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

Why new anti-terror powers aim to disrupt not prosecute

The new anti-terror powers proposed by the government aim to disrupt would-be fighters returning from Syria - rather than just prosecute them.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 13.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

    And so it begins...

  • rate this

    Comment number 12.

  • rate this

    Comment number 11.

    " ... to strip nationality from people suspected of involvement in terrorism."

    Suspected ???!?

    Isn't suspicion a bit too weak a reason to ruin someone's life ?

    I swear to God if it was Vladimir Putin instead of Theresa May that made the statement above, then BBC would already be teaching a lesson on human rights.

  • rate this

    Comment number 10.

    Shouldn't be handing out nationality in the first place. They have a nationality. If they are migrants as the BBC is always so keen to name them, then they are expected to go home after a period of work and don't need nationality.

    Stop handing out passports to anyone with a hard luck story and we won't be in this mess.

  • rate this

    Comment number 9.

    If you want to stay with your children, then don't commit a crime. Simple really. Can't see why it's even up for debate.

    I don't commit crime for moral reasons (on the whole) but if i was without morals the thought of loosing my children as a result of my actions would certainly stop me.

    Live by the sword............

  • rate this

    Comment number 8.

    I have always wondered - and I am not making a point or anything but is it a miscarriage of justice when a guilty person is set free - its a valid question - especially in the context of re-offending...

  • rate this

    Comment number 7.

    @5. Too dangerous - think of all the miscarriages of justice that happened with IRA "suspects".
    The rule of law in a true democracy stands on Blackstone's thinking that,
    "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

  • rate this

    Comment number 6.

    If they are toddling off to fight for Islamist fighting groups then should be charged with treason and tried. If you want a UK passport then that nationality should not be something you only show loyalty to when it suits you. Our compassion and tolerance is something that is being used against us by people that hate our society yet quite happily hide in it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.


    "...but this sounds like something with massive potential for abuse and miscarriages of justice."

    Do you know what, I'd much rather the miscarriage of justice, and potential abuse of the system, be that on the side of those being turfed out, rather than on those being allowed to stay when they shouldn't.

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    Theresa May on deporting foreign criminals?

    The unspeakable in full pursuit of the indefensible...

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    love it, do I believe it? No. Is it too late? Yes. Buggered.

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    Nobody should ever be punished for merely being a suspect - if they have actually done something wrong then get the proof and the conviction and then deport away but this sounds like something with massive potential for abuse and miscarriages of justice.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    No one would be stateless, they will have run away from some other nation before grasping ours for their self interests. Not stateless just hiding where they belong as it suits just them. If they claim statelessness, set up tented camps as refugees get aboard, and detain them as not entitled to be in our state, until they admit where they come from and get returned,


Page 14 of 14



BBC © 2014 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.