Planned reforms to Article 8 – by Joshua Rozenberg

The Home Secretary is expected to outline reforms to the way courts and tribunals today interpret article 8 of the human rights convention. The migrants have relied on Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life, to challenge their removal from the UK.

today Times reports that “family” will be defined as immediate family, such as a parent or child, and “family rights acquired after migrants are ordered to leave the UK” will no longer count.

“The legislation will also ensure that once someone has been asked to leave the country, appeals that take into account family connections established after that point will not be permitted,” he said. Financial Times Explained. “This will apply even if an asylum seeker has a child in the period between the rejection of their application and the start of an appeal.”

According the telegraph“illegal immigrants will be restricted by law to a single appeal against their removal, rather than ‘endless’ appeals in which they cite different reasons at different times for remaining in Britain.” The document says that “appeals will be decided by an independent Danish-style board of judges with powers to identify and dismiss unfounded cases.”

Writing in the guardian todayMahmood says:

More than 100,000 people They now live in asylum accommodation, funded by taxpayers. Unless we act, we risk losing popular consent for having an asylum system. In a country that sees division stirring on our streets, we will not achieve unity unless we restore order on our borders.

For that reason, today I have laid out the most significant and comprehensive changes to our asylum system in a generation…

My goal is to ensure that there are legal routes of entry into this country for those who are truly fleeing danger and for whom this is the first safe country they encounter.

Therefore, as we reestablish control of our borders, I will open new, limited, safe and legal routes for genuine refugees. While they will be modest at first, they will grow over time.

Crucially, they will make community sponsorship the norm for refugee resettlement. Community and voluntary organizations will be able to sponsor refugees to come to the UK and support them when they arrive. This will ensure that communities that have the capacity and desire to accept refugees are able to do so. like him Homes for Ukraine As the scheme shows, the capacity of the British people to show this generosity runs deep.

At the same time, we will open new legal avenues for students and workers. We will ensure that war does not shorten your opportunities in life and we will welcome here those who can contribute to our national life. While refugee status for those who come here will be temporary, those who arrive through legal routes will have a faster and easier path to becoming permanent citizens.

The Times also reports that countries that refuse to accept illegal immigrants will face “Trump-style visa sanctions.”

Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo have collectively refused to welcome back more than 4,000 illegal immigrants and foreign criminals from the UK. The UK will reportedly ban entry of people from these countries unless their governments quickly improve cooperation on expulsions.

Home Office sources told the Times that the three countries would have a month to start cooperating before a sliding scale of sanctions was imposed. “Mahmood formally issued the visa ban threat on Thursday by writing to the countries’ embassies in London” the newspaper reported.

If the three countries refused to cooperate, diplomats and VIPs would first lose priority access to the UK visa system, including for tourist visits. Without privileged or expedited access to a visa, they would have to queue in front of embassies like everyone else. More serious sanctions would follow, ending with a ban on all citizens obtaining visas to come to the UK.

“India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Somalia and Gabon are believed to be the other countries most resistant to welcoming back illegal immigrants and could join the list over the next year.” The Times added.

Hear from Mahmood and shadow home secretary Chris Philp interviewed about refugees by BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg Yesterday I was surprised that no one mentioned the main impediment to deny asylum.

He United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951expanded in 1967, grants important rights to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution. In particular, refugees should not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

That’s probably why Mahmood seemed to be saying that asylum seekers would not be returned, in a process known as return —unless and until they were no longer at risk. They would have to wait up to 20 years before being granted permission to remain in the UK, but their applications would be reviewed every 30 months.

Philp, on the other hand, completely ignored the refugee convention. Instead, he repeated that migrants would be deported “within a week” once the UK left the European convention on human rights.

What he did not explain was that a future government would have to notify the Council of Europe six months in advance of its intention to “denounce” the European convention. Any attempt to ignore that requirement would make it very difficult for the UK to remain in the 46-member body, something the Conservatives would, at least, apparently try to do.

And although treaty-making is a prerogative power, it seems unlikely that the Conservative/Reform coalition – if that is what we are going to have after the next general election – will attempt to withdraw from the convention without the backing of parliament. But it would take a year or more to pass, draft and approve the necessary primary legislation. Therefore, it would be 18 months before a new government could begin sending back illegal immigrants, plus the time it would take our overloaded courts to deal with challenges from those who claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Readers may remember Yvette Cooper’s white paper from May, in which, as I observed at that time — The Home Office official appeared to have confused the Human Rights Law (national legislation) with the human rights convention (an international treaty). Mahmood’s proposals go much further. But I prefer to reserve judgment until we see exactly what legislative changes the government proposes.

Another concern of the Ministry of the Interior is how the courts interpret article 3 of the convention, which says that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

In this sense, the United Kingdom is said to join other Council of Europe states that have followed the Danish Prime Minister by arguing that human rights court rulings have limited their ability to deport illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if Mahmood travels to Strasbourg early next month, when the Council of Europe committee of ministers will discuss human rights. These periodic meetings are normally attended only by diplomats who evaluate compliance with past sentences. The next meeting is set to have a much greater impact in the future.