Selective Borders, Selective Speech: A Legal Commentary on UK Entry Controls and Enforcement Priorities [Only Part]
Sunday 18 January 2026 at 22:29
Visible to anyone in the world
1. The Vlaardingerbroek Decision - Lawfully Harsh, Politically Sensitive
The revocation of Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Electronic Travel Authorisation illustrates the breadth of the UK Home Secretary’s discretionary powers under immigration law. Entry may be refused where a person’s presence is deemed “not conducive to the public good,” a deliberately wide legal test. While lawful, such decisions are inherently sensitive where they intersect with political speech, particularly when applied to a non-resident commentator seeking only temporary entry. The absence of a right of appeal further underscores how immigration control operates largely as an executive, not judicial, function.
2. Enforcement Contrast - Borders, Boats and Public Confidence
This strict application of discretionary power contrasts sharply with widespread public concern over the UK’s continued difficulty in deterring and removing illegal entrants arriving via the Channel. Media footage and criminal prosecutions have shown some individuals entering unlawfully while openly expressing hostility toward the UK, yet remaining in the country for extended periods pending asylum processes. At the same time, police and parliamentary briefings have linked rapid increases in certain offences previously comparatively low in the UK but prevalent in some source countries to a small subset of illegal economic migrants. Whether causation or correlation, the perception of uneven enforcement has become a serious issue of public confidence in the rule of law.
3. Legal Reality - Discretion Without Consistency Risks Legitimacy
UK immigration law permits firmness, but legitimacy depends on consistency. When lawful visitors are excluded on public-order grounds while unlawful entrants face delayed or ineffective removal, the system appears asymmetrical. The law is not merely a tool of exclusion; it is also a signal of state priorities. Perceived imbalance risks re-framing immigration control not as neutral regulation, but as selective enforcement.
4. Conclusion The Vlaardingerbroek case is not legally exceptional, but politically emblematic. It highlights a widening gap between the theoretical strength of UK border powers and their practical application. For immigration law to command public trust, it must be seen to operate evenly robust against genuine threats, fair to lawful visitors, and effective in addressing unlawful entry. Without that balance, even lawful decisions may undermine confidence in the system they are meant to protect.
Selective Borders, Selective Speech: A Legal Commentary on UK Entry Controls and Enforcement Priorities [Only Part]
1. The Vlaardingerbroek Decision - Lawfully Harsh, Politically Sensitive
The revocation of Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Electronic Travel Authorisation illustrates the breadth of the UK Home Secretary’s discretionary powers under immigration law. Entry may be refused where a person’s presence is deemed “not conducive to the public good,” a deliberately wide legal test. While lawful, such decisions are inherently sensitive where they intersect with political speech, particularly when applied to a non-resident commentator seeking only temporary entry. The absence of a right of appeal further underscores how immigration control operates largely as an executive, not judicial, function.
2. Enforcement Contrast - Borders, Boats and Public Confidence
This strict application of discretionary power contrasts sharply with widespread public concern over the UK’s continued difficulty in deterring and removing illegal entrants arriving via the Channel. Media footage and criminal prosecutions have shown some individuals entering unlawfully while openly expressing hostility toward the UK, yet remaining in the country for extended periods pending asylum processes. At the same time, police and parliamentary briefings have linked rapid increases in certain offences previously comparatively low in the UK but prevalent in some source countries to a small subset of illegal economic migrants. Whether causation or correlation, the perception of uneven enforcement has become a serious issue of public confidence in the rule of law.
3. Legal Reality - Discretion Without Consistency Risks Legitimacy
UK immigration law permits firmness, but legitimacy depends on consistency. When lawful visitors are excluded on public-order grounds while unlawful entrants face delayed or ineffective removal, the system appears asymmetrical. The law is not merely a tool of exclusion; it is also a signal of state priorities. Perceived imbalance risks re-framing immigration control not as neutral regulation, but as selective enforcement.
4. Conclusion
The Vlaardingerbroek case is not legally exceptional, but politically emblematic. It highlights a widening gap between the theoretical strength of UK border powers and their practical application. For immigration law to command public trust, it must be seen to operate evenly robust against genuine threats, fair to lawful visitors, and effective in addressing unlawful entry. Without that balance, even lawful decisions may undermine confidence in the system they are meant to protect.
Secure Borders - Fair Enforcement - Equal Application