UK Government Revoked the Visa of a Palestinian Student on “National Security” Grounds, claiming she was a Threat to Safety

Dana Abuqamar, a Palestinian law student at Manchester University, was the victim of controversy when she was detained by the UK Home Office and her visa was cancelled. Such a decision, clouded in the verbiage of “national security” and purpose, cast doubts on freedom of speech and whether there exists a bias against a certain ethnic group, especially in the UK immigration system. 

While Abuqamar’s uncle was the unfortunate victim of a bombing carried out by the Israeli military, and consequently, 15 of her relatives lost their lives, she has been elected as the Friends of Palestine Society chairperson at her university. 

Typically after the demonstration in support of Palestinians, police did not perform any particular measure to detain the activist.  She was somewhat surprised when the Home Office instantly cancelled her visa, thus, compromising her final attempt at law studies. 

“In my opinion, they have no valid claim against me, and I, as a home resident of the UK, see it as a violation of my rights,” Abuqamar contends with the seeming lack of facts. It is her next move to appeal to the human rights court, which has the Home Office on the defence and is now seeking justice over the injustice caused by her sudden disruption in pursuit of her academic endeavour. 

The time spent revoking the New Year’s Eve visit visa is highly exaggerated. Abuqamar’s civil activity overlaps with a personal loss, which infuses more complexity to the iodine. Her grief and advocacy for spatial security rights Palestinian rights are, but, allegedly, to the Home Office, a claim unrealistic on the surface. 

Abuqamar, undoubtedly, makes a pertinent point highlighting the fundamental freedom of expression that is institutionally guaranteed. The fact that some “double standard” is used in applying these rights is a legitimate concern she raises. 

Mostly they are ethnic minorities hold plenty of cases of Muslims and Palestinians, but this does not mean that they should be free to assemble all around as well as speak their mind. As a matter of course, the Home Office remained non-committal and refused to comment on Abuqamar’s case.  

The main reason is that a different scandal occurred this year. Amen Addus Achekor, one of the refugee Palestinians, turned down a Chevening Scholarship to undertake a degree at the London School of Economics (LSE) Main Campus. 

The fact that she exhibited remarkable academic progress and enjoyed support from a top UK government scheme did not convince the Home Office to consider her a person who threatened the “public interest. “

It is alarming that issuing different visas to two applicants based on the same circumstances could indicate inconsistency and unfairness in the UK’s immigration system. While each case’s unique specifics differ, the common strand here is about the issue of Palestinian identity and activism and, from the facts presented in the article, a possible bias issue. 

From a human rights point of view, the UK government has always been considered one of the leaders in democratic principles. Lately, there has been a tendency (as seen in the Abuqamar versus El Ashkar cases) to doubt this commitment. Withholding visas for criticism of the government through universally acceptable channels and refusal of educational opportunities hints at a malcontent situation. 

The world population must be alerted to the recent events mentioned. Idea exchange and pursuing peaceful activism symbolise a society that lives with liberty and democracy. The UK government must guarantee that there is no discrimination in its policies and that it does not campaign against resounding/strong voices by giving them security concerns as a relief. 

Dana Abuqamar is a poignant testimony that Palestinians struggle and overcome them by studying abroad. Students have the right to education and peaceful protests, a suitable matter where any conflict should be resolved in their support. 

The UK government must rethink its previous decisions and take full responsibility for the acts falling short of the commitment it claims to be accountable for.