Sunday, 5 June 2011
I posted earlier today about the tension between bureaucracy and democracy, which I would say is the defining dynamic of our times. The Telegraph reports today on perhaps the most pernicious example of it, the Human Rights Act and the "right to family life" it enshrines, which is what is allowed most of the backlogged "asylum seekers" to stay in Britain, even if their claim for asylum is recognised as fraudulent and they have committed serious crimes while in Britain.

Out of 161,000 foreigners allowed to remain in Britain as part of the Government's "back door amnesty", a significant number were ruled to have a case under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "right to family life".

It was this factor that was decisive in winning the right to stay in Britain, rather than any evidence they were genuinely fleeing persecution.

In many cases, initial Home Office delays in processing the claims will have been the factor that allowed asylum seekers who entered Britain as young single people the opportunity to start families.

The development exposes the impact of asylum failures under Labour, which triggered a long-running project to clear more than 400,000 asylum cases, dubbed "legacy cases", which had been allowed to fester since the late 1990s. The exercise was heavily criticised last week in a report by MPs on the all-party Home Affairs Committee.

The Home Office has also admitted that some of the people granted leave to remain under the legacy exercise were foreign criminals whose Article 8 rights were deemed to "trump" the public interest in deporting them.


Any female asylum seeker able to get pregnant or male asylum seeker able to get someone else pregnant apparently has a "Get-to-stay-in-Britain-free" card:

A senior UK Border Agency (UKBA) official confirmed that officials generally decided not to refuse applications where the asylum seeker had a case under Article 8, regardless of how weak the other aspects of their claim might be.

"The difficulty is that asylum seekers end up being here so long it becomes unlawful to remove them, because they have children and cannot be deported because of the right to family life," the source said.

"If the asylum seeker has been here a few years and has children, we won't seek to remove, because we know that if we go to court we will lose, and if we tried to appeal we would just spend a lot of money to no purpose.

"Each case was examined. Those without families were removed by us."


In one case they wouldn't send a killer back to Iraq because it would be too dangerous for the Iraqis!

The Sunday Telegraph has exposed a series of cases where criminals have avoided deportation by claiming that human rights would be infringed, including a Sri Lankan robber who did not want to be split from his girlfriend, and an Iraqi killer who was not sent home because it would put people there at risk.


Hahaha! You couldn't make it up. And you don't even need children apparently.

In January this newspaper reported how Rocky Gurung, from Nepal, killed a man by throwing him into the River Thames but then persuaded judges that it would breach his "right to family life" if he was sent back to his homeland - even though he was a single adult with no children, and lived with his parents.

Source

0 comments:

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews