| Give British Commonwealth Citizens Who Have been in the UK for 5 Years British Nationality.
The vast majority of people who make it to the UK, migrating, seeking asylum come from former British Colonies. Countries that the UK plundered of natural resources and when forced to depart, left most of the countries in political/economic turmoil the ramifications of which still bedevil these countries today. The legacy of the British Empire MUST be front and centre when we make arguments about the injustice of immigration controls. "we are here because you were there and are still there" is critically relevant. Most of the countries after throwing of the shackles of Britain became part of the British Commonwealth; now an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four independent member states, all but two of which were formerly part of the British Empire. Online Petition: Give British Commonwealth Citizens in the UK for 5 year’s British nationality.
I propose that all British colonised country citizens working and paying all taxes in the UK for 5 years or more be given British nationality. We were colonized by the British but have Zero rights. The Europeans get all of the benefits that should be rightfully given to all commonwealth citizens.
You Can Sign the Petition Here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/194143
The 'Butchers Apron' ~ aka the 'Union Jack'
Britain with brutal and violent oppression colonized over 57 countries mostly in the 16th/17th/18th centuries. None of the countries asked to be colonized and most of them had to resort to bloody and violent insurgency to drive the British out and gain their freedom/independence back.
To the majority of those colonized the Union Jack was known as the 'Butchers Apron'. Though Britain boasted the sun never set on the British Empire, it would be more true to say, 'the sun never set and the blood of innocents never dried.'
Did the 'Commonwealth' bring peace and economic prosperity, to the people of these nations? Not at all, the Wealth was only common to the rich and all that changed for the indigenous populations; was the color of the flags that flew over them and the accents of their 'masters'.
Read more: http://no-deportations.org.uk/Media-1/ButchersApron.html
Court of Appeal Affirms Restrictive Interpretation of Zambrano
The Court of Appeal in in SSHD v VM (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 255 has confirmed a restrictive interpretation of the Zambrano line of EU case law. The case concerned a Jamaican national who was fighting deportation to Jamaica after being convicted of a string of criminal offences. He had a relationship with a British Citizen partner, and a British Citizen stepson. He sought to argue that to deport him would deprive his British Citizen stepson of his rights as an EU citizen as they would have to leave the UK to live in Jamaica. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments. They held that if a third country national with EU citizen children faces deportation then the EU rights of the child as an EU citizen will only be engaged if they are compelled to leave the EU as a result of the third country national’s deportation. They found in this case that even if the appellant were deported to Jamaica there would still be a carer with a right to reside in the UK as a British Citizen and that: “Rather than a legal impossibility of remaining in the UK, the family would face a difficult practical choice whether to separate (with the mother and children remaining in the UK, in which case there would be no infringement of their EU citizenship rights) or to leave and go to Jamaica as a family unit,” As such, this did not engage EU rights in a way which created a right under EU law for the appellant to remain in the UK
Gherson Immigration: http://tiny.cc/78doky
Liz Truss Makes Fresh Attempt to Fast-Track Deportations
A new fast-track system to deport detained asylum seekers and criminals who are foreign nationals has been proposed by the justice secretary, Liz Truss. Her proposed rules will mean the time taken to hear the appeals of about 2,000 people against being removed from Britain each year will be capped at between 25 and 28 working days. The new system is to replace a previous scheme known as the “detained fast track”, which was ruled unlawful by the court of appeal because its strict time limits were regarded as “structurally unfair” by the judges.
Hundreds of asylum seekers were released from detention when the previous system was suspended in July 2015 by the then home secretary, Theresa May, in the wake of the court ruling. At its peak the old detained fast-track scheme, which first came into force in 2000, saw more than 4,200 asylum seekers a year detained in three removal centres including Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire. The new fast-track scheme being proposed by Truss will apply to failed asylum seekers and all foreign national offenders who are already in detention in any immigration removal centre or prison and want to appeal against the decision to remove them. It is expected to apply to about 1,600 failed asylum seekers and 400 foreign criminals a year.
Read more: Alan Travis, http://tiny.cc/wi1lky
Expedited Immigration and Asylum Appeals for Detained Appellants
Government’s response to its consultation on proposals to expedite appeals by immigration detainees Summary 6. In the consultation document the Government made clear that it recognised the need to balance the need for proceedings to be handled quickly and efficiently with the need toensure that the tribunal system is accessible and fair. The Court of Appeal held in 20152 that the 2014 fast track rules failed to achieve that balance: they provided too little time for the process overall, and the safeguards were insufficient. In the recent case of TN & US3, the High Court found that similar deficiencies applied to the 2005 fast track rules. Importantly however, the courts did not find the principle of an expedited process in itself unlawful, provided there was a proper balance between speed and efficiency and fairness and justice. These judgments have been taken fully into account when formulating these new policy proposals.
7. The Government’s view following consultation remains that there is a need for specific rules in respect of appellants in detention. As set out in the consultation, it is the Government’s view that the policy objective of a guaranteed maximum timeframe for determination of detained appeals is unlikely to be achievable without introducing specific rules for detained cases.
8. Further, it is the Government’s view that an overall time frame for an expedited process of around the 25 working days on which it consulted is appropriate. But we recognise that there is some concern regarding the 25 working day period and consider that an overall time period not exceeding 28 working days for the determination of an appeal in the FtT would be acceptable together with other safeguards, such as an appropriate case management review (CMR) and discretion afforded to the judiciary as to a case’s suitability for an expedited process. This would ensure clarity on expected timeframes and an efficient but fair process for those in detention. We are satisfied that the safeguards we have proposed would be sufficient to provide access to justice and protect vulnerable appellants.
Read the full response: http://tiny.cc/hz4lky
Impact Assement: http://tiny.cc/0z4lky
Arrests of Undocumented migrants Without Criminal Records Double Under Trump
The Washington Post reported on Sunday 16/04/2017 that immigration arrests rose 32.6 percent during the first few weeks of the Trump administration, and that arrests of undocumented individuals with no criminal records more than doubled to 5,441. According to statistics requested by the Post, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 21,362 immigrants between January and mid-March, up from 16,104 during the same time period last year. The rate at which immigrants with some kind of criminal background were arrested rose only 15 percent, indicating that ICE has shifted its focus significantly to detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants who have never been convicted of a crime. Furthermore, the report found that arrest rates of immigrants who have not committed crimes in New York, Boston and other major cities have doubled and in some cases tripled (or worse) since last year. Atlanta has experienced the biggest spike, with nearly 700 arrests this year, compared to 137 last year. Philadelphia officers have arrested six times as many immigrants without criminal records as they did the previous year.
Read more: Hannah Gold, Jezebel, http://tiny.cc/2x8kky
Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC) COI Update Vol. 146
This document provides an update of UK Country Guidance case law, UK Home Office publications and developments in refugee producing countries (focusing on those which generate the most asylum seekers in the UK) between 4 April and 17 April 2017.
http://www.asylumresearchconsultancy.com/webfm_send/234
|
ILPA - Brexit Information Sheets
ILPA has produced a series of information sheets, each providing a short (two-page) and accessible overview of EU rights of residence and the issues affecting citizens from European Economic Area (EEA) and from Switzerland and their family members living in the UK in the context of Brexit.
The series is published at: http://www.ilpa.org.uk/pages/brexit-information.html and currently includes the following information sheets:
Further resources are referenced within the information sheets and included on the dedicated website page. We will continue to produce information sheets on Brexit/EU law topics and welcome your suggestions for topics to cover.
Best wishes,
Zoe Harper
Legal Officer: Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA)
RSM & Anor, R Aapplication of) v SSHD Unaccompanied Minors
– Art 17 Dublin Regulation – remedies) [2017] UKUT 00124 (IAC) (12 April 2017)
[(I) The question of whether the Secretary of State has made a decision on the exercise of the discretionary power in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation is one of fact which will be determined on the basis of evidence, direct or inferential.
(II) Article 17 is an integral part of the Dublin regime. The suggestion that the Article 17 discretion falls to be exercised only where the family reunification criteria in Article 8 are not satisfied is misconceived.
(III) Article 17 has a role in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures and systems of the host Member State.
(IV) Relevant government policy statements constitute, as a minimum, material considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the discretionary power in Article 17. The Lumba principle is also engaged.
(V) The judicial assessment of the efficacy of the Dublin systems and procedures in the host Member State will invariably be fact sensitive and will take into account the overarching aims and objectives of the Dublin Regulation, including the maintenance of inter-Member State solidarity and mutual trust and respect, together with expedition.
(VI) Expedition has special force in the case of unaccompanied children.
(VII) The discretion to judicially determine essentially academic issues in judicial review proceedings will normally be informed by the overriding objective.]
McCloskey J
Introduction
1. We emphasise at the outset that both Applicants continue to have the protection of anonymity and reproduce below the extant Tribunal Direction. Accordingly, no report of these proceedings or any communication whatsoever shall directly or indirectly identify either of the Applicants or any member of their family.
2. These judicial review proceedings were conducted in two orthodox phases. First, there was an inter-partes hearing on 05 December 2016 when the issue of permission was determined. By our ex tempore decision and order of the same date (subsequently formalised: see Appendix 1), we granted the Applicants permission to apply for judicial review and made certain directions.
3. An inter-partes substantive hearing followed, on 19 December 2016. By our ex tempore decision and order of the same date (subsequently formalised – see Appendix 2), the Applicants were held to have succeeded. The order made by the Tribunal against the Respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “Secretary of State”) was formulated thus:
(a) The Secretary of State is hereby ordered to admit the first Applicant, RSM, to the United Kingdom.
(b) It is hereby declared that there has been a failure by the Secretary of State to lawfully exercise the discretion conferred by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation.
Most recently, further orders have materialised, under the rubric of liberty to apply: see Postscript.
4. None of the aforementioned decisions/orders sets forth fully the Tribunal’s reasoning and analysis. The second decision in particular could not be delayed having regard to the facts and factors which underlay the Tribunal’s conclusion that the Applicants must succeed. The Tribunal made clear to the parties that it would provide a comprehensive judgment if necessary, particularly in the event of the Secretary of State seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. An application of this kind having materialised, the Tribunal hereby honours its commitment. While this may regrettably entail some degree of repetition, this seems to us unavoidable.
5. Judicial review proceedings are frequently, but not invariably, conducted within a framework of agreed and/or uncontroversial or neutral facts. This does not always apply to cases of the present species, mainly on account of the factor of expedition and the resulting limited opportunity of the Respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “Secretary of State”), to carry out appropriate investigations. Thus, as in previous cases of this kind, we shall address infra the question of whether the key factual ingredients of the Applicants’ case have been established to the requisite degree
6. While there was a clear and obvious need for expedition in these proceedings, the Tribunal was able to devise case management mechanisms, both prior to the permission hearing and by creating a post-permission phase in advance of the substantive hearing, which furthered two imperatives. First, the Applicants and their legal representatives were enabled to augment the evidence presented initially to the Tribunal. Second, the Secretary of State was afforded a reasonable opportunity to make an evidential contribution and, in the event, a not insubstantial contribution materialised. Notably, at the final stage of the proceedings, namely the substantive hearing, there was no suggestion on behalf of the Secretary of State of unfairness on account of excessive haste.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/124.html
Thousands of Asylum Seekers and Migrants Wrongly Denied NHS Healthcare
Asylum seekers and migrants have been wrongly denied NHS healthcare, in some cases being refused treatment despite suffering from life-threatening conditions such as cancer and heart disease, doctors have warned. Undocumented migrants with urgent care needs have been refused treatment by hospitals, despite NHS guidelines that state no one should be refused urgent or immediately necessary treatment because they cannot pay, The Independent has learned. A large number of migrants have also been wrongly turned away from registering at GP surgeries on the grounds that they did not provide identification documents. In other cases, The Independent has seen emails showing asylum seekers who have the right to free healthcare have been wrongly charged for hospital treatment, sometimes up to thousands of pounds each.
The erroneous refusals and charges come amid a crackdown on the cost of overseas visitors using the NHS. A memorandum of understanding published in January stated that NHS digital was required to share patient information with the Home Office, while new measures that came in at the start of April require hospitals to check whether patients are eligible for free care on the NHS before providing most kinds of care. Doctors and campaigners have warned these changes are increasingly discouraging people from accessing healthcare, with potentially fatal consequences.
Read more: May Bulman, http://tiny.cc/rt8kky
|