Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by adam9317)
    To see how UKIP could further improve this bill, could I ask why you had the opinion of nay
    It looks worse than the Australian regulations in order to emigrate there, I'm also not liking the restrictions on EU citizens.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    It looks worse than the Australian regulations in order to emigrate there, I'm also not liking the restrictions on EU citizens.
    Thanks for your thoughts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I cannot support a bill that appears to allow Justin Bieber to visit this country for a total of 8 months and classifies Andorra as some kind of dodgy country.

    If you were going to follow the Australian model surely you would give preference to childless women with red hair or men who are prepared to wear budgie smugglers in public.
    Offline

    18
    Wow what a bill! Congratulations to the new UKIP team on sorting this one out!

    It is an Aye from me
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    thats RAYCIST WAAAAH WAAAAAHHHH
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not - freedom of movement is a defining principle of the EU which needs to be maintained and expanded, not curtailed.

    Impressed by the sheer depth of this bill, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My response to Part I is set out below:
    Section 1-
    1a Agreed
    b Should be extended to Commonwealth citizens without conditions. Also what about those from EU (legality element) or those outside both?
    2 As above, should also be extended to perhaps more developed non-Commonwealth countries like France/Spain/Germany/Italy
    3 Vague
    i) disagree
    ia) disagree
    ii) agree except for a number of refugees/special cases
    iii) agree
    iv) only before 3-5 years cumulative residence
    v) like what?
    4a not on the orders of a single person- a panel/jury with lay members needed, except in extreme cases.
    b for what good reason? the individual in question's conduct is what matters
    c only if aiding those in b to reach a verdict
    d after 2nd offence only and written notice in both cases. E.g. a criminal may be deported but get back in illegally- imprisonment is far safer for taxpayers
    5 agreed
    6 agreed but should be extended to those as in 2

    Section 2
    1 like what?
    2a only in cases of criminality/likelihood of terror or inciting behaviour
    b,c only after public consultation and a vote by parliament
    3 good

    Section 3
    1 With what oversight?

    Section 4
    1 24 hours notice necessary and a panel/jury (lay members not necessary but preferred) must be involved
    2 only in extreme cases as per 2.2a
    3 see 1.4b
    4 After proceedings finalised is fairer
    5 50:50 split. Govt must take full responsibility if the deportee has no appropriate assets to be seized e.g. family shared assets and the deportee has limited income at the specific time of deportation
    6 again see 2.2a
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Could you please lay out what parts are overly-restrictive or draconian? The numbers of visas can be changed (we had internal disagreements over the exact number so chose the lower ones), otherwise we though requiring health insurance and finances to support yourself is all very reasonable.
    See my full response to Part I above.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nah I can't support this for a few reasons. Not least because of the renewal of the ID cards act. Also i'm not sure how you are going to make people pay for their own deportation? :confused: Impressive work however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Nah I can't support this for a few reasons. Not least because of the renewal of the ID cards act. Also i'm not sure how you are going to make people pay for their own deportation? :confused: Impressive work however.
    There's no mention of ID cards. ID cards is just one of possible forms as they currently ae. They will not be compulsory though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    See my full response to Part I above.
    Thanks for the response. Apart from the one with the EU with TSR law trumps, we had the same internal debates. You have put agreed quite a bit so provide the clarity is improved and an emphasis on juries/judges as you support, is the rest with regards to actual visas agreeable for you?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I have had a quick look over and the following jumped out (not forgetting that this Bill would stop the freedom of movement provisions we have with the EU. This would be a negative consequence).

    Part 1

    The wording of 1(3) needs revision. I think an 'is' needs to be inserted.

    In any event, some if not all, of the conditions under this part are already part of the UK's immigration laws. I'd hope that the current safeguards and guidance applicable to these conditions would remain should this bill be passed?

    4(5) is just silly for obvious reasons.

    4(6) is disgraceful. One should always have the right to an appeal made to an impartial body. I'd like to see the justification for this.

    Part 2

    Section 7 - don't like most of this. It is very restrictive and 7(5) is vague. I don't agree with it in any event.

    I'll come back to this later and maybe add more comments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    4(6) is disgraceful. One should always have the right to an appeal made to an impartial body. I'd like to see the justification for this.
    The idea being Theresa May could have ordered Abu Qatada to be deported without him appealing to a high court which inevitably delayed the process despite huge public support in deporting him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Thanks for the response. Apart from the one with the EU with TSR law trumps, we had the same internal debates. You have put agreed quite a bit so provide the clarity is improved and an emphasis on juries/judges as you support, is the rest with regards to actual visas agreeable for you?
    Maybe... I will try to complete a full response to Part II shortly, but it will take me longer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    The idea being Theresa May could have ordered Abu Qatada to be deported without him appealing to a high court which inevitably delayed the process despite huge public support in deporting him.
    That is a very bad idea.

    What matters is that the Home Secretary is making decisions which are in line with the relevant laws, guidelines and treaties. Should someone feel that this is not the case, then they ought to be able to do something about that.

    To me, recourse to a judicial body - i.e. the courts, is the only proper solution. It should be open to a person to petition a court and for a fair assessment be made as to whether the Home Secretary's decision is in standing with the legislative landscape.

    To remove this is wholly wrong.

    You make it sound like Judges are there to frustrate the job of the Home Secretary. But this is not a story full of cases like Abhu Qatada. Consider the Yashika Bageerathi case - where there was a huge body of public opinion on keeping her in the country. Despite this, the courts allowed the deportation and the Home Secretary's decision was upheld.

    As I said - the important thing is that decisions are made properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Part I, Section 1(5)
    This needs to go. It's up to the Government to prove the person isn't a citizen; it shouldn't be any more challenging for the Gov't than a simple database search.

    Part I, Section 3(1)
    Better would be "The power under this Act to give or refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom shall be exercised the Home Secretary and may be delegated."

    Part I, Section 4(6)
    So basically the HS can do whatever they want with regards to deportation? No thanks.

    Part II, Article 1, Section 1(3)
    Some Canadians only speak French... :rolleyes:

    Part II, Article 1, Section 2(2)
    I assume you mean "... not included in 2.1 ..."

    Part II, Article 1, Section 9(1)(a)
    I think you should include an exemption from this for people seeking a visa under Section 2, provided the family member residing in the Uk can pay for private medical treatment, or if the person seeking a Section 2 visa is a child.

    You're hardly going to refuse entry to someone's child just because they have a medical issue.

    Also we don't need like 10 different kinds of visa. And the Section number shouldn't reset at the start of each Part/Article
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    You make it sound like Judges are there to frustrate the job of the Home Secretary. But this is not a story full of cases like Abhu Qatada. Consider the Yashika Bageerathi case - where there was a huge body of public opinion on keeping her in the country. Despite this, the courts allowed the deportation and the Home Secretary's decision was upheld.

    As I said - the important thing is that decisions are made properly.
    The courts operate within the legal framework. The HS should be withholding the integrity in the bodies. Bageerathi had her application rejected through the very fair process we had and also had the application rejected by the initial court. The HS upheld the decision made by immigration. Qatada is going against a court decision and human rights. It's not fair to compare them both.

    Ultimately it comes down to whether unelected courts should have final say or the elected HS. I believe the HS should have final say to be able to uphold the decision of a public body regardless of the court ruling surrounding a case e.g. Qatada or make a decision in the public interest. Does the latter trump the former? Again, I say yes. If immigration makes a decision, that decision should be the final decision. Obviously most of the time a court appeal would rule but in cases of national interest the HS needs the power to overrule a court for the purpose of upholding a previous decision made by immigration.

    Was the Bageerathi decision unpopular with the public? It depends where you look. I tended to find a 50/50 split on it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Looking through in more detail.

    Part 1 seems fine.

    Part 2 Article 1...

    1.3 - I can't support a cap on the number of visas issued.

    2 - Does this apply to British citizens here only or those granted permanent residence as well? If so then i don't really think their brothers and sisters need to come.

    3 - Fine.

    4 - I'm not actually a fan of asylum, there are plenty of closer developed nations.

    5 - Why 7 years? This seems very arbitrary considering the minimum service for most people i think is 2 years.

    6 - Fine.

    7 - Extremely excessive amounts of money required. I'm not sure i can support anything in this section.

    8 - Fine.

    9 - Fine.

    .....

    Will have to go over the rest when i get time but you can probably get a taste for what i do and don't approve of from that.

    Though i do stress that you have significant formatting with spoilers and notes to do for second reading or people will 'Nay' by default.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    The idea being Theresa May could have ordered Abu Qatada to be deported without him appealing to a high court which inevitably delayed the process despite huge public support in deporting him.
    On TSR our own HS in the Tory-Ukip coalition of the 15th parliament gave him the boot in early 2012. Caused quite a bit of drama.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Looking through in more detail.
    Part 1 seems fine.
    You're really fine with 4(6)?! :eek:

    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    The courts operate within the legal framework. The HS should be withholding the integrity in the bodies. Bageerathi had her application rejected through the very fair process we had and also had the application rejected by the initial court. The HS upheld the decision made by immigration. Qatada is going against a court decision and human rights. It's not fair to compare them both.

    Ultimately it comes down to whether unelected courts should have final say or the elected HS. I believe the HS should have final say to be able to uphold the decision of a public body regardless of the court ruling surrounding a case e.g. Qatada or make a decision in the public interest. Does the latter trump the former? Again, I say yes. If immigration makes a decision, that decision should be the final decision. Obviously most of the time a court appeal would rule but in cases of national interest the HS needs the power to overrule a court for the purpose of upholding a previous decision made by immigration.
    Paragraph 1) - Could you clarify the point you are making here please?

    Paragraph 2) - Does this mean that UKIP would do away with judicial review altogether? Would you be in favour in banning anyone from ever being able to take the Government to court?

    The end of Para 2 seems to suggest that 4(6) only applies in certain circumstances - but the Bill seems to suggest that there is a total withdrawal of the right to appeal a deportation order. Please could you clarify.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 2, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.