Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
It's really very simple. A foreign, non-Eu student, comes to the UK on a student's visa and overstays. He (in this case) overstays his visa and the authorities seek to deport him as UK law allows.
Along comes the appeal to the ECHR who allows his appeal on the basis that he had entered into a meaningful personal relationship and his rights under the Convention thus trumped our immigration laws.
We are a civilised country and our own Human Rights act, stripped of reference to the ECHR will do nicely.
The ECHR allows cynical exploitation of illegal immigration, whether student or criminal
|
What do you basis this on? Curious ...
I came across this article which seems to contradict your statement:
Students are not settled migrants and do not have significant ECHR rights
Quote:
High Court refuses judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Justice to issue two Mauritian nationals, who overstayed on their student visas, with deportation orders, on the grounds that they failed to raise substantial grounds as students are not settled migrants and do not enjoy significant rights pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judicial review asylum and immigration two students from Mauritius arrived in the state on temporary student permissions - illegally overstayed challenging the deportation orders made against them - substantial grounds test whether there are substantial grounds for contending that the deportation order is contrary to article 8 rights - fundamentally misconceived argument - ECHR case law is clear that a person whose immigration status is precarious is not a settled migrant and does not enjoy significant rights under art. 8 of the ECHR - person who enjoys a purely temporary and transitory permission, such as for a limited period to pursue a course of study, is precisely the type of person in a precarious position that the Strasbourg court envisages - students are simply not settled migrants - a temporary student permission is precisely the sort of permission that precludes the acquisition of significant or perhaps any rights under art. 8 of the ECHR whether there are substantial grounds for contending that the Minister failed to weigh humanitarian considerations correctly or give reasons whether there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is disproportionate in terms of the test in Heaney v. Ireland - no particular formula of words is required proportionality for proportionality to be engaged, the decision must be one which interferes with rights - illegally present in the State.
|