Why isn’t the law being changed to allow deportations?

There are already loads of ways in which the laws and legal framework are set up to ensure that people from elsewhere don't have the same rights/ access to resources as British people.

And that British people with less money are put at a distinct disavantage (for example if I met and fell in love with someone from another country, I would not be allowed to live with them here, as my earnings are not high enough for the new threshold).

I'm left fantasising that maybe we should just make everyone sit the 'Life in the UK' test then deport everyone who fails (which would include the OP, many of the posters here and pretty much everyone who's ever voted for Reform).

Factual information is out there, but sadly the majority of the population live in complete ignorance so are susceptible to misinformation about exactly what 'human rights' mean, and why courts reach the decisions they do.

The UK government especially the FCO as well as the Home Office have a lot of reach. They can find out and verify a lot of facts. Also when asylum seekers claim to be escaping violence, the UK govt could well have been involved in one way or another- e.g., Afghanistan, Syria, Gaza, Somalia etc. So it doesn't take much to confirm.

"Hi Taliban, it's the UK here. We want to deport some people born in your country back to you"

"Oh, you don't want them, will not accept any flihgts and the planes are in danger of being shot at if we fly your airspace? Ah ok, nevermind"

@Ablondiebutagoody got it right when they asserted that there are many groups with their noses firmly in the immigration trough.

So called human rights lawyers
Owners of migrant hotels
Charities
Landlords of HMOs given over to migrants

To name but a few. And all being paid off by your taxes and mine.

But there is no safe and legal route to claim asylum. That is why people are trafficked in small boats across the channel.

And one of the reasons why people want to come here is because we have the rule of law and that must not be eroded.

It's the politics of hate.

Because seeking asylum is not illegal. The UK is one of the few countries that insists on asylum claims being made in person on UK soil. They have strict penalties for airlines, shipping and even the Eurostar for ferrying passengers without valid visas.

When I was student at Uni in the UK, I was accosted more than once by a UK border-guard in plain clothes demanding to see my visa just before boarding.

The UK is not as easy to enter as the reform company folk seem to imply.

Right now the Scandi nations and Canada process asylum claims from East Africa in Nairobi, and only accepted refugees receive travel documents to fly out. The UK runs a massive embassy in Nairobi, with another in Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda. Why won't they at a minimum process asylum claims from Sudan and Eritrea over there? The Egyptian embassy can process Syrian claims.

Because of the anti immigration rhetoric being pushed on social media

I just think it's embarrassing that this country is so hell bent on assuming every problem is a result of immigration. Pure distraction and othering.

The right wing told us Brexit would fix everything and as soon as it came into affect migration was at a record high. It's actually been falling since then (fell by half in 2024). So why is it such a predominant issue for people now ?

It should work both ways Brits abroad should be returned home also

Please share which parts of our constitution and legal framework you believe are founded on Marxist ideological principles.

I'm struggling to think of any.

Umm - let’s get the terms right:
Removal - when someone has no legal right to be here - overstayed/application failed. Told to go on any refusal/rejection notice, or helped to go, or detained and being made to be removed. A lot just go themselves actually when refused, or go on a voluntary (assisted) basis. A forced removal mainly includes a re-entry ban as you didn’t abide by the rules last time you entered - you can wait for an outcome on an application if you are already here legally and then get maybe 14 days to leave to keep yourself only here legally and you would not attract a re-entry ban for that- only if you delay.
Deportation - by Home Secretary when you are deemed to be non conducive to the public good due to criminal offences, that reach a threshold (eg probably not shoplifting though this will impact another application to stay and you may be removed) and sometimes along with a family member who is being deported.
Then there are laws around these - we don’t remove, and probably debate deporting, someone to a country where they will be tortured, as people have a right not be tortured, or probably where they won’t be executed as we don’t support execution. You might have seen these played out in other countries, eg/ the US case where they had to bring someone back from El Salvador.
There have been plenty of removals under this gov’t already but you will miss that if you just look At deportations. People use the term deportations when they mean removals a lot so not criticising but just updating.

Is it about changing the law though? The man that was supposed to be deported just suddenly at the last minute claimed modern slavery as the reason he couldn’t be deported. For a long time I have wondered how these people prove all of this. Given most throw their papers away huw do we know anything they say is true? I’m sure there is a phone line to the gov dept in Eritrea to verify people! There seems to be a pick list of reasons you can use to not be deported and let’s face it with so much info out there and with so much for these people to lose if they get sent back fabricating a story would be easy.

I can only assume that the home office and judiciary are using something other than hard facts to decide cases. It’s easy speed up decisions and make the easy decision to let someone stay if you just use best guess isn’t it.

Perhaps rather than leaving the EHRC we could add some laws that ensure it cannot be used to our detriment. The rights of the UK population should carry more weight than a rapists right to not be deported due to right to family life for example.

Changes in the law are a matter for parliament, not the PM.

While minor changes to existing law can be made easily by statutory instrument, changing immigration law would have significant human rights implications and would need to go through parliament.

The UK has also agreed to abide by the UN Refugee Convention and was very much involved in drafting it. Any changes would have to be relatively minor if the UK was not to risk being in breach of that commitment.

There are very few nations that haven't signed it, and most of those are countries with poor human rights records (the USA is a bit weird, because they didn't sign the original convention but got on board with a later amendment in the 1960s, iirc).

Reform provide simple (and often unworkable) “solutions” to complex issues.

It seems that people look at the issues, hear Reform say “pull out of the EHCR” as it will stop illegal migration, and think “great”. The next stage of “how might this negatively affect me” doesn’t seem to be answered.

It’s all well & good, when it’s someone else’s Rights being removed, becomes less good when it’s yours.

Personally, I quite like a higher authority being able to call our Govt to account.

And then what happens subsequently. What if Reform wins the next GE?

I don’t think it would do much. If you look at ROI, Germany, Greece many other EU countries who can still use the DA it’s not helping them.

Well that's very unwise.

I don't trust any of the fuckers as far as I could throw them.

The one thing they did change ... coming out of Europe... has led to the current state if affairs. Took us outside of the Dublin agreement and we can't now send back asylum seekers.
Solution is to re-join Europe or maje our own laws rather than live with European laws.

There would be massive implications to pulling out of the European convention on human rights (which they'd have to do), it would damage political and even trade relationships with other countries and risk destabilising Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Peace agreement.

It would be a real political battle to get it through the Commons, there is no guarantee at all that all Labour politicians would vote to withdraw.

You've then got our UK Human Rights Act - the courts can currently say that a deportation goes against this. So that would also need removing. And these things aren't just protecting people against deportation, UK citizens would lose a lot of rights.

This is what Republican John McCain said about human rights: "Human rights exist above the state and beyond history — they are God-given. They cannot be rescinded by one government any more than they can be granted by another. They inhabit the human heart, and from there, though they can be abridged, they can never be wrenched."

Yep. It’s not a Labour FB site

But Reform are way ahead in the polls and are going to withdraw from the ECHR as soon as they get in. Unless Keir jumps the shark it’s Farage who’s going to be making our bill of rights. We have to get out now while we have a decent PM to come up with an alternative.

That is funny I thought you might to the pp post PS