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

[Hominim]

Just that really. Can’t understand why successive governments haven’t changed the law to stop deportations being blocked. Why does nobody want to do it? Reform will no doubt. Better to get in there first?

Well that's very unwise.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

Sure. I’d they’re in a country illegally why not?

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 ?

Because of the anti immigration rhetoric being pushed on social media

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.

It's the politics of hate.

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.

@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.

"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"

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.

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.

It’s not that simple or it would have been done, would save a lot of taxpayer money spent on lawyers if it was changed

I've never understood why there isn't a mechanism for processing claims overseas either.

It would reduce the number of people arriving here to claim, imo.

Yep and you can bet that lot make many times more money per asylum seeker than the smuggling gangs do.

There's a legal process to follow in the UK, for which we should all be grateful. Following the process may take longer but also means the law is applied fairly to all, human rights are respected, and the courts consider each case on its merits.

The Torys and Labour were afraid of changing the laws. Starmer write a book on how to interpret the HCHR for judges. That's his lenient interpretations that now all judges in UK use. The bit about right to family life being interrupted as if your kid only likes a certain brand of chicken nuggets from UK and can't be bought in their own country that means they can stay here. Reform will change the laws to stop illegal immigrants on the boats staying here. Everyone should apply legally.

He probably loves curry too.