Immigrant 'Abuse' Of Human Rights Law To End

#1
www.news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16204721

Home Secretary Theresa May plans to crack down on the "abuse" of human rights laws that prevent foreign criminals being thrown out of Britain.

Vowing to stop all but the most "exceptional cases" succeeding on appeal, Mrs May has said tougher immigration rules will be in place by the summer.

She has become convinced that tighter controls are needed to prevent criminals turning to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - "the right to a family life" - in order to remain in the country.

The plans involve directing judges rather than bringing in new legislation.

Mrs May told The Sunday Telegraph: "It's been causing a lot of concern, not just to the Government but also to an awful lot of members of the public.

"By the summer, we will have in place new immigration rules which I believe will end that abuse.

"If it doesn't - if it's tested in the courts and we find there's a problem - we'll obviously look at other measures, but I'm confident in what we're proposing to do."
 
#2
Good luck.
 
#5
Good if it's true but I shan't be holding my breath
 
#6
I expect she'll be as successful with this as Cristina Fernandez has been in getting back the Falkland Islands.
 
#7
Until the Human Rights Act, which says ALL British legislation and practice MUST comply with the ECHR, is repealed, none of them can do diddly squat. Britain signed up to the convention ( in fact was instumental in setting it up after WW2) and always strove to comply with it, but why Bliar had to introduce the HRA will always mystify me.
 
#8
If they're foreign, they obviously cannot be "criminals", they are the unfortunate victims of the legacy of Colonial abuses, systemic prejudice, racism, and enforced poverty. Theeir culture of violence, murder, rapine and theft is all that is left them since the evil White Devil stole the beautiful, refined, technologically advanced, and oh-so-moral cultures of the nations they came from.
Didn't you get the memo?
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
Long overdue. Might even work, which would be nice.
Doubt it. Judges tend not to be massively enamoured of political direction as a rule and will likely interpret the law as it stands at the moment.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#12
This will only come into being and be successful if lawyers see money in it for them. If the person is deported then their cash gravy-train stops. If the person stays in UK then the lawyers have this 'poor unfortunate' to look after in perpetuity - on Legal Aid of course!

This will therefore be unsuccessful.
 
#13
Long overdue. Might even work, which would be nice.
The Judges will never allow it,,believe me....
Doubt it. Judges tend not to be massively enamoured of political direction as a rule and will likely interpret the law as it stands at the moment.

Not so sure, public opinion is quite strong on this one.
There seems to have been a lot of rumbling behind the scenes at the EU on the subject too, I suspect a lot of european governments will quietly support a clamp down.
In the end Judges must follow the law, if Teresa May gets it right (yeh I know, I'm a hopeless optomist) it might just work.
 
#14
Doubt it. Judges tend not to be massively enamoured of political direction as a rule and will likely interpret the law as it stands at the moment.
I wish you could email that directly to her!

Everytime politicians go off on one about Judges, I do wonder who passed the law, or if it just dropped from the sky. Bit like an baby being delivered by a stork.
 
#15
Not so sure, public opinion is quite strong on this one.
Sorry to disagree mate,Public Opinion is also strong on being allowed to call a Spade a Spade and not a Shovel but they will never get over the PC barrier....
 
#16
Doubt it. Judges tend not to be massively enamoured of political direction as a rule and will likely interpret the law as it stands at the moment.
If she manages to enact statutes they will have no choice.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#17
If she manages to enact statutes they will have no choice.
True, but she's not talking about that at the moment; she's talking about giving judges direction and as Needle_Point says above, it was Parliament that enacted the legislation and as such judges are largely free to interpret that law as they see fit.
 
#18
I agree with AuldYin on this. Let us not forget that judges are first and foremost lawyers. And lawyers look after the interests of lawyers. Same reason Family Law isn't simplified or changed to make it more beneficial to families. Lawyers making money.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top