Coffee House

Former ministers, 1922 chair and Labour grandees back rebel deportation call

27 January 2014

27 January 2014

The list of MPs supporting Dominic Raab’s amendment on deportation to the Immigration Bill has now been published, and as predicted, it contains some very big names indeed. Andrew Mitchell has signed, along with 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady, former policing minister Nick Herbert, former justice minister Crispin Blunt, and Labour grandees such as David Blunkett and Hazel Blears.

There are currently 104 MPs signed up to support the amendment: the majority of them Conservative. It calls for foreign criminals to only avoid deportation if they risk being killed or tortured on their return.

The last time this amendment was due to be debated as part of the Crime and Courts Bill, PPSs demanded to be able to support it without getting into trouble. There is a possibility that the same thing will happen again this time round – and ministers don’t have the excuse of the Leveson legislation now to avoid a vote.


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • Agrippina

    Criminals should be deported after the hearing here has established that there is a case to answer. As to what the other country does within its legal system, that is nothing do with us. Hence self confessed congolese, sudanese murderers have been permitted to stay here, because they face the death penalty if they were returned.

    What is the deterrent if you can kill who you like in faraway land and never have to face justice.

  • anyfool

    Blunkett, Herbert, Blears and Blunt support this, that means it is a toothless piece of propaganda.

    • David Kay

      i think not. Blunkett, Herbert, Blears and Blunt want to get
      re-elected. They can now spin it and say they are tough on immigration,
      when they are in fact responsible for the problem in the first place.
      They are only thinking of their own political future

  • Fergus Pickering

    I’m right, aren’t I? ALL muslim countries practice torture, even Turkey. So…

  • greggf

    All foreign criminals should be mandatorily deported first and appeal after in their own country. Why should they enjoy the benefit of a soft and lengthy appeals service in Britain at the taxpayer’s expense when they have no basic right to stay?
    The risk of death or torture should not provide special rights such that they may circumvent appeals in their own country.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “It calls for foreign criminals to only avoid deportation if they risk being killed or tortured on their return.”

    Misses out the further qualification:

    “unless their crimes are so vile that we in this country no longer care what might happen to them when they are returned to their own countries”.

    That should act as a powerful deterrent to the abuse of our hospitality, I think.

  • Patricia

    “This legislation will hopefully put an end to that right and they can be deported (hopefully with their family as well) unless of course they face getting tortured in their country.”

    Nice thought, but knowing what soft touches our High Court judges are for a sob story I can’t see this happening. All the thugs have to say is that they will certainly be killed and tortured on return to their homeland. How can anyone prove otherwise ? I’m sure barristers are licking their lips as we speak !

    • David Kay

      i agree with you but there are lawyers out there that love our country and will do everything within their power and skill to kick these people out and they usually get paid 25 grand a year or less, unlike the highly paid human rights lawyers we all know and hate

    • Alexsandr

      have a foreign office list of safe to deport to countries. If they are from one of those then the torture argument cant be used. simple.

    • Donafugata

      Exactly, any spurious excuse will do the trick these days.

      Even if he’s been married for years, he could claim that he has now decided to be gay and this would mean death or torture as would pretending to want to stop being Muslim.

      The amendment is a waste of time.

      • Patricia

        “Even if he’s been married for years, he could claim that he has now decided to be gay and this would mean death or torture as would pretending to want to stop being Muslim.”

        Well, some of these so-called “fathers” never go near their offspring from one year to the next but still the “family-life” argument seems to wash.
        Some do indeed plead “gay” – obviously a ploy otherwise they wouldn’t be able to back to their Muslin community in this country.

  • sarahsmith232

    Could somebody explain how this would change anything? They already can be deported unless they will be tortured/killed. Give that as a get out clause and good luck trying to get anyone, serial rapists, paedophiles, gang members all the rest of it, none will be got out. Why the ‘unless’ part?

    • David Kay

      what they are saying is because they have a family here, it gives them a right under the Human Rights Act to stay here. This legislation will hopefully put an end to that right and they can be deported (hopefully with their family as well) unless of course they face getting tortured in their country.

      Not that this will happen, but if they are allowed to stay here because of the threat of torture, they should be interred in a secure facility so they dont pose a threat to us. I would suggest something like GITMO, but more harsh

      • sarahsmith232

        Still not understanding where the difference is supposed to lie. Teresa May has already reminded these judges that their first and foremost consideration is the welfare of the citizens at large, not the violent criminal. This is part of the HR Act. They’ve been ignoring it. A lot use the ‘can’t be sent back ’cause i’/ll be tortured’, the judges use it to let them stay. No matter what it is they’ve been doing while here.
        So where’s the difference. Course, there isn’t one. This is just a panicking Tory party desperate for some good headlines. All rubbish, it’s nearly 4 yrs they’ve been in and zero has changed. I’m just praying for a Ukip landslide come May.

        • John Clegg

          I couldn’t agree more, these self appointed so called “political elite”, who’ve never had a proper job in their short miserable lives, need a resounding kicking and sent packing at the next election.
          My retriever would be better than this sorry bunch who have ruined our country and trashed our centuries old culture during the last 30 years.
          Shame on them, they should be brought to justice.

          • sarahsmith232

            Agreed.

        • David Kay

          one last try

          Politicians make the law, judges then interpret that law according to the will of Parliament. If the Judges get it wrong, its not for politicians to say “oh no thats not what we meant we meant this” What politicians have to do is make new law so the will of Parliament is made clear to the judges

          So when judges interpret article 8, the right to a family life, in one way, Teresa May can say what she wants, it doesnt mean nothing except for newspaper headlines.

          If she wants judges to interpret the law in a different way, she has to introduce new law through Parliament which makes clear Parliaments intention, which she hasnt done, its been left to back benchers to change it. Which can only mean she wants criminals to stay here because she is a Europhile which is why i will be voting UKIP in May

          • sarahsmith232

            You’re not saying anything I’m not, the inclusion of the ‘unless’ part means it’s worth nothing. That was original question, why is there supposed to be a difference. The answer is there isn’t.

            • David Kay

              the “unless” part is simply restating the law as it already is because if that part was missed out in the new law, people would be deported even if they faced torture

          • Fergus Pickering

            That reasoning looks the tiniest bit shaky, don’t you think?

            • David Kay

              what part do you think is shaky fergus. Its been 17 years since i learned Constitutional Law when i dont my law degree, but i’ll bow to your superior legal knowledge

              • James Strong

                With writing like this I wonder if anyone has ever paid for a written opinion from you.

                • David Kay

                  oh yes, but my financial advice is worth a lot more

                • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

                  James: his financial advice is worth much more, he says — and I bet I can guess it: ‘buy low, sell high’. ;^o

                • David Kay

                  better than your books skanky

              • Fergus Pickering

                I know nothing at all about the law.I was talking about your reasoning, which has nothing to do with law.

                • David Kay

                  my reasoning has everything to do with law fergus. Its how laws are made in our country and how to the judiciary interprets them laws. Its called the separation of powers and statutory interpretation. Google both phrases and educate yourself

                • Fergus Pickering

                  I am glad my daughter worked as a waitress. I worked in an off-licence when I was at university Many of her fellow students worked as nothing at all and coasted along in idleness on their parents’ money. They did not gain first class honours. Many of them did not gain any honours at all. Do you suppose that we are educated in order that we can be rich? Foolish fellow. You have no understanding of what education is.We are educated in order that we may know. If bankers had been less stupid and ignorant, as well as less greedy, they wouldn’t have screwed up as they did..
                  And law has nothing to do with reason. If you think it has then you understand neither.

                • David Kay

                  youre an idiot. Probably reflected in the type of degree you have.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  And you, sir, are a lawyer.

                • David Kay

                  no im not a lawyer. i left the legal profession because lawyers are over worked, underpaid and the stress is terrible. Im very grateful for Browns economic policies. Its just a shame Northern Rock went under. Their money bought me an extremely expensive car and lots of properties i now rent out. But the credit crunch happens on average once every 18 years. Im looking forward to the boom again, the trick is, knowing when to jump off the band wagon next time

                • Fergus Pickering

                  You were a lawyer. You are a landlord. God give me strength.

                • David Kay

                  The country needs more people like me fergus. Willing to invest in our countrys infrastructure and provide homes for those unable to get on the property ladder. But if they need a mortgage to get on the ladder and live the dream, i’ll get them one for a £500 arangement fee and .5% of the value of the property in commission from the lender. I consider myself to be a social worker as i improve the quality of life and subjective well being of the people in the community

  • David Kay

    Its not just the criminals i want kicked out, its people who came here and claimed asylum who no longer face persecution back home. People like Peter Hain for example. This includes their offspring.

    • realfish

      Yes, DK, and that should include people who leave their ‘place of sanctuary’ i.e. the UK, to return to their ‘place of danger’ for family weddings, holidays, etc.
      On return to the UK, re-entry should be forbidden.

      • David Kay

        very good point

      • greggf

        That’s possible now realfish.
        Theresa May has revoked the British passports of a dozen or so last year for trips to Syria, Turkish border or training camps or such-like locations.
        And for example, taking young people abroad for forced marriage could become another reason.
        Now, France deported over 30,000 Roma last year just because they made a slum of where they lived.

    • DavidL

      Would it include my father-in-law who came here from Central Europe in the War, to escape the Nazis? After all the Nazis have been defeated, and the Russians have gone home now. Should I present my wife for deportation while we’re at it?
      I suppose it would rid us of Miliband. But perhaps there needs to be a statute of limitations……

      • David Kay

        in principle yes. But as i believe in the rule of law they have a right of appeal, from of course, the central european country they come from

        I can understand your concern regarding your wife, but just think of the amount of divorced men who would favour such a policy

        • DavidL

          Your frankness does you credit, but I don’t think I’d vote in favour of deporting someone who’s lived here for 73 years, worked all his life, raised a family, and never committed a crime. And on the whole, I’d like to keep hold of my wife….

          • David Kay

            While i hope you and your wife spend eternity together, i’ll welcome you aboard if and when you get divorced

            • DavidL

              You’ll wait a long time. As the Sir Fitzroy MacLean is reported to said when asked if he had ever thought of getting a divorce from his notorious other half, “Murder often; divorce never”.

    • Bandmomma
Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here