Outrage D'Jour: Special Open Borders Uber Alles Edition

The courts have backheeled the rules on bogus marriages. That was depressingly predictable, but the logic on show is a classic of the 'constitution as an ink blot' genre:

Baroness Hale said: "Denying those benefits to a couple whose relationship is genuine is neither a rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of a firm and fair immigration policy."

Let's ignore the sleazy sleight of hand - the whole point is that these relationships are not genuine - and consider the sheer brass neck of Hale's comments.

Hale is not resolving an ambiguity, filling in a gap in the law or interpreting statute. Her own justification makes it clear that she's not ruling on legal grounds, she's ruling on whether or not she think the existing policy is - to use her own words - proportionate or rational - an overtly political decision. She might have some worthwhile views on this, but there's no reason to privilege her views over any other citizens just because she has a good technical knowledge of the law, rather than, say, aviation, insurance or gas fitting.

To the point: Hale claims her legal status gives her the right to overrule a democratically-elected government, yet the self-same law makes clear that her position is a constitutional abomination.

It gets worse:

She said the right to marry was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Except no one is arguing against the right to marry. It's the right to marry then get an automatic 'access all areas' pass that's the problem.

But here's the real insight into modern liberalism:

"My Lords, this scheme is an arbitrary and unjust interference with the right to marry," she said.

Arbitrary? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is anything but arbitrary. It's central to the whole point of having a country. You might as well argue for a right to joyride since 'ownership' is such a vague concept.

Forget the specifics of the case: Hale's position is a clear as day endorsement of the whole open borders position. In fact, she's so committed, she's even ditched her trademark femilunacy. Compare her current position...

"Even in these days, when many in British society believe that there is little social difference between marrying and living together, marriage still has deep significance for many people, quite apart from the legal recognition, status, rights and obligations which it brings."

...with her original one:

This is exactly what Dame Brenda was doing when in 1980 she made her now infamous remark about marriage. ‘Family law’, she wrote, ‘ no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage…Logically, we have already reached a point at which…we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.’

All of which exposes the other piece of humbuggery here. Hale and the rest of the open borders advocates argue that the whole 'nationality' is so over, so last year, but what other issue could cause a howling mad femiloon to ditch her principles like a red hot porcupine? The lengths to which the left will go to try and destroy ideals like citizenship and patriotism in and off itself is proof that these concepts still have power and relevance even after forty years of culture war.