Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Foreign thugs to lose human right to a 'family life' in Britain

The do-gooders are already howling about this, of course. One wonders whose side they are on: certainly not on the side of the British people

Illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and welfare tourists are to be stripped of their 'human right' to a family life in Britain. Home Secretary Theresa May will today promise to change immigration rules to end much of the rampant abuse of Labour's Human Rights Act.

It comes amid demands from senior Tories and the public for the hugely unpopular legislation to be ditched altogether.

Currently, foreign nationals who have a child or marry in the UK can be spared deportation under the controversial Article 8 – the right to a 'family life'. Little or no thought is given to the misery they inflicted on their victims. But in future, judges will normally be expected to boot out any foreign national who flouts the law – regardless of family circumstances.

The new rules will explicitly say that, if children were fathered while the immigrant was in Britain illegally, the right to 'family life' should be discounted. It will also apply where they have committed a crime or cannot support themselves without milking public funds.

Officials expect this to lead to the deportation of hundreds more offenders. Currently more than 200 criminals escape removal every year using Article 8.

There have been a string of shocking cases of criminals – including killers – using the Act to make a mockery of British justice. Most notoriously, Iraqi illegal immigrant Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who left Amy Houston, 12, to die under the wheels of his Rover car, was allowed to stay because he had fathered two children in Britain.

Mrs May – who heaped pressure on David Cameron to scrap the Act at the weekend – said the case had been one of the reasons why she decided to take action.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail ahead of her speech today, she said it was time to 'rebalance' human rights law in favour of the law-abiding majority. 'Article 8 is one of the things that really annoys people about the whole environment of human rights. It is not an absolute right. My personal view of the Human Rights Act is that I would like to see it go. Meanwhile, this is something practical that I can do to help deport people who should not be here.'

The announcement came as Lord Carlile, the senior Lib Dem peer, warned that 'the promiscuous use of Article 8 risks placing the contemporary concept of human rights into disrepute'.

It marks a victory for the Mail, which has led the way in highlighting the way the Act has driven a coach and horses through our border controls.

The changes will be introduced using secondary legislation, which allows the Government to make changes to the law without a full vote of MPs and peers. The Lib Dems have agreed the policy, Mrs May said.

It will force judges not to view immigrants' right to a family life in isolation. Instead, the existence of children or a partner must be balanced against the havoc the offender has wreaked. Where there has been a crime or breach of the rules, this should outweigh family concerns.

Tory MP Dominic Raab, who has led calls for reform of Article 8, said: 'This is a welcome step. But, under the terms of the Human Rights Act, the only way to guarantee we can deport criminals claiming spurious family ties is through an Act of Parliament which can't then be overruled by judges.'

The changes will have no impact on the separate Article 3 of the Human Rights Act – which bans the deportation of people to countries where they could face ill-treatment or torture. Last week, it emerged that a string of convicted terrorists, including two fanatics who helped the July 21 bombers, were using Article 3 to fight deportation.

Lord Carlile, formerly the independent reviewer of terror laws, said that where somebody tries to harm Britain there should be a 'higher bar' for saving them from removal. In a blistering article for the Policy Exchange think-tank, he warned: 'We should remember that there are over 100 extremist offenders in custody, of whom some are shortly to be released, and probably over 60 already released since 2007.

'Most are in the community: the deportation of several of foreign nationality has been frustrated by a narrow interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.'


Alabama Immigration Law Causes Hispanics to Leave Schools

Alabama schools are seeing abnormally high rates of absences for Hispanic students after what is widely considered the toughest anti-immigration law in America went into effect.

The law, which was approved by the state legislature and widely backed by voters, allows police to check for papers and detain undocumented residents without bail. It also mandates that public schools share with authorities the citizenship status of all newly enrolled students.

Keith Ward, spokesperson for Huntsville City Schools, one of the largest school districts in the state with 23,000 students, told ABC News that of the 1,435 Hispanic students enrolled in Huntsville schools, 207 were absent last Thursday, the day the law took effect.

As of Monday, that number had decreased to 111, according to Ward. It is still substantially above the average of 20 to 40 absences for Hispanic students for a given week prior to the law. Ward expects the number of Hispanic absences to continue to decrease as the week continues and then plateau.

He credits the decline to the rapid outreach of Huntsville City Schools Superintendent Casey Wardynski. "The superintendent tried to reach out and explain the law ... in terms of what the law means for schools," said Ward. "We have no control over the other aspects of the law."

Wardynski took to YouTube and the district's cable access channel in both English and Spanish on Sept. 30. "This bill that was passed by our state is really about gathering statistics it's not about coming to anybody's house, taking anybody away," he said. "The schools are not enforcing extradition."

Under the law, schools are required to ask new students for either a birth certificate or proof they are in the country legally. However, if they are unable to provide proper documentation they are still able to attend school and neither the students nor the parents will be arrested. "This is just one additional check mark on a registration form," Ward said.

The school then provides statistical information to the state about the number of students who were unable to provide documentation.

The state made available form letters that schools can send to parents of new students that clarify the requirements of the law and informs parents that they should not be concerned if they are unable to provide citizenship documents or sworn statements.

"Rest assured," reads the letter, "that it will not be a problem if you are unable or unwilling to provide either of the documents."


No comments:

Post a Comment