Backwoodsman wrote:Civil liberties works both ways , it would be rather helpful if certain people refrained from stabbing and blowing us up.
The human rights act has been abused by people to prevent deportation , usually claiming the country of origin uses torture.
This therectically prevents deportation, as does anybody claiming to be gay, as most Muslim countries aren't quite onboard with gay rights. Incidentally the left wing freedom rights legal lawyers have made a fortune from legal aid. Abu quatadas case took approximately 9 years. I note the left wing brigades latest trend is picking fault with Saudi. If us stopping arms sales to Saudi would make a difference, excellent.
Unfortunately France and Germany would quite happily step in and sell them French and German arms. Incidentally if we are proposing to adopt the moral high ground, should we be exporting to china and Russia. Both countries not noted for high standards of human rights. Coincidently gay right does not seem to be in vogue in both of these countries .
You mention a third way ,hopefully that means waving good bye to anybody who does not care for our laws and systems of government.
The law on deportation is now far stricter than in the era before the advent of the Human Rights Act.
Before 2006 the immigration rules conferred a general discretion to deport or not as long as certain relevant considerations were taken into account. The relevant paragraph of the rules, paragraph 364, read as follows:
… in considering whether deportation is the right course on the merits, the public interest will be balanced against any compassionate circumstances of the case. While each case will be considered in the light of the particular circumstances, the aim is an exercise of the power of deportation which is consistent and fair as between one person and another, although one case will rarely be identical with another in all material respects. … Before a decision to deport is reached the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant factors known to him including:
(i) age;
(ii) length of residence in the United Kingdom;
(iii) strength of connections with the United Kingdom;
(iv) personal history, including character, conduct and employment record;
(v) domestic circumstances;
(vi) previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted;
(vii) compassionate circumstances;
(viii) any representations received on the person’s behalf.
This was the system that had been in place since the 1970s and it continued uninterrupted when the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000. No foreign criminal resisting deportation really needed to rely on the Human Rights Act because the immigration rules offered better protection.
In 2006 this old fashioned and pragmatic British approach was replaced with a presumption in favour of deportation, followed in 2007 by supposedly “automatic” deportations under the UK Borders Act 2007.
