At last a showdown between Parliament and the judges maybe?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independen...ay-in-uk-7834913.html

/// "I would expect that judges will look at what parliament will say and that they will follow and take into account what parliament has said. If they don't, then we'll have to look at other measures and that could include primary legislation." ///

Will the judges take note or will they consider this a threat and dig their heels in?

/// Mrs May will lay down new rules today preventing immigrants earning less than £18,600 a year from bringing their families into the UK. ///

Will this measure be beneficial only to the rich immigrants, while at the same time forcing the poorer immigrants either to live apart or for the UK partner being forced to live abroad with their partner?

[emmie]

probably dig their heels in, they don't like being told what to do!

[albaqwerty]

I was under the misapprehension that Judges could only sentence according to the guidelines set down by the legislators (MP's) anyway.

[emmie]

personally i could never understand the reason for keeping undesirables here, even with family, if they are to be deported, the family goes too.
After all if a British person lives in Spain, France, etc and does something bad and ends in jail, when you are deported, you wouldn't expect your family to stay put.

[TheNovice]

about time this issue was brought to a head.

As far as the immigration issue is concerned, she should also add that they cannot claim benefits of any sort until a qualifying period has passed.

[jno]

what showdown? The judges interepret the law as they see fit, and they should certainly never let politicians tell them how to do it, or we are all in trouble. But it is open to May to try to change the law - and that is what she should do rather than blaming someone else.

[jake-the-peg]

Politicans make laws

Judges apply those laws

Politicians kick up and blame the judges for ruling on the laws they've made.

[ludwig]

// Will the judges take note or will they consider this a threat and dig their heels in? //

They'll go out of their way to make a point of ignoring it.

// ...If they don't, then we'll have to look at other measures and that could include primary legislation //

I don't know why she doesn't just do this in the first place. If the law needs changing, change it. Don't ask judges to start interpreting it differently.

[Brenden]

Further to ems post, if the family were taken into consideration for deportation it might make them think twice before committing a crime - just a thought.

[emmie]

Brenden, it might but i do not see how laws work in regards to those who are facing deportation, and then can cite family connections, perhaps after the criminal event. So it's a legal loophole really.

[venator]

Spot on, Ludwig - She'd probably get attacked by the 'ooman rights lobby, but the Bill would get passed.

Perhaps she's trying to get her way quickly, without wasting Parliamentary time.

[youngmafbog]

Correct Jake, but the Judges also have to interpret it, and therin lies the problem. With left leaning liberal judges they will only take one view. Add that to a load of unelected beurocrats in another country backing them then we are left with a mess.

I agree, she should just get on and straighten out the law. Then the Judges have no choice.

Of course the government will simply be overrriden by the HRA.

[Huderon]

Or, to put it another way, she wants some headlines and has found a way to get them without it costing too much.

/// But she admitted yesterday that her headline-grabbing initiative on foreign prisoners was likely to have little impact on the overall immigration statistics. ///

It will, however, give the government someone to blame when some of the papers kick up a stink about immigrants committing crimes here.

[FredPuli43]

First part is for the press. Judges already interpret the law according to the principles laid down in it, including the exemptions which allow them to have e.g. a drug dealer deported though he claims to have a right to family life here.

Some judges in tribunals have made bad decisions, not applying the law correctly. Or perhaps the decisions were correct but reported in a way that they sounded bad. Either way, these make headlines. She wants to grab those headlines for herself and get good press.

The second part, about income, is within the government's powers and needs no comment. .

[FredPuli43]

^^ Judges and tribunals ^^ not 'in' tribunals

[pdq1]

As its all about claiming benefits why don't the politicians just say immigrants can't claim benefits until they have lived here for 5 years officially. Even that goes against those that have lived here for donkey's years and paid their NI stamps.

[anotheoldgit]

The law should be changed to prevent these silly decisions being made by these equally silly judges, as in this case, where he can stay in Britain because of his cat.

http://www.dailymail....ory-cat-gate-row.html

And this case where an Asylum seeker kills a young girl, but is be allowed to stay because he now has children of his own.

http://www.dailymail....l-12-die-stay-UK.html

I also agree there should be a time limit before immigrants can receive benefits.