The biggest news story as we enter 2019 is the arrival on UK shores of hundreds of illegal immigrants, many from Iran. This has exposed many weaknesses in our border security. AltNewsMedia has been examining the background to the process of deportation and removal of these economic opportunists and this raises some very big questions.
Deportation is for the public good and requires a foreign national to leave the UK and authorises their detention until they are removed from the UK. A deportation order can apply to any foreign national, even if they hold a valid visa. They will be prohibited from re-entering the country for the duration of the deportation order and any leave to enter or remain in the UK given before the order was made is invalidated. Notice is given to the individual concerned informing them of the decision.
The Secretary of State must make a deportation order in respect of a non- British criminal where:
However, even where an exception applies, the Secretary of State can still pursue a claim for deportation. A deportation order will not be made if the person’s removal under the order would be contrary to the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention.
You can see from this that deportation is a complex, lengthy and expensive problem.
Unlike deportation orders, removal orders are used if an individual or family do not have leave to remain in the UK whether they came to the UK without obtaining leave prior to entry or existing leave has expired. Individuals or families may also be removed if they had leave to stay but only on certain conditions, and they have not kept to the conditions. For example, if the person did not have permission to work and did or if they claimed asylum, but the claim and subsequent appeals made were refused. The circumstances in which a person becomes liable to a removal order are overstayers, entered the UK illegally or by deception, or failed to observe conditions attached to their leave.
Before a decision to seek removal all the relevant factors known to the Secretary of State must be considered:
Crucially, an order for removal, unlike a deportation order, does not prohibit re-entry. So if we remove them, they can come back!
Deportation and administrative removal are prohibited if either would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention or ECHR. Liberal lawyers use both these to further undermine border force.
There are also individuals that voluntarily depart and will present themselves to the Home Office. Such individuals seek assistance to return to their country of origin. If they are unable to facilitate their own travel the Home Office will cover the costs. So the taxpayer is asked to fund the return of those who should not be here.
Whilst both processes are costly a removal is far easier financially and documentation wise as Home Secretary approval is not required.
Worryingly there is also a stumbling block with removals. Authorities must wait 6 months from either a refusal of asylum decision or a failed appeal decision before beginning the removal process. This is because there is a risk of another appeal going in and if courts accept to hear the said appeal then all work processing the removal is lost. However, sometimes there are scenarios where the courts work against Border Force and accept an out of time appeal!
There is also the risk when enforcing a removal order of a last-minute Judicial Review sometimes occurring whilst at airport and the removal must then be abandoned.
This is why Border Force normally wait until they have reached the ‘ARE” stage (appeal rights exhausted) to remove. This can take years with numerous appeals and a Judicial Review.
Even when removal has taken place, it does not stop them returning and trying again. That is a consequence of a removal and not deportation.
People ask “why can’t we just return them to France” regarding the current situation on the Kent coast? The reason is that their request to stay here has to be entertained and Border Force has to establish the route through Europe they used to facilitate the return. Again there are issues with this, because once a third country is identified the country must then accept the return and this must all be conducted within 6 months of landing on our shores. The 3rd country often uses delaying tactics until the process times out.
When one understands the legal and procedural challenges that face those who work to protect us, it’s obvious the deck is stacked against them and in favour of the illegal immigrants.
The only meaningful solution is to STOP ALL THE BOATS and make sure that none get here. Once they arrive the likelihood is they will get to stay. (Of course they know this which is why they take the risk in the first place)
The tsunami of illegal immigrants on our shores exposes how fragile our borders have become, how unprepared Government really is, and why we need to use the Channel as the Wall through which they must not come.