- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 17,592
- Points
- 113
Asylum seekers are abusing human rights laws to resist their deportation from Britain, the Home Office has admitted.
Findings from Shabana Mahmood's department showed that illegal migrants were fighting their removal by deploying Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to private and family life.
The enshrined article has been manipulated as a way for asylum seekers to defy state-ordered deportation and, as a result, Britain has been called on to rip up the UK's commitment to the ECHR.
The usage of the article has led to cases, including the notorious case, where an Albanian criminal dodged deportation because his son turned his nose up at foreign chicken nuggets.
In 2025 alone, some 77,000 people were allowed to stay in the UK on account of the infamous clause, which makes up more than half of the 149,000 applications granted for family reasons.
Although Labour has said that it remains committed to the controversial convention, the Government ceded that reforms are necessary.
The article was originally drafted as a way to protect family units in the face of potential and genuine separation.
The same analysis also revealed that 54 per cent of appeals against Home Office refusals were upheld by courts under the Article.
Some 71 per cent of in-country grants on the family clause were given to migrants who had entered Britain illegally or were overstaying their visa.
Meanwhile, 86 per cent of people waiting to be deported in detenetion were set free after they triggered rights-based applications.
The costs over the lifetime for applicants across 2025 alone is estimated to sit at around £4.9billion, a weight which will be burdened by the British taxpayer.
From 2015/6 and 2025/6, immigration judges permitted 64,000 appeals on human rights grounds, the Home Office said.
Findings from Shabana Mahmood's department showed that illegal migrants were fighting their removal by deploying Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to private and family life.
The enshrined article has been manipulated as a way for asylum seekers to defy state-ordered deportation and, as a result, Britain has been called on to rip up the UK's commitment to the ECHR.
The usage of the article has led to cases, including the notorious case, where an Albanian criminal dodged deportation because his son turned his nose up at foreign chicken nuggets.
In 2025 alone, some 77,000 people were allowed to stay in the UK on account of the infamous clause, which makes up more than half of the 149,000 applications granted for family reasons.
Although Labour has said that it remains committed to the controversial convention, the Government ceded that reforms are necessary.
The article was originally drafted as a way to protect family units in the face of potential and genuine separation.
The same analysis also revealed that 54 per cent of appeals against Home Office refusals were upheld by courts under the Article.
Some 71 per cent of in-country grants on the family clause were given to migrants who had entered Britain illegally or were overstaying their visa.
Meanwhile, 86 per cent of people waiting to be deported in detenetion were set free after they triggered rights-based applications.
The costs over the lifetime for applicants across 2025 alone is estimated to sit at around £4.9billion, a weight which will be burdened by the British taxpayer.
From 2015/6 and 2025/6, immigration judges permitted 64,000 appeals on human rights grounds, the Home Office said.
