Immigration debate over powers to deport foreign criminals

Queues at UK border controls Government and rebel Tory MPs have clashed over powers to strip foreign-born criminals of citizenship

Related Stories

Home Secretary Theresa May has tabled an eleventh-hour amendment to her own Immigration Bill which is designed to strengthen powers to strip nationality from people suspected of involvement in terrorism.

It comes amid attempts by a cross-party group of backbenchers to make it easier to deport some foreign-born criminals. So what's the difference between the two proposals - and does it actually matter?

The background to all of this is the tension within the Conservative Party (and some parts of Labour) over the role of the European Convention of Human Rights - and the Strasbourg court that oversees it.

Article Eight of the convention, which is part of British law, says everyone has a right to a private and family life.

The state is perfectly entitled to ignore your right to a family life where there is an obvious public interest in doing so. If a judge says that you need to go to prison, that's where you will go - children or not.

But deportation of foreign nationals is more complicated where they can prove that they have a genuine connection to the UK because their children live here.

Critics such as Tory MP Dominic Raab say too many foreign criminals cling on to the UK by playing the children trump card, backed by the European Court of Human Rights.

So his proposal removes the legal requirement for the home secretary to take into account a foreign criminal's Article Eight rights before ordering them out of the UK.

It says ministers should only decide against deportation where the individual faces a threat of death, torture or - and this is the important part - it would cause "manifest and overwhelming harm to his children".

So in essence, Mr Raab's amendment aims to tip the public interest balance in the home secretary's favour when judges consider an Article Eight case.

However, there is a real question about whether it would actually work in practice because claimants could still try to mount an Article Eight appeal - and judges would be bound to look at related cases, including previous European judgements.

It's an extremely complicated area of law because there is so much at stake for both the state and the individual.

The home secretary's late amendment appears to be an attempt to meet some of the backbench concerns by offering to do more to deal with one part of this conundrum.

Her amendment does not specifically mention the word terrorism because it aims to strengthen her powers to strip nationality from people suspected, although not necessarily convicted, of very serious wrongdoing.

Home Secretary Theresa May Home Secretary Theresa May's Immigration Bill is designed to strengthen powers to strip nationality from people suspected of involvement in terrorism

The home secretary can already remove nationality from a terrorism suspect. These cases go through one of the most secretive courts in Europe where very little is actually heard in public, including by the suspect themselves.

The most famous target of these powers was the cleric Abu Hamza - although he ultimately clung on to his British passport before he was extradited to the United States.

The proposed new power tries to get around the "Abu Hamza problem" and a recent similar Supreme Court ruling that went against the government.

The British Nationality Act 1981 says the home secretary cannot leave someone stateless.

Her proposal says that exception would not apply if she "is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person... has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom".

What are the "vital interests" of the United Kingdom? That may be for judges to consider if and when this ever becomes law - but it is a safe bet to assume that it does not cover a lot of low or medium-level criminality.

In other words, it looks like the new power could only be used in fairly exceptional cases - and only against someone who is a dual-national - those who can get a passport from another country - or people who sought citizenship after coming to live in the UK.

It would have no affect on British-born terrorists. They would still have to be dealt with at home.

Dominic Casciani Article written by Dominic Casciani Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

Islamic State: Profile of Mohammed Emwazi aka 'Jihadi John'

What do we know about Mohammed Emwazi - the man identified as being the Islamic State militant nicknamed "Jihadi John"?

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 273.

    Truth logic sustainability the final frontiers @ 268:
    "I'm an African, my ancestors travelled to these isles thousands of years ago as did the rest of the white population."

    I'm English & a monarchist.

    I decide who enters my house.

    If you've got no identity & don't care who enters your house then that's fine.

    But don't label me with some PC..obia or mock just because I'm different to you.

  • rate this

    Comment number 272.


    Nothing wrong with acting consistently on people found guilty of something.

    It would be wrong though on people just being *suspected* of something.
    It can undermine the rule of law, freedom and democracy, just as it did in the 1930s in Germany where suspicion was enough to let you disappear...


  • rate this

    Comment number 271.

    You can tell a Philippine or Mexican driver in USA because they drive at 10Mph under the limit and signal at every junction, why because there probably illegal and have no driving licence if pulled over and no ID there arrested and then deported, "land of the free" yep they stay that way because they keep the worst of humanity out, commit any offence and you out of here.

  • rate this

    Comment number 270.

    Anyone who emigrated here legally or illegally are our guest and should as as such, if you break our laws then expect to face prosecution and deportation that is only fair.
    If a dinner guest stole money when your back was turned you never ask them back into your home so why put up with keeping criminals and terrorists in our country.

  • rate this

    Comment number 269.

    Criminals? Get rid. No matter where they are from or their circumstances. If you are a criminal you will get no support or sympathy from me.


Comments 5 of 273



  • Kim Jong-ilKorean kidnap

    The film stars abducted by North Korea and forced to make movies

  • scarlett Johansson7 days quiz

    Did someone try to impersonate Scarlett on the red carpet?

  • Nigel Farage at CPACUkip on tour

    What do Americans make of Nigel Farage?

  • llamasLlama drama

    Two unlikely fugitives go on the run in Arizona

  • Girl with Pinocchio nose Busting fake CVs

    The digital technology combating job application fraud

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.