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/may/04/nhsstaff.healthThere are probably older 20th century articles.The NHS is not new and health is an established sector.It doesn't take quarter of a century or more to train doctors and nurses either.One can only conclude that the UK continues to import labour to keep costs down.This is of course very short sighted because as people settle their costs go up.This is true of other sectors too.

Ed Robinson ● 417d

I'm not going to answer all your questions because you will have your answers to them already and you can look them up just as quickly as I can.But I will observe that from a recent stay in hospital I encountered clinical staff, from the surgeon downwards, from several countries, including Hong Kong, Philippines, India, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, Nigeria, Spain and Hungary.  So that's a part answer to one of your questions - they find work here.Perhaps you might find time to read the excellent John Harris, from my neck of the woods as it happens, here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/16/nhs-britain-immigrants-dad

Jonathan Callaway ● 417d

Mr Callaway'As for those crossing the Channel they will be a mixture of genuine asylum seekers, refugees from war zones and economic migrants'. Have these asylum seekers and refugees from war zones been refused sanctuary from every other country in Europe, the Middle East or Africa that lie between the lands they are fleeing and the UK ?What makes this country so attractive to them  ?And do we have the job vacancies for economic migrants ?Are there not already many people living here that are able to but are not working and yet are claiming benefits ?Economic migrants will surely add to this number.

John Hawkes ● 417d

"Absorbing them might however boost the labour supply and take some pressure off the cost of housing them."Just as well there isn't a social housing shortage after decades of investment by Labour & Conservative governments.I wonder what Singapore does?Another death in the sea. Impractical yes, costly yes but the Rwanda deal was a deterrent even with empty planes.https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgm2vwxdn0o.amp

Ed Robinson ● 418d

I suggest you also read this report https://fullfact.org/immigration/illegal-migrant-london-population/ before taking this widely quoted estimate at face value.  Illegal immigration is obviously a problem but let’s not take this report completely at face value. As for those crossing the Channel they will be a mixture of genuine asylum seekers, refugees from war zones and economic migrants. The government has been desperately slow in processing these people - and indeed tracking down others in this country illegally - which is no doubt why the cost of housing them is so high.  But what realistically can you do with them?  There are only two options - absorb them into the population or deport them.  The first option is politically toxic and the second is scarcely touching the sides of the problem.  Absorbing them might however boost the labour supply and take some pressure off the cost of housing them.

Jonathan Callaway ● 418d

"As many as one in 12 people living in London is an illegal migrant, a previously confidential report has revealed".'The figures, which show as many as 585,000 illegal migrants are living in the capital, come from a study commissioned by Thames Water and were released through a Freedom of Information request.It comes amid growing pressure on the government to cut illegal immigration, with around 1 million people believed to be in the UK illegally.The report, obtained by the Telegraph, shows the majority of illegal migrants entered the country on visitor or work visas before overstaying the allotted time.Official numbers have not been published by the Home Office'.Source LBC.Key questions are where are these people living and how are they surviving financially ?And what are the sources of their income ?Cant all be driving mopeds to deliver takeaways.I would suggest crime is the main source: drug dealing, mobile phone mugging and supermarket raiding and shop lifting.Costing this country a fortune and the issue will mean the end of Labour rule if they don't fix it by the next election.

John Hawkes ● 418d

"2024 was the deadliest year in the Channel, with 77 people known to have drowned trying to cross."It appears that we can not even count the dead.The £3 Billion was for 2023 although I'm not sure that covers health care and other services."As mentioned above, ministers have been citing a projected asylum accommodation cost of £11 billion per year by 2026"https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2024-0054/CDP-2024-0054.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 419d

The number of illegal migrants may be a fraction of the total number of immigrants,  but it costs over £3 billion per year to house asylum seekers in hotels. This is over twice what ,the government will save by withdrawing winter fuel allowance. So I think that political discourse about illegal migration is entirely justified.

Steven Rose ● 419d

The bottom line is still that illegal immigration is statistically a fraction of the total.  But it dominates political discourse quite disproportionately and increasingly tediously.  Of course it has to be controlled if not stopped but if that was easy it would have happened years ago. I suspect nothing much will change in the coming years while the political parties fight over which unworkable solution they want most.

Jonathan Callaway ● 419d

Unfortunately there is very little transparency when it comes to immigration.The amount of economic inactivity within the population is often overlooked by those proposing mass immigration. It's also almost impossible to address during mass immigration.You can't import your way out of fundamental failures unfortunately.The shortage excuse has been peddled for decades - long enough now to train staff from a pre-twinkle of the eye never mind nursery.Decades later there are still scandals of overseas recruiters and middle people taking advantage of staff never mind recruiting from the so called red/amber lists of countries.

Ed Robinson ● 419d

I agree, Jonathan, that one of the drivers of immigration is a need for additional labour. In some cases this is a need for skilled labour because we haven’t trained enough doctors, bricklayers etc  of our own. The solution clearly is to expand the medical schools and increase the number of apprenticeships. In other cases there is a lack of unskilled labour because the wages are so low for jobs like strawberry pickers and care assistants that British people refuse to do them. This problem  is more difficult to resolve since people are unwilling to pay more for their strawberries or face increased fees for care so as to raise wages. But that is what has to happen. Another  driver is that many people throughout the world see Britain as a means of escape from poverty. Some of these individuals seek to enter the country illegally. Even if they find work their contribution to the economy is likely to be far less than what they will receive in benefits in their lifetime. The only solution is some form of deterrence. Illegal migrants have to believe that if they make it to Britain they will be removed. That is the only way of breaking the people  smugglers’ business model. The government’s latest move to ensure that illegal migrants can never obtain a British  passport is simply laughable as a deterrent. I don’t know if you watched Question Time last night. The  government minister, Jacqui Smith (wasn’t she mixed up in the expenses scandal?) was unable  to answer Fiona Bruce’s question as to how preventing illegal migrants from obtaining British citizenship would deter them from coming if they were in any case going to be given leave to stay together with all the benefits of free schooling and free health care.

Steven Rose ● 419d

'the substantial rise in net immigration over the last decade or so has been driven by the needs of both public and private sector demand for additional labour.  This demand has not been satisfied by what is available in this country and successive governments have supported if not encouraged it'.The Spectator today -"£1m spent on 2024 Jobcentre translation services"Don't get too excited.These are not 'Job Seekers' eager to make a contribution to the nation's economy.'The revelation comes after it emerged that interpreters for //benefits claimants\\ have cost the British taxpayer almost £30 million over the last five years. As reported by the Telegraph, £27 million has been spent on language help since 2019. The highest yearly spend was in 2022, with £8 million splurged – compared with £1.7 million the year before. Meanwhile a million calls to the DWP Universal Credit helpline needed the assistance of a foreign language interpreter last year. In fact, during the first few months of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government, the DWP splashed a staggering average of £25,000 a day on language aid'.How can the Chancellor get tax down when it is wasted on such as this ?

John Hawkes ● 419d

Mr Rose'It falls into the category of a luxury belief because those who advance it are often sheltered from the downsides of mass immigration'. True.It would be interesting to see attitudes to mass immigration broken down demographically by factors such as income, employable skills/education and location etc

John Hawkes ● 419d

As far as I can see the scale of legal immigration, and the substantial rise in net immigration over the last decade or so has been driven by the needs of both public and private sector demand for additional labour.  This demand has not been satisfied by what is available in this country and successive governments have supported if not encouraged it.The wider question is why?  My view is the consistent failure of our education system and the training opportunities offered by the private sector.Many years ago I met Nigel Lawson when he was Chancellor.  I had just returned from six years in Germany and - in the context of a discussion on the German apprenticeship system  - we talked about the attitude of the private sector in the UK to investing in training their staff, whether at the recruitment stage with school leavers, or later.  I expressed the view that too many companies saw training as an expense rather than an investment and I am not sure that has changed in the intervening decades.  Hence the demand for foreign workers who are prepared to come here from elsewhere and bring with them, if nothing else, a work ethic  and an urge to improve themselves and their families. Lawson did not agree with me.  That was in 1988.My view of the current levels of immigration is that it obviously needs to be managed and controlled.  The current government has pledged to bring net immigration down but then so did nearly every previous one as far back as I can remember.  Demand for labour remains high, especially for those with vocational training - ask any construction company, for example, what their biggest problem is.  And where they are finding the solution.

Jonathan Callaway ● 419d

In my opinion a benign view of the kind  mass immigration such as the UK has experienced  since the millennium is a luxury belief. It is typically  advanced by those on the left who think that immigration controls are by their very nature xenophobic or racist and that the solution to every problem is more state intervention, euphemistically called investment. It falls into the category of a luxury belief because those who advance it are often sheltered from the downsides of mass immigration. Their livelihoods are not likely to be threatened by immigrants willing to work for lower wages, they live  in leafy areas where recent arrivals generally can't afford to live, so they don't have to experience the frustration of waiting to get a doctor's appointment, and so on.

Steven Rose ● 419d

'No realistic level of investment can possibly cope with an annual population increase of 700 000'.Do the indigenous British populace benefit from this level of immigration ?If so why do some think it acceptable ?They are not all 'political refugees' or asylum seekers.Some will say fund it by higher taxes on 'the rich' ie someone else !But in the end we all pay to support a population increase we have not voted for nor perhaps need.

John Hawkes ● 419d

Mr Robinson'Unfortunately both Labour & Conservative did not invest enough in services for the increase in the UK's population brought about through immigration'.What services do immigrants require and who will fund them ?

John Hawkes ● 419d

Mr Callaway'they’re the fault of decades of under investment in public services'.Public services tend to be very labour intensive and we have invested in them.Check out the increase in numbers of Civil Servants since Covid.Are you suggesting we need immigration to be maintained to add to this number ?What is 'the real issue' ?

John Hawkes ● 419d

The argument that the problems attributed to immigration are really due to under-investment is simply implausible. No realistic level of investment can possibly cope with an annual population increase of 700 000.

Steven Rose ● 420d

Singapore byw has very tough immigration policies.It is rather telling about the UK that the author would rather remain a Singaporean citizen than that of the UK.

Ed Robinson ● 420d

Unfortunately both Labour & Conservative did not invest enough in services for the increase in the UK's population brought about through immigration.Neither seem to have a coherent tax policy and with no new party of the left I suspect Reform will take many former Labour voters. Not necessarily on immigration but though traditional conservative policies.

Ed Robinson ● 420d

Here’s a different take on the immigration debate which will probably not please everyone, certainly not Reform supporters.Actually there may be a paywall but the argument is along the lines that the country’s many problems aren’t the fault of excessive immigration, legal or otherwise, they’re the fault of decades of under investment in public services.  So parties that obsess on immigration will not ultimately prosper because they’re not focusing on the real issue. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/reform-uk-will-fail-heres-why-3531378

Jonathan Callaway ● 420d

This change in the law will not stop people arriving on small boats etc who can not be returned.

Ed Robinson ● 420d

'The judgment which would allow Palestinian refugees to come to the UK under a scheme intended by Parliament for Ukrainians is an example of judicial overreach. Not so much the rule of law as rule by lawyers and judges.'The family appealed a number of times and on the third appeal won their case with a pro Palestinian judge! I do wonder who paid for their legal representation.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14391771/judge-palestine-refugees-son-critical-israel-writer.html

Lucille Grant ● 420d

I read that Jordan would take 2000 Palestinian children in need of medical help. https://www.timesofisrael.com/abdullah-says-jordan-to-take-in-2000-sick-gazan-kids-as-trump-pushes-relocation-plan/

Lucille Grant ● 420d

Starmer said in PMQs the government was going to close the loophole in the legislation introduced by the previous government. 

Michael Ixer ● 421d

Or maybe just a loophole in the law that the gov will close?

Michael Brigo ● 421d

The judgment which would allow Palestinian refugees to come to the UK under a scheme intended by Parliament for Ukrainians is an example of judicial overreach. Not so much the rule of law as rule by lawyers and judges.

Steven Rose ● 421d

You can believe what you want :)All I'm saying is that Trumps plan is clearly ethnic cleansing as per the dictionary definition. If you don't support that plan then please express so - your highness :)

Michael Brigo ● 421d

"And I note that having been accused by you of ethnic cleaning I am now in the good company of Arab Royalty !"You are! I shall bow down to you if we ever pass in the street.

Michael Brigo ● 421d

There doesn't seem to be. Uch about an early agreement here ...https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5276145/trumps-gaza-proposal-has-rattled-the-middle-east-more-surprises-are-likelyIran seems to have been very quiet on the Gaza situation recently,  or have I missed something?

Michael Ixer ● 421d

typo correction! ",,, to be an agreement "...

Michael Ixer ● 421d

Mr Brigo'"I understand Trump has managed to get an agreement with Jordan"He might well have managed to get an agreement to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians yes'.Does not say much for the beliefs and principles of this particular Arab leader who you claim now supports ethnic cleansing.Perhaps they are as wary of Hamas as are most civilised people.And I note that having been accused by you of ethnic cleaning I am now in the good company of Arab Royalty !

John Hawkes ● 421d

Mr Brigo'A majority of people on this forum appear to support ethnic cleansing'.Why don't you name names of those you believe fit this description rather than just throw out offensive slurs upon people who have different views from your own ?A bit cowardly what ?Also I suggest you are more circumspect in what you publish about people for you run the risk of perpetrating 'A Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI).Definition: It is defined as any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. This perception does not require evidence or justification from the victim regarding the hostility.I believe you are prejudiced against me because of my race, and that I am supportive of an horrendous crime against people of a different race.

John Hawkes ● 421d

I didn't think they spoke of an agreement. The only definite things mentioned were Ttrump reiterated his plan to take over Gaza and redevelop it and the King of Jordan said his country would admit 2,000 unwell Palestinian for treatment.  There didn't seem to be.ch agreement ...

Michael Ixer ● 421d

By the way, what was the agreement reached between Trump and the King of Jordan?I cannot find anything about this other than Trump wanting Jordan and Egypt to take the Palestinians and the King of Jordan disagreeing with this proposal.

Ivonne Holliday ● 421d

"I understand Trump has managed to get an agreement with Jordan"He might well have managed to get an agreement to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians yes.

Michael Brigo ● 421d

Hello Robert,Why leave the Convention?  Demand that it is applied properly and not according to ideology.  The latter is abuse or misapplication of the terms of the Convention.

Ivonne Holliday ● 421d

In my opinion nobody on this forum has supported ethnic cleansing and If you stop firing rockets you stop bombs falling.  I understand Trump has managed to get an agreement with Jordan.I agree with Sue on the ECHR.

Robert Wheeler ● 421d

A majority of people on this forum appear to support ethnic cleansing (i'm not saying you @Sue - I have no idea) and bombing of Gaza to rubble.As @Ed has said, when you bomb someone back to the stone ages you create refugees who have to go somewhere, some will inevitably end up on our shores.

Michael Brigo ● 422d

It is total and absolute nonsense that the Ukrainian settlement scheme can be applied to Palestinians.  I agree it is up to Parliament to decide which countries can benefit from resettlement schemes.  That is what happened with Ukraine.Applying Article 8 of the ECHR is preposterous and a devious manipulation of the Convention.  The Convention applies to the Member States.  Neither Palestine or Israel are Members.

Ivonne Holliday ● 422d

It's almost as if there is a link between the wars the UK participates in and refugees arriving.

Ed Robinson ● 422d