Migration Watch UK: News

Sir Andrew Green: 10 Reasons our Visa System is Rotten to the Core

Commentary in The Daily Mail 30 December, 2009

We got lucky - this time. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian graduate of University College London who tried to blow up a passenger aircraft over Detroit was turned down for a student visa when he applied for one in May.

He had been stupid enough to try to enrol in one of the 2,000 colleges the Government has at last realised are bogus.

But make no mistake, there are others who will succeed where he failed. Why?

Because the Government's new visa system is a disaster whose full results have yet to be seen. Yes, Abdulmutallab was stopped, but 370,000 student visas were issued last year.

How many of those were bogus students coming here to work on the black market? And how many were potential terrorists?

The simple answer is, we don't know and we may never know.

The new visa system requires a student to acquire 40 points before they are issued with a visa.

Thirty points are awarded automatically if he or she has a letter of acceptance from one of 3,000 educational institutions in Britain now licensed to issue such letters.

The other ten points are awarded if the student can show sufficient funds for the first year's fees and to live on during the year.

If they have the points, they get the visa. That's the theory. The reality, though, is that the system is rotten to the core. Here are ten reasons why. . .(See the full Daily Mail article)…

That day is not far off.

Recent case law on asylum and immigration

The government has recently suffered a number of setbacks in asylum and immigration cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Two cases are summarised in Migrationwatch Briefing Paper 8.25: The Libyan case and the Abu Qatada case.

Big majority for human rights opt-out over terror threat

There is overwhelming public support for a much tougher line to be taken against terrorists and suspected terrorists including withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights reveals a new poll out today.

A YouGov poll conducted on behalf of think-tank MigrationWatch showed that, when asked if the UK should renounce its membership of the Convention in order to have greater powers to deal with suspected and convicted terrorists, 61% agreed. Just 26% supported the proposition that Britain should remain a member of the Human Rights Convention, and not reduce human rights in response to the terrorist threat.

There was even greater support for the proposal that, having withdrawn, we should issue a warning and then deport convicted terrorists without further appeal - even to countries where they might face torture, with 67% in favour and 18% against. This view was held fairly uniformly across the UK and within different social groups, although the opposition to it among younger people was in the mid-20's.

When asked if Britain should have, and use, the right to deport foreigners suspected by the intelligence services, even if there is not enough court room evidence to bring them to trial, and they might be sent to countries where they could be tortured, 55% said we should while 26% were opposed.

There was a stronger response when asked whether Britain should have, and use, the right to imprison foreign terrorist suspects for as long as the authorities' judge necessary, unless they choose to return to their home countries, with a massive 75% supporting the proposition and just 13% opposed.

'These results demonstrate that the British people are tired of seeing the interests of those intent on destroying our way of life being put before the safety of themselves and their families,' said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch.

'Most people find it totally incomprehensible that convicted terrorists are able to remain in Britain after they have completed their prison sentences. Our continued membership also means we have lost the ability to remove people from this country even when there is good intelligence that their presence here is a real or potential risk to public safety.

'We accept that the ECHR was right for the time in which it was created, 50 years ago, but we are now in an entirely new situation and the public clearly believe that it is time that this new reality was recognised - and acted upon,' he said.

New UK human rights laws needed to counter new threat

The terrorist suspects arrested this week will be able to remain in Britain indefinitely and at public expense whether or not they are found guilty. That is the conclusion of a report issued today by the think-tank Migrationwatch which also recommends that we pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and write our own human rights law appropriate to the new age of terrorism.

The report points out that Britain's continued adherence to the ECHR is an attraction for terrorists to operate in and from Britain, secure in the knowledge that, even if convicted, they cannot be deported after serving their sentences.

Article 3 of the Convention prohibits torture or inhumane treatment in member countries. It has been extended by case law to prohibit deportation to countries where there is a risk of such treatment. It is no longer possible, therefore, to balance the risk to the deportee against the risk that he might pose to British society.

The ECHR also inhibits action against foreign citizens suspected of terrorism. Indefinite detention was struck down by the Law Lords in 2004. The replacement measures, Control Orders, have been so weakened by the courts that seven suspects have already absconded.

The report therefore recommends that Britain should withdraw from the ECHR giving 6 months notice, as is her right. At the same time, there should be a public announcement that, from the date of withdrawal, any foreign citizen arrested and subsequently convicted of a terrorist offence will be deported to his own country on completion of his sentence with a right of appeal that could only be exercised after departure.

Suspicion of terrorist offences would not be sufficient to justify deportation but the new terrorist threat requires that provision be made for lengthy periods of detention in the interests of public safety.

Thus, the ECHR and the 1998 Human Rights Act (which is based on it) should be replaced by a revised Act which, while preserving intact human rights generally, excludes convicted terrorists and provides for the long term detention of terror suspects.

Some have claimed that withdrawal from the ECHR would require withdrawal from the European Union (EU) but the report makes it clear that this is false.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said "We now face a terrorist threat of a completely different order from past threats. We are told that there are literally thousands of suspects some of whom are prepared to mount suicidal attacks against entirely civilian targets. The ECHR renders foreign terrorists safe from deportation and, in effect, provides them with a meal ticket for life. It was drawn up 50 years ago in entirely different circumstances. We must now pull out of it and write our own laws to protect human rights for the majority."

Government were warned over security weaknesses of visa system

It emerged today that the Government were warned two years ago that the system of visa checks was inadequate for countries where there were particular concerns over terrorism.

Think-tank Migrationwatch issued a warning on 23 August, 2005 that pressure on our visa sections could compromise security. The report said that large numbers of people from countries of concern were, in effect, being waved through the system because of pressure on immigration officers overseas to meet targets.

Commenting today, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘People are rightly concerned that our border controls have been allowed to crumble and they question why it is so easy for people to get into this country with only the most cursory of checks. The latest terrorist incidents should be a wake up call for the new government. It is not just a question of medical staff, the issue of all visas in countries which have a track record as a source of terrorism should now be subject to a root and branch review. Only those applicants interviewed by a UK based immigration officer should be permitted to enter Britain. The government has powers to take specific measures of this kind where necessary for immigration purposes. It should use them. The whole system needs tightening up in view of the risks we now face.’