Britain handed out 204,000 passports to foreign nationals, latest figures reveal

Britain gave citizenship to the highest number of foreign nationals in Europe, new research has found. A total of 203,600 foreign nationals were awarded British citizenship in 2009 - that is 50 per cent more than second-placed France and more than double the number in Germany.

The figures, from the EU statistics body Eurostat, followed predictions that Britain could become the most populated EU country by 2060 - with 79 million people.

UK passports were given to one in four of the 776,000 new citizens entering the EU in 2009.

The EU saw an 11 per cent rise on the number of people entering the euro zone from the previous year.

The 203,600 people who entered Britain was a 57 per cent increase on the 129,300 who came in 2008.

Critics have said the figures revealed that Labour's immigration policies had left borders 'wide open'. Ukip's home affairs spokesman Gerard Batten told the Daily Express: 'These figures show how Labour's uncontrolled, unlimited immigration policy is coming home to roost. 'David Cameron must get a grip and introduce radical policies to halt mass immigration.'

The Prime Minister has said wants to cut net immigration to the 'tens of thousands'.

SOURCE





102 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants Britain can't deport

More than 100 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants have beaten deportation under controversial “right to family life” laws in the past year.

For the first time The Sunday Telegraph can disclose how scores of people the Government wanted to remove from the country have been able to stay by claiming that they had a “family life” here under Article Eight of the European Convention of Human Rights.

A total of 102 people defeated the Home Secretary in the courts in 2010 on family rights grounds, including violent criminals and illegal immigrants who had no other right to be in the country. None claimed that they would be in danger of torture or abuse if they were sent home.

It can also be disclosed that one foreign criminal who used Article Eight was a violent thug and drug dealer who beat his girlfriend and failed to pay child maintenance – but was still allowed to stay in a ruling made by three senior judges.

Last night the figures fuelled the row over the use of the European Convention, which was passed into British law by the previous Labour government, and particularly Article Eight – the “right to private and family life”. Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who obtained the figures, said: “Before the Human Rights Act, no criminal had ever claimed a right to family life to frustrate a deportation order in this country. “It is high time we changed the law, to restore some common sense and retain public confidence in our border controls.”

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had ordered that the violent drug dealer, known only as AP because his identity was kept secret by the judges, should be sent back to Trinidad. Article Eight is the number one reason criminals or immigrants, who either entered Britain illegally or breached their visa conditions, managed to defeat deportation, the figures from HM Courts Service show.

There were 233 appeals against deportation in 2010, of which 149 were successful under human rights laws – 102 of them solely citing Article Eight. Thirty-five were under Article Three, which protects people from being killed or tortured if returned to an unsafe country, and the rest used a mix of Articles.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of MigrationWatch, said: “We must find a new balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of the community, which appear to have no weight at all. “The fact that seven out of 10 who succeed have used Article Eight underlines the significance of an effective review. It is not enough to kick this issue into the long grass yet again.”

The figures come after a series of Article Eight cases exclusively revealed by this newspaper, which is demanding reform in our End the Human Rights Farce campaign, including:

* A Nepalese killer, Rocky Gurung, allowed to remain here even though he was a single adult with no children, who lived with his parents.

* A Sri Lankan robber allowed to remain here because he has a girlfriend in Britain.

* An Iraqi killer who, it was ruled, should not be deported because he would be a risk to people in his homeland.

* A Bolivian man who avoided deportation partly because he had bought a pet cat.

Last week this newspaper disclosed how tens of thousands of asylum applicants had been allowed to remain in Britain under the Home Office’s backlog-clearing exercise because officials feared that challenging any case with “family life” factors would be overturned in the courts, and lead to expensive legal actions.

The latest case, involving AP, will again raise concern about how judges are applying the law. From north London, he has a five-year-old daughter and “did not provide care for her ... nor provide any funds for her maintenance”, according to the court, but still won his fight to stay in Britain because of his “right to family life”.

AP, who lives in a £500,000 housing association flat close to one of London’s most desirable streets, was jailed for 18 months by Ipswich Crown Court in May 2008 for possession of cocaine with intent to supply. His criminal record included battery of his partner in August 2007. He was handed a community sentence, which he breached and was later given a suspended two-year jail sentence.

Home Office officials notified him that they intended to deport him back to the Caribbean, but he appealed and after his release from jail in January 2009 told a tribunal he was remorseful and getting his life back on track. Two days later he was arrested for possession of cocaine and fined £75.

In March 2009 a tribunal ruled that AP should not be deported. The judges said: “We are satisfied that the effect of his proposed removal on all members of his family unit in the UK would result in removal being disproportionate, especially since he has a child who has a strong bond with him and he with her and we have heard credible evidence that he is a good and caring father.

“We therefore find, in striking a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community, that our assessment of proportionality is that a decision to remove the appellant is in all the circumstances not proportionate and we allow this appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Home Secretary appealed against the decision, but it was upheld by Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Rimer at the Court of Appeal last month.

AP came to Britain aged three, when his mother was already in the country. The mother, who also cannot be named, was living here after overstaying a one-month visa which was granted to come from Trinidad to Britain to attend her niece’s engagement party.

SOURCE