What About Our Right To A Safe Family Life?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10037877/The-foreign-rioters-we-cannot-deport-because-of-their-right-to-family-life.html

/// Two senior immigration judges, Henry Latter and Andrew Grubb, even granted anonymity to one rioter in his immigration case even though the criminal courts had allowed him to be named. ///

Why would this be?

/// Concern over the apparent abuse of human rights legislation has now prompted Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to draw up new laws to stop foreign criminals avoiding deportation. The measures will be in a new Immigration Bill which will be announced in this week’s Queen’s Speech. ///

And long overdue, why a new Immigration Bill wasn't implemented years ago is anyone's guess, oh I forgot until 2010 Labour were in power for 13 years.

The Daily Mail:

/// The Ministry of Justice released a list showing 44 nationalities of convicted rioters, including those from Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia and Samoa. ///

/// The largest group was Jamaicans, followed by Somali and Polish offenders. Other rioters came from Colombia, Iraq, the Congo, Vietnam and
Zimbabwe. ///

This is 'cultural diversity' we could well do without.

[Kathyan]

Where in the human rights act does it say that someone has a right to family life 'in the UK'?

[ummmm]

It's article 8 (or section 8)

Something like that.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - ' This is 'cultural diversity' we could well do without.'

This has nothing whatever to do with 'cultural diversity' which is a buzz phrase made up by trendy politicians who are aching to show how 'inclusive' they are.

This is criminal behaviour pure and simple - aided and abetted by a law that has been bent out of all recognition by a combination of woolly liberalism and bull-headed European obstinacy.

But it has nothing to do with culture, or ethnic origin, which is what your remark appears to imply.

[New Judge]

Yes, Article 8 it is. But as Kath suggests, it does not stipulate “in the UK”. There are many places in the world where a family life can be enjoyed, very often including the country of origin of the person concerned. The trouble is that Article 8 has been interpreted more and more widely over recent years such that it is now almost impossible to deport anybody who has made any sort of life for themselves here (or at least manages to convince a court that they have).

The government can legislate until the cows come home with “Immigration Bills” or whatever else they want to call them. But unless and until the 1998 Human Rights Act is repealed and the UK withdraws as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 will continue to enable foreign criminals to remain here because any domestic law which attempts to enable the removal of such people will be trumped by HR legislation. Governments (not only this one) are extremely fond of trying to convince the electorate that they are doing something to address this concern which many people hold. But they are not, and they won’t until they take the measures mentioned above.

[jim360]

If his right to a family life is endangered by his being made to leave the UK, that means he has a family here, or at least a stable relationship with a UK citizen. Their rights to a family life would, too, be disrupted by his leaving. The only way their rights can all be respected would presumably be to uproot and deport the entire family. Then his right to a family life would be respected while he can still leave the UK.

This doesn't seem to me to be the ideal solution.

[TTG]

Lib Dems won't allow any changes.

[sp1814]

This is 'cultural diversity' we could well do without

Damn right.

I'm more interested in reading which elderly entertainer has been raping children.

[FredPuli43]

It's immigration judges who have been the main problem (apart from the offenders themselves, of course) How does one qualify for the job ? Not by previous judicial experience or experience in practice in criminal law, plainly, because no such person would make such a strange interpretation of the law as is made in some cases, if they had such contact with the "real world" in practice.

It's an understandable provision. If someone had been here for thirty years, but was not technically, a British citizen, had no substantive connection with their country of origin and had a family born and brought up here, no judge would think it right to send them back to their originating country, HRA or no. But that is not how the law has been interpreted.

[DaisyNonna]

How do you balance out Human Rights with Human Resposibilities?

[FredPuli43]

Now you are being a philosopher Daisy ! "Do animals have rights?" was a question asked in an Oxford admissions interview. The answer, I suppose, is "No, but we have responsibilities towards them", but there could be several answers, each valid.