To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

I thought we weren't going to let them change the way we live?

I apologise. I was right the first time when I said 4,000. I was getting confused with the Independent headline. Up to 48,000 people were though to be affected.

Actual sourced figures for deportations and Home Office refusal, curtailment and removal decisions (effectively reversing study visa)

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/22/22.pdf
House of Commons - Home Affairs Committee
The work of the Immigration Directorates (Q4 2015)
This was done after the initial ruling and before the appeal and was published on 3rd June 2016.

From page 18:

23. To date, more than 28,000 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions have been made in respect of ETS-linked cases and over 4,600 people have been removed from the UK. The Indian Workers’ Association estimate that 70% of those affected are of Indian nationality.

21 Around a hundred privately-operated further education colleges have also had their licences suspended or revoked.

22 Oliver Robbins, Second Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, told us that: The ETS case shows widespread, deep and very troublesome deception of the immigration rules. The Home Office is convinced that its response has been both immediate and proportionate to the risks that that has highlighted.

23 Critics of the process argue, however, that the response of the Home Office has been overly aggressive, with some students being detained during dawn raids and deported without the opportunity to sort out their belongings; that in many cases it has been based on insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, leading to many innocent people being caught up by the Department’s sweeping action; and that those affected have not been granted the opportunity to review and contest the evidence against them. The veracity of the analysis undertaken by ETS has also been questioned.

24 It is extraordinary that the Home Office has carried out no independent investigation itself of the allegations of fraud in relation to English language testing and instead has relied on evidence from ETS, one of its approved providers and a party under criminal investigation. We note the failure of ETS, an organisation that has received millions of pounds in fees from those sitting the tests, to give evidence in court on this matter.

Lots were effectively forced to leave by the revocation of their visa, and so left without being physically forced. They will have paid large amounts of money in tuition fees and accommodation for courses they were not able to complete.

I'd say that even 4000 forcibly removed is a mass deportation though and it IS important to acknowledge those effectively forced by circumstance if not physically kicked out of the country.

Is that good enough for you?

Its horrifying enough.

These people are now all potentially liable for compensation by the British Government because May acted in this way above and beyond the limits of her power.

Do read up on the case and try and find out about some of the experiences of those involved. Its poor.

This is partly why India is going to be very keen on visa when it comes to any trade deal with us. The incident was reported widely there and it did significant damage to our reputation as an educational leader and our international standing with them.

I've assumed we're talking about the 1998 HRA passed in this country not the 1953 one.

Just that I'm puzzled - we've been told that only EU can decide which laws we pass, another myth destroyed?

Plinky its a fair comment. The Independent headline is misleading and I was seeing 4000 then 48000 and then forgot which I'd seen and where.

I think I've supplied an indisputable source now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarl%27s_Wood_Immigration_Removal_Centre#Inquiries_into_provision_at_Yarl.27s_Wood
Yarl's Wood.
For more stuff to read up on the background to Yarl's Wood.

I've assumed we're talking about the 1998 HRA passed in this country not the 1953 one.

The Human Rights Act was passed by the UK parliament.

It gave UK courts the power to rule in cases that previously had to go to the European Court of Human Rights.

The UKs relationship to both, started back in 1953, when several countries in Europe (including the UK) ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Therefore, the UK is bound by the ECHR inasmuch as it is bound by any international treaty it has signed. The treaty itself was voted on by Parliament, and Parliament is capable of withdrawing the UK from it - just as Parliament can withdraw the UK from any internation treaty, if it so wishes.

It has to be said though, that as it was the UK that actually drafted the original ECHR, it would have been odd for us not to sign it. Not signing treaties you have worked on is a more Gallic trait .

Just that I'm puzzled - we've been told that only EU can decide which laws we pass, another myth destroyed?

Yes. We've been fed an oceanload of bollocks, with many people getting their "facts" from the right-wing paper of their choice.

Rashida Manjoo's report (she's the UN inspector refused access to Yarl's Wood) is well worth a read if you are interested in Women's Rights in general
www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14514&

Its not a particularly favourable write up. To put it bluntly.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/584743/UN-official-says-Britain-sexist

Here is the Express spitting feather over the above report.

I note that it references that the UN Special Rapportuer on Human Rights Francois Crepeau. The Canadian is on record as saying that the Conservative threat to leave the EHCR was comparible to repression in Germany in the 1930s. This article is dated 2015. Prior to the EU referendum. His comments have been widely reported.

Also the UN housing rapporteur Raquel Rolnik is on record in 2013 as stating that cuts to housing benefits could breach human rights under the Bedroom Tax. The Tories spat feathers at that one. Again this seems to have been widely reported.

Should we also leave the UN?

Plinky its a fair comment. The Independent headline is misleading and I was seeing 4000 then 48000 and then forgot which I'd seen and where.

Yeah, it's suspiciously difficult to get original sources here, I was googling madly It was a genuine question though, which you've answered.

May is also not keen on accountability. (Anyone going to argue with that after the Election Campaign we've just had?) She is trying to restrict public access to government reporting and things like impact assessments. Her white papers on Brexit and the Great Repeal Act are telling from that respect.

This is where the power of the state versus the individual is also weakened. In the context of Human Rights this is 'not a good thing'.

"This is partly why India is going to be very keen on visa when it comes to any trade deal with us. The incident was reported widely there and it did significant damage to our reputation as an educational leader and our international standing with them."

Are you shitting me Red?! We ve always had to have visas to go to India, and you think India's going to be calling the shots when it comes to trade deals?!!! Do you know how much we are worth to them in data centres, software development, call centres etc not to mention the 'aid' we provide?!!!

But back to your point, yep, not handled the best (brit understatement), but 48000 deportations it wasnt. Am I right that this farce only applied to those students who hadnt taken the required english tests in their home nations or had failed in their home nations? So that would mean 48,000 turned up to start some sort of a degree at an english university, with no basic english qualification/testing whatsoever? A degree course?

" These UN officials are being funded by our taxpayer-funded UK contributions to generate this drivel." Id second that. So back to the wonderful example of Jordan and Algeria...or Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia,? How about Syria?

Red, youre really scrapping the barrel now....is today making you anxious? If so, try not to be so influenced by your own warped view.

India want to better visa provision to come here and work/study as part of a trade deal. They won't get it because current government don't want more immigration. But we also won't get the trade agreement we seek either on the terms we would like. Red lines both ways and all that. Look it up. May's visit there at the end of last year was not as good as she would have hoped.

So that would mean 48,000 turned up to start some sort of a degree at an english university, with no basic english qualification/testing whatsoever? A degree course?

No it means that 48,000 took a test in good faith which they passed to do a degree course in order to comply with Home Office rules. Only one institution was found to have cheated in this test. The rest of the people were adequately skilled in English to do the course they had come here to do.

"No it means that 48,000 took a test in good faith which they passed to do a degree course in order to comply with Home Office rules. Only one institution was found to have cheated in this test. The rest of the people were adequately skilled in English to do the course they had come here to do."

Youre being slippy Red. So 48,000 hadnt obtained any form of english certification in their home nations (which was totally acceptable by the Home Office) or had failed english testing in their home nations, which then and only then, required them to sit one here in the UK? 48,000, turning up for a degree course?

Your trying to make it sound as though all international students have to take a test when they arrive in the UK. That isnt and wasnt the case. Only those who couldnt/failed to get one at home, had to sit them here.

Two years ago Jeremy asked the Tories if police cuts were wise:

The Tories jeered.

....and who says the others affected were adequately skilled in english? Source Red.

Clearly if they were adequately skilled, they wouldnt have had to sit the test in the first place. A degree in a UK university, with not even a primary school level of english certification? Im actually staggered by this story.

You can't have followed the news Carolinesbeanies, and being staggered rather shows you are ignorant of the matter. The judges were better informed and were not staggered but looked at the facts. As Red explains, only one test centre was found to be at fault. On that basis May had c.48,000 students booted out, primarily from India. Then she and Johnson seem to wonder why India isn't falling over itself to offer trade concessions, but wants a guarantee that their citizens will be granted more work visas. This guarantee was not forthcoming and both May and Bojo having gone to India with great fanfare both came home with their tails between their legs.

This is nothing to do with needing a visa for a holiday in India.

I'm not being slippery. I'm answering to the best of my ability.
I don't know the answer to your question completely.

Honest answer. I'm not 100% sure on the exact system having not done it myself.

The information on how to apply for a student visa is here though:
www.gov.uk/tier-4-general-visa

To get the visas to enter the country they must have compiled with the Home Office requirements.

A University would vet someone about their English skills to get on the course before they act as sponsors of their visa. (In a similar way to visas which require employers to sponsor non-EU citizens). They will want to fill places to generate an income but they also have reputations and standards they would want to uphold too. This particular institute which sparked the problem was rogue because it didn't do this.

As a sponsor an education institution acts on a certain amount of trust with the Home Office, using their status and reputation. Students have to provide proof that they have been given an education place when they apply for their visas in the form of a sponsorship from the institute. Its worth pointing out the visa costs several hundred pounds, require filling a form in English and they have to provide evidence of having enough money to survive too. I also would have thought that many of these students will pay at least some fees and accommodation costs ahead of arriving in the UK. The visa application includes biometric data that needs to be provided at an application centre outside the UK which needs to be checked upon arrival.

In terms of an English test: The current rules I believe were updated after the above case. You now have to sit the test at an approved centre. In terms of entering the country without this, don't forget to get your place on a course you have to prove your English skills in advance. This probably includes showing an English qualification from your country of origin. The university accepts this for their application process, but the Home Office doesn't. Hence the test after arrival.

The visa isn't technically complete until this is passed and has a limited time on it to complete this requirement. For it to be for the length of your course you need to Stand English Test rubber stamping. Note: if someone failed the test then they would loose their right to stay so not being capable of passing would be something of a risky and costly business.

I do believe in the last couple of years, since the fraud was discovered, there has been a tightening of procedures at the border when student visa holders arrive with more rigorous vetting as it was felt that perhaps too much trust had been put on institutions alone.

The idea that thousands of students are coming here without the required English skills is simply wrong. They have a number of levels of applications from applying for a course, getting an institute to sponsor, getting a visa to enter the county and then getting the visa signed off with the formal English test.

There was an abuse of the system, which the fraud showed up, but the vast majority of students and institutes were totally and utterly above board and that's the point. They were caught up in the wrong doing of others. Its how the Home Office handled that abuse that is literally criminal. Instead May treated it in a blunt, wide ranging and ridiculous fashion without regard for that. And those caught up in it, were not given the opportunity to answer their case or even know what the case against them was.

I hope that helps.

Peregina, I think Carolineberries is probably just trying to catch me out to a certain extent. That's fine. I answer in good faith and to the best of my ability.

Whether they chose to believe me is up to them. Its like always. I think answering questions isn't always just about making the point to people who ask them. And its a good exercise in itself anyway. People should question more. I'm not always going to get it right, but at the same time, I do try and check things and reference them so people can follow it up themselves. That's the core of the accountability which I believe in which is the heart of a healthy democracy.

All these things are very much connected, and the complexity of it all is huge. I've found out interesting things today I didn't know through looking at this and taking the time to find out about it. Which is why I think it constructive.

I think that is worth sharing, so others understand these issues better rather than just relying on tabloid fodder.

I'm not trying to 'win' the argument here. The subject is too important to me. If we are going to have a proper debate about this, we need bust myths, connect dots of linked stories and explain the politics behind these objectives and proposals as best we can.

Locally, a junior doctor has just been 'sent home' - she had been fully funded by her home country, was trained in the UK, had perfect English and was now doing her speciality training which of course involves full service provision. Her visa was not extended - I am not privy to the reasons. Her post remains unfilled as there is nobody to take over. Her remaining colleagues are now working well outwith the EWTD, have done for a couple of months and will do for the foreseeable future.

But I am sure the UK was well served in sending her home

I highly recommend following @ SimonFRCox on twitter if interested in immigration.

He is a migration lawyer who has dealt with a lot of cases where the Home Office is involved. He tweets about wider related political issues too.

But youre not myth busting, debating, dissecting Red, youre simply regurgitating reports from random sites, and misrepresenting them to boot to simply enforce your own agenda.

"The idea that thousands of students are coming here without the required English skills is simply wrong"

No it isnt, thats exactly why these requirements existed in the first place. The individual university requirements were for the Universitys to set, and where english qualifications accepted by Universities, were obtained in home nations, the home office accepted these too. The only students required to sit the tests here in the UK for visa purposes, were those that didnt have any.

And Peregrina, TM still didnt deport 48000, no matter how many times it gets repeated inaccurately on here.

As far as I can tell from looking at a few university entry requirement pages, some kind of English proficiency evidence is required where the prospective student has not demonstrated this, or not done so via approved means, beforehand. And that's fine, not every chemistry major goes down the language route. I had to demonstrate (foreign) linguistic competence before I began my MA, too, since I had no formal qualifications.

The point is, TM used one instance of fraud being committed and applied it broad-brush to every single person doing the same test with zero evidence. The Upper Tribunal upheld the case against her and the Home Office and refused to consider future appeals against their ruling as it was so clear cut. She deported ca. 4,000 people for no good reason and negatively affected thousands more on nothing more than a flimsy pretext.

This case may not be HR (although collective punishment anyone?), but the flimsy pretext thing does not speak in her favour when it does come to HR, does it?

And Peregrina, TM still didnt deport 48000, no matter how many times it gets repeated inaccurately on here.

Evidence for this please, since you are fond of evidence. It's acknowledged to be an estimate.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-from-the-uk/

Note: Deportions figures also include those refused entry at point of entry. To get anywhere close to your ridiculous claims, all other deportations (not at point of entry) for 3 years, must have been students who sat this english test.

My argument is and was Theresa May is incompetent and covers it up by blaming the law, the courts and other people.

It's not human rights that is the issue. It's her ability.

We'll park that there for now...