In the previous post I ended by suggesting we all enjoy our Whiteopias while we still have them. If and when we lose them we can blame the politicians of course. But the principle blame should lie with the courts which in almost every Western country have increasingly moved from interpreting legislation to becoming de facto legislators in their own right. Take this case in which the Irish Government moved in on bogus students from the Third World who had overstayed their visas. A simple case of applying the law, you would imagine. But no. The Government has now backed off and allowed nearly 6000 of these criminals to legally reside here and eventually claim citizenship.
Why? Because of a Supreme Court judgement that 'former holders of student permission were entitled to have their family and privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the court challenges, two former students sought permission to change their status allowing them to work and receive social welfare payments'. (My emphasis). This ruling flagrantly flouts the intended purpose of the legislation and opens the door to a flood of future claims. Just overstay your 'student' visa and in due course you legally get access to the honeypot.
Why? Because of a Supreme Court judgement that 'former holders of student permission were entitled to have their family and privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the court challenges, two former students sought permission to change their status allowing them to work and receive social welfare payments'. (My emphasis). This ruling flagrantly flouts the intended purpose of the legislation and opens the door to a flood of future claims. Just overstay your 'student' visa and in due course you legally get access to the honeypot.
Such judicial overreach - where the Constitutional legislative process is flagrantly flouted - is now routine. I remember a case in Kilkenny when an African child died after a botched circumcision. The 'doctor' claimed he was acting in accordance with the laws of his home country. To which the correct judicial reaction should have been 'so what? You're under Irish law now'. But no, the judge asked the jury to assess whether the accused 'genuinely believed' that he was entitled to operate under the foreign law. Which of course lead to his acquittal.
Recently, I think it was in Maine, another visa overstayer (i.e. criminal) was allowed to remain because the judge ruled that he was well settled in and he 'wouldn't cause any harm' were he to remain. In other words don't mind the law, let me decide what's best. A similar case in California where some new immigration legislation was deemed Unconstitutional by the judge in part because 'the legislation was introduced without adequate consideration by the legislators'. Get that? Judges now get to decide the legislative calendar.
Far from protecting the Constitution and the rule of law the courts are fundamentally undermining them. As they are with the fundamental separation of powers principle and the delicate system of checks and balances. Let us remind ourselves that judges are (apart from some lower courts) unelected and virtually unaccountable for their rulings. They represent one of our gravest threats.