UK: Home Secretary to end immigrant 'abuse' of family rights

New rules to stop foreign criminals avoiding being sent home will come into force in July

The home secretary, Theresa May, is bringing in new immigration rules to end the "abuse" of the right to family life – as enshrined in the European convention on human rights – which allows foreign nationals to stay in the UK despite having committed crimes or breached rules.

Foreign nationals who have been convicted of criminal offences, violated immigration rules or are unable to maintain themselves and their families without being a burden on the state will no longer be able to use the right to a family life when they go before the courts.

The government wants to end cases such as that of Joseph Lissa, from Huddersfield, who was branded a war criminal by a judge for activities in his homeland of Sierra Leone, but was allowed to stay in the UK on the grounds he had married a British woman and fathered a child here.

Another case was that of Gary Ellis, a violent drug dealer from north London, who twice used article 8 to avoid being sent home to Jamaica.

The Telegraph

I feel that this is a good move. The article states that it will be challenged in the courts but I remember one case where a small child was run over by an illegal immigrant without any insurance.

He couldn't be deported because it would breach his right to family life.

Never mind the right to a family for the parents of the child run over.

Good. I'm not from the UK, but I'm glad to see this sort of garbage being put to an end. Their presence in that country is a privilege. If they're going to be a menace to their host society, then that privilege should be revoked.

Agree.

Sick of reading about murderers and rapists playing on legislation derived to protect.

WOW, this should have already been a law. A war criminal can maintain residency just because he married a British girl?

By denying rights to others, you ultimately deny them to yourselves too.

The cour européenne des droits de l’homme was established to give ordinary people the right to challenge public bodies, including government. It upholds the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty going back to the early 1950's.

My view is either everyone has rights or no-one does. That black man from overseas who has been denied housing simply because he's black has every right to exercise his rights. So he would if he has drug convictions too.

You can't just pick an choose who gets what rights.

And I don't think this English government minister can arbitrarily rip up a treaty just to keep the Telegraph happy.You know, call me old fashioned, but there's ways of doing things when it comes to international matters, just announcing your government's intentions in a late Saturday night call to some junior newspaper hack is absolutely risible & beyond amateurish.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
WOW, this should have already been a law. A war criminal can maintain residency just because he married a British girl?

The problem is that as good an idea as the European Convention on Human Rights appears, it focuses entirely on the rights of the person asserting those rights and ignores everyone else's.

In other words, the rights of society as a whole are ignored.

So we have the ridiculous situation in the UK where an illegal immigrant who was Bin Laden's right hand man and who has been convicted for inciting hatred in the UK and been imprisoned for it, can't be deported as here is no guarantee that he would receive a fair trial abroad.

Terrorist on the school run: Bin Laden's 'ambassador in Europe' to be free in days... and judge says he can take his child to class

Daily Mail
Dai ly Mail

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
My view is either everyone has rights or no-one does.

My view is that you forfeit certain rights when you murder or rape someone.

This is fantastic news.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
My view is either everyone has rights or no-one does.

I agree.

Everyone has rights.

Which means the rights of an individual has to be balanced against the rights of everyone else.

The rights of an individual must not be allowed to trample over the rights of society as a whole.

To allow it to continue to do so throws the continued application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK into question.

reply to post by ollncasino


Mister Qatada was bin Laden's "right hand man" ? There's no evidence he ever met bin Laden, let alone any that he was a participant in any terrorist plot of bin Laden's making. So it's a bit rich for you to describe the man in those terms, especially since some allege that Qatada was an informer for the British security services.

That's not to say he's a paragon of virtue, either, I guess.

But the English government wants to deport him to Jordan, to face trial there. Qatada hasn't seen the evidence for the charges over there, neither has his legal representative. Of course, it isn't his legal representative who speaks for him at the English tribunals to have him thrown out ... it's a "special advocate" ... someone he's never seen, never spoken to ... nor has his lawyer.

And that's before you even consider that the Jordanians might torture him to extract a confession ... torture is expressly forbidden in those countries covered by the European Convention on Human Rights and you can't deport people to countries where torture is allowed.

How would you feel if someone came along to deport you to a country where you'd be tortured ? Would you want to see the evidence against you ? Perhaps speak to the person representing you at the deport hearings ? Maybe even meet them ?

Of course you would. But you and others would also deny that right to someone Qatada. How can you justify that ?

You can't just throw people out of your country because of hearsay, speculation. Theres a proper, legal process which must be followed.

Qatada is a refugee, his status has been recognised by the very authorities who now want rid of him. And with that status, he has the rights of every Englishman. Those rights aren't qualified because he's black, or an Islamist or holds controversial views.

He's in UK legally. He's never been convicted of terrorist offences.

The English government don't want him in court because he's been an informer ... to the security services. They don't want their dirty tricks exposed in open court. So they'll have him deported to Jordan where he'll be tortured, more likely to death.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
He's in UK legally. He's never been convicted of terrorist offences.

Abu Qatada, has been convicted twice in Jordan, both times in his absence, for various serious terrorist offences.

Abu Qatada is wanted on terrorism charges in eight countries’.

Abu Qatada came to the UK as an illegal immigrant.

Abu Qatada has variously been described as 'Al Qaeda's spiritual leader in Europe', 'Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe', 'the most significant extremist preacher in the UK' and 'a truly dangerous individual'.

Yet apparently, under the European Convention of Human Rights, the UK has no right to deport him?

The ECHR isn't doing itself any favours.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


If you're so sure of your facts, then offer him personal sanctuary a la maison bombdiggity.

To get the thread back on track and to ensure it doesnt turn in to a rant on one individual, I agree that murdering another human being (and having this proven unequivocally) should render your comparative human rights null and void.

Deport them.

UK is violating human rights and freedom!!!!Peaceful protestors are having their rights taken away by the thug monarchy govt.



The irony.First UK brings and helps the wahabbis with asylum and covert funds to destabilise nations like Russia,Iran,Syria ,Libya,other African nations lol.

reply to post by ollncasino


UK is responsible for helping al qaeda and muslim brotherhood in doing covert ops.Which makes it a terrorist nation and a future legitimate target for nuclear and biological strike.

Thugs of a feather flock together.No wonders ,UK gives the wahabbi and other terrorist thugs shelter.

reply to post by ollncasino


So you think refugees should come to England as "legal immigrants" ?

How does that work ?

Refugees flee repression. They don't necessarily have time to dance your nightmarish gavotte of form filling, waiting for decisions, interviews etc.

And you want people thrown out because they've been convicted of crimes in their absence in foreign countries ? Would you extent that to YOU then ? Deny rights to others but retain them for yourself ?

Hey, nice one. That's really fair. Not.

I'm not derailing the thread. Qatada was mentioned as prime candidate to be tossed out. I'm just replying to that.

In some ways I can agree with this. How ever I`d first like people like tony f*cking b liar to be arrested for comitting war crimes. Him and all the others, that voted to invade Iraq. Lets start at the top and cut the head of the snake, that has taken control of this country.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
So you think refugees should come to England as "legal immigrants" ?

Refugees should seek, according to international agreement, sanctury in the first safe country they arrive at.

Abu Qatada did not do that.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
Refugees flee repression. They don't necessarily have time to dance your nightmarish gavotte of form filling, waiting for decisions, interviews etc.

Abu Qatada found the time to travel across a number of countries before arriving in the UK.

The fact that some people will argue to allow a convicted terrorist who is wanted for terrorism charges in 8 countries to remain in the UK on the grounds of his human rights, illustrates how divorced some sections of the legal profession are from public opinion.

The ECHR and its advocates are really not doing European Human rights any great favours.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
So you think refugees should come to England as "legal immigrants" ?

Refugees should seek, according to international agreement, sanctury in the first safe country they arrive at.

Abu Qatada did not do that.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
Refugees flee repression. They don't necessarily have time to dance your nightmarish gavotte of form filling, waiting for decisions, interviews etc.

Abu Qatada found the time to travel across a number of countries before arriving in the UK.

The fact that some people will argue to allow a convicted terrorist who is wanted for terrorism charges in 8 countries to remain in the UK on the grounds of his human rights, illustrates how divorced some sections of the legal profession are from public opinion.

The ECHR and its advocates are really not doing European Human rights any great favours.

Excellent points, I think someone just got served a can of ferme la bouche.

How any nation is expected to pay for the upkeep of a man who advocates killing those who feed him is ridiculous.

If he truly was an 'informer' and the government really thought that he was a threat to national security, we'd never have heard about him.

They wouldn't need to deport him to have him killed in Jordan.

reply to post by ollncasino


England granted him refugee status. Civil servants assessed what he said and decided Qatada could stay in UK. By granting him that status, he's afforded all the rights of someone born in England.

You might not like that. But what you like or dislike doesn't come into it.

You think that "criminal convictions" are valid when the accused has presented no defence ? When the accused not only hasn't been in the courtroom, he isn't even in the country where the trial is taking place ?

You think it's fair to proceed with a trial where the defendant isn't in the dock to defend themselves, or represented in any capacity whatever ?

That's expressly against the European human rights convention. It's verboten. It's illegal and it's wrong.

But you think it's OK to do that ? And to deport people to countries where they can be tortured ?

You keep your rights. Others lose theirs. And you think people won't object ?

I'll leave this thread with my disagreement.

Criminals who lose their cases in Britain are able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Cases highlighted in the last few months include:

* Joseph Lissa, who was branded a war criminal by a judge after admitting commanding fighters in a civil war in his homeland of Sierra Leone. The Home Office refused him permission to remain but Lissa, a driving instructor in Huddersfield, won an appeal on the grounds he had married a British woman and fathered a child here.

* Taoufik Didi, a Moroccan bigamist sentenced to three years in jail for selling coc aine to undercover police officers. He was given a deportation order but told immigration judges he had been in a relationship with a British woman for 10 years and that the couple intended to start a family. Didi, based in London, won his appeal.

* Gary Ellis, a violent drug dealer living in North London, who twice avoided being sent home to Jamaica after citing Article 8 in the wake of two separate convictions. On both occasions, he told judges he was entitled to a family life with his girlfriend and young daughter.

The Telegraph

So the public's right to not have to live beside violent drug dealers and war criminals seem to count for little when weighted against the rights of violent drug dealers and war criminals to have a family.

The current implementation of the ECHR is a shambles and a disgrace.

It really is setting human rights back in the UK back by decades.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity

With all due respect mate, if these people come to the UK or other countries for asylum, shelter & protection etc they should be prepared to become a part of that nation & not carry on the acts that have led them there in the first place.
It's all too easy for you to say he, she & they are entitled to whatever rights but so are we the host nation entitled to respect & gratitude for helping them.
To have these people preaching their hate & difference, to have them still carrying out their criminal activities & breaking our laws when we have agreed to give them a haven from their persecuters is a breach of our human rights.
Yes we need to have a voice if the law seems unfair or unreasonable, to be able to challenge but if you break the host countries laws, rules & regulations you loose your rights as a refugee, asylum seeker or whatever............
just like the native of the host country.