Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    You're really fine with 4(6)?! :eek:

    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.
    Drat, i missed that one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    What an excellent decision. It seems as if a few here are obsessed with the 'Citizens of the Universe' global free movement idea.[/QUOTE]

    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Paragraph 1) - Could you clarify the point you are making here please?
    Bageerathi made an application through the usual channels for leave to remain in the UK. The process of application was fair but she was rejected. She appealed the decision and was still rejected. Once court upheld the decision on another appeal and her lawyers wanted to take it further but were refused. The HS simply upheld the original decision made by the immigration/border agency after a fair application and appeal.

    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?
    Of course not, but in this case of deportation/immigration we believe the HS should have the final say. On this matter, we would prevent foreigners who have never been to britain, suing the British armed forces using British taxpayer's money in the form of legal aid to pay the costs, only for them to realise they had no evidence. At least make sure you have evidence before going to court or better still, don't sue at all.

    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.
    The second reading should hopefully clarify this more. 4.6 will only apply in cases of violent or extreme crime, terror, national interest or other exceptional circumstance e.g. trying to manipulate UK politics by bribing politicians or electoral fraud. For all other cases people may still appeal but the HS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I will probably respond to Article 2 as well then continue tomorrow.
    My response to Part II, Article 1 is as follows:
    Section 1
    1 agree
    2 see Part I 4.4.1
    3 50,000 combined visas of all types is preferable. N.B. There are numbering errors from here onwards for this section.
    4 See Part I 4.5 What about other Commonwealth countries or where English Language qualifications can be proven?
    5 Good

    Section 2
    1 With a 50,000 combined visa number, this shouldn't be necessary anyway.
    b Some provision in emergencies e.g. serious ill health/death of resident family members/donors for critical operations in family/friendship circle

    Section 3
    1 see 2.1
    2 i 'aliens' as a term must be replaced. Disagree with the bit about execs/managers- medics/teachers of exceptional calibre should be included
    ii e.g.?
    iii as above
    iv diplomats should be higher up. Religious related activities should have no sort of elevated status save in emergencies
    v provided they can demonstrate plans of high merit, agree

    Section 4
    1 ok
    2 by 'United States' did you mean UK- or are you letting slip your true colours?

    Section 5
    1 min 3 years
    2 surely 1 makes this redundant- it should be cumulative service at any point in life
    3,4 agree

    Section 6
    1 with full, detailed written explanation made clear and available to the public in convenient places both on and off the computer

    Section 7
    1 disagree. Not many people have savings yet may be able to earn a salary sufficient to support themselves and dependents entering the UK with them. £5k savings per person entering UK with them (including themselves) or a £20k+ net salary is fair enough imo.
    2 ok
    3 make that 6 months
    4 see 7.1
    5 2 years is a strong enough deterrent without being unethical
    6 ok

    Section 8
    1 cautious agreement

    Section 9
    1 a disagree
    b See Part I Section 4
    c as above
    2 disagree except in extreme cases. Transparency is key.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Of course not, but in this case of deportation/immigration we believe the HS should have the final say. On this matter, we would prevent foreigners who have never been to britain, suing the British armed forces using British taxpayer's money in the form of legal aid to pay the costs, only for them to realise they had no evidence. At least make sure you have evidence before going to court or better still, don't sue at all.
    Since when did suing the armed forces come into the picture?!

    If your concern is cost, why not just remove the right to legal aid rather than the entire right to appeal? (not that I would support this either - I just want an explanation on this point).

    Deportation cases are not always evidence based. They are often concerned with whether laws are being followed. You complain that unelected judges make a decision on this - but they are merely deciding whether laws passed by the UK Parliament have been adhered to. I see no issue with this.

    A lot of cases focus on things like age - where some sort of assessment has to be made. Surely things like this is not going to be removed from an impartial body?

    I'll await the second reading - and whilst generally against this bill anyway, I must say I'd be surprised if I am satisfied by anything less than a complete U-turn on 4(6)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    2 i 'aliens' as a term must be replaced. Disagree with the bit about execs/managers- medics/teachers of exceptional calibre should be included
    ii e.g.?
    Teachers and medics are included under 'exceptional ability.' - Executives seems vital as sometimes Tim Cook will want to come and overlook Apple UK, or the Malaysia Airlines CEO fly to Ukraine to hep sort out the recent tragedy. The visas allows those individuals.

    Section 5
    1 min 3 years
    2 surely 1 makes this redundant- it should be cumulative service at any point in life
    3,4 agree
    Not sure I follow. If a foreign national had done 2 years of service and decided to apply for resident status they would not be eligible. The second clause allows people who have done 2 years already and are in their third year to apply and be successful, instead of waiting until their third year is over and then applying.


    Section 9
    1 a disagree
    b See Part I Section 4
    c as above
    2 disagree except in extreme cases. Transparency is key.
    The principle or the ratings? If there's a county with high levels of multiple diseases surely it's sensible to make them undergo a more thorough medical test?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    What an excellent decision. It seems as if a few here are obsessed with the 'Citizens of the Universe' global free movement idea.
    And some are quite happy to send a man away to be tortured.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Since when did suing the armed forces come into the picture?!

    If your concern is cost, why not just remove the right to legal aid rather than the entire right to appeal? (not that I would support this either - I just want an explanation on this point).
    You asked if UKIP would stop people suing the government. I replied saying no except in exceptional circumstances e.g. suing the armed forces (assuming armed forces are an extension of government foreign policy)

    Deportation cases are not always evidence based. They are often concerned with whether laws are being followed. You complain that unelected judges make a decision on this - but they are merely deciding whether laws passed by the UK Parliament have been adhered to. I see no issue with this.
    True but often the law is open to interpretation or there is no specific law. For example, human rights laws and using 'right to family' to avoid deportation. Alternatively there may be no law so a court blocks deportation, the government may introduce a law to make deportation possible but current law says UK law at the time of the 'offence' applies. Someone could find a loop hole, exploit it, cause damage to the UK but not be deported due to acting within the loophole. The HS having a decision making power would allow him or her to retrospectively apply a law in extreme cases. My previous comment also applies to this.

    I'll await the second reading - and whilst generally against this bill anyway, I must say I'd be surprised if I am satisfied by anything less than a complete U-turn on 4(6)
    We will have to wait and see. I don't think there will be a full U-turn - insert Thatcher quote - but there will be a rewording making sure it's only in extreme cases such as terrorism, murder, rape regardless of court ruling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    And some are quite happy to send a man away to be tortured.
    He was adamant in preaching the destruction of Western civilisation and the UK. A supporter of 9/11 and 7/5 in some respects. He hated the country who afforded him the freedoms he so despised. I have no problem with such a person being tortured.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    He was adamant in preaching the destruction of Western civilisation and the UK. A supporter of 9/11 and 7/5 in some respects. He hated the country who afforded him the freedoms he so despised. I have no problem with such a person being tortured.
    It's nice therefore to know that the ECHR judges' views were slightly less mediaeval.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Responding to Article 2:
    Section 1
    1 ok
    2 see previous objections
    3 should be all rolled into one number as I suggested under Article 1 N.B. Numbering issues again!
    4 See previous objections.
    5 good
    6 do you mean 'at their own cost' and I'd prefer upon visa expiry
    7 ok
    8 agreed
    9 ok but should be able to be changed/upgraded if the type/nature of work changes

    Section 2
    ok

    Section 3
    No. Paying taxes/NI so why shouldn't they benefit from NHS at no cost?

    Section 4
    All entrants to UK must have full medical tests.

    Section 5
    As before

    Section 6
    Agreed

    Section 7
    Agreed though should extend to regional level too imo.
    5d I don't understand

    Section 8
    Disagree completely except in cases of intl/national emergencies

    Section 9
    Disagree

    Section 10
    Disagree with health insurance requirement of 3 and disagree with 4. For state welfare, 2 years is enough as I said before. On that note why keep copying out these sorts of conditions, why not give a reference to the 1st instance of it?

    Section 11
    Already implied by references in Health Insurance section. Again, all entrants to UK should have full medical assessments, split 50:50 between the Govt and applicant(s).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    True but often the law is open to interpretation or there is no specific law. For example, human rights laws and using 'right to family' to avoid deportation. Alternatively there may be no law so a court blocks deportation, the government may introduce a law to make deportation possible but current law says UK law at the time of the 'offence' applies. Someone could find a loop hole, exploit it, cause damage to the UK but not be deported due to acting within the loophole. The HS having a decision making power would allow him or her to retrospectively apply a law in extreme cases. My previous comment also applies to this.
    Seems a little far fetched to me, I must say.


    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    He was adamant in preaching the destruction of Western civilisation and the UK. A supporter of 9/11 and 7/5 in some respects. He hated the country who afforded him the freedoms he so despised. I have no problem with such a person being tortured.
    V686 - British Bill of Rights. TSR UKIP 2: Torture

    (1) No person shall be the subject of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment.

    Good to see you guys are consistent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Teachers and medics are included under 'exceptional ability.' - Executives seems vital as sometimes Tim Cook will want to come and overlook Apple UK, or the Malaysia Airlines CEO fly to Ukraine to hep sort out the recent tragedy. The visas allows those individuals.
    Ok. I'm absolutely adamant about the term 'alien' being replaced however.



    (Original post by Politisphere)
    Not sure I follow. If a foreign national had done 2 years of service and decided to apply for resident status they would not be eligible.
    I am saying they should.

    (Original post by Politisphere)
    The principle or the ratings? If there's a county with high levels of multiple diseases surely it's sensible to make them undergo a more thorough medical test?
    My point is that ALL applicants should face the same, most thorough medical test, and should only have to foot 1/2 the bill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    My point is that ALL applicants should face the same, most thorough medical test, and should only have to foot 1/2 the bill.
    Okay but why only half the bill? Why should taxpayers here have to pay for the privilege of someone taking and maybe failing the test? What about a compromise on the govt. paying half if they pass or zero if they fail?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Okay but why only half the bill? Why should taxpayers here have to pay for the privilege of someone taking and maybe failing the test? What about a compromise on the govt. paying half if they pass or zero if they fail?
    Because their economy benefits especially when applicants are self-sufficient. Maybe... Have you looked at my response to Article 2? I don't know why you have to repeat clauses again and again instead of referencing them after one use and adding any relevant deviations, would make it far shorter and would save me repeating/having to re-iterate my points.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    Because their economy benefits especially when applicants are self-sufficient. Maybe... Have you looked at my response to Article 2? I don't know why you have to repeat clauses again and again instead of referencing them after one use and adding any relevant deviations, would make it far shorter and would save me repeating/having to re-iterate my points.
    I have, yes, Article 1 and 2 were different altogether. One was a visa one was residentship hence the similarities needed to be written out twice (just a legal technicality). The remaining article do reference things to a final section 13 I think it is. Things that appear similar are usually different or only warrant one little clause so it's easier to write them out instead of referring back to a final clause.

    Look at the Immigration Act 1971 and Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 to see how repeat clauses all referenced does not work. Most of the act, although 100 pages long, is repeated. We decided to follow the legal technicalities in writing this bill.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, certainly not.

    Either way, would it not be better to carry out an investigation into the danger of countries, like Australia did, but for the UK? Surely that would be better for the public to see!
    Or is it for TSR purposes only? If this was was an actual Bill, in real life, I would expect a full investigation to be done!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattvr)
    No, certainly not.

    Either way, would it not be better to carry out an investigation into the danger of countries, like Australia did, but for the UK? Surely that would be better for the public to see!
    Or is it for TSR purposes only? If this was was an actual Bill, in real life, I would expect a full investigation to be done!
    Mainly TSR purposes. Using Australia's decision allows us to use reliable (I think it's safe to say they didn't cut corners) decisions in context of a bill. We could say "and do an investigation into..." but that's just silly. And obviously we're not going to bother doing an actual investigation into the word for the sake of a virtual bill.

    However, for reading two that will probably be replaced so everyone receives a medical check.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Mainly TSR purposes. Using Australia's decision allows us to use reliable (I think it's safe to say they didn't cut corners) decisions in context of a bill. We could say "and do an investigation into..." but that's just silly. And obviously we're not going to bother doing an actual investigation into the word for the sake of a virtual bill.

    However, for reading two that will probably be replaced so everyone receives a medical check.
    As I thought. Unfortunately, TSR doesn't have a very strong workforce of Civil Servants.

    Yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattvr)
    As I thought. Unfortunately, TSR doesn't have a very strong workforce of Civil Servants.

    Yet.
    Haven't you heard? 'Model Civil Service' along with 'Model Local Councils' and 'Model Bureaucratic Money Wasters' is to be launched come September. There's speak of a 'Model Royal Family' too... It's becoming a model Universe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Politisphere)
    Haven't you heard? 'Model Civil Service' along with 'Model Local Councils' and 'Model Bureaucratic Money Wasters' is to be launched come September. There's speak of a 'Model Royal Family' too... It's becoming a model Universe.
    No, I haven't! Possibly as I'm still relatively new to this MHoC malarky. It's bizarre, but sounds pretty interesting. What about a Model House of Lords? That would be good!
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.