London Met: Deportation's Effect on Children and Family

This essay examines the multifaceted effects of deportation on children and families, particularly within the context of UK immigration law. It explores the legal frameworks, including Article 8 of the ECHR, that govern deportation decisions and their impact on family life. The study investigates the consequences of family separation for both deportees and those left behind, highlighting the vulnerability of children in these situations. The research considers the complexities of deportation, examining the legal implications of enforcing Article 8, the Windrush Generation, and analyzing various cases to compare deportation impacts. The essay also delves into the rationale behind deportation policies, including the UK Borders Act 2007 and the evolving rules regarding foreign criminals and asylum seekers. The study aims to evaluate the effects of deportation on children and families, emphasizing the importance of considering children's rights and the need for solutions that prioritize family reunification and child welfare.

Running Head: DEPORTATION
The Effect of Deportation on Children and Family
Student’s Name: Adepeluola Aiyere
Student ID 15035421
London Metropolitan University

Deportation 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Deportation 3
The Effect of Deportation on Children and Family
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Deportation is the forced departure of a foreigner from Russia to another state. Such a
tool is used when a foreign guest loses his legal right to reside in the Russian
Federation. Migrants are forced to leave the country voluntarily or forcibly under escort.
Mandatory deportation of legal immigrants convicted of even minor crimes leads to family
separations affecting an estimated 1.6 million children and adults, including American
citizens and permanent residents,
The population of undocumented migrants living in European countries has
significantly increased over the past decades. Presently there are more than 3 million
undocumented immigrants residing in the European Union (EU) member states, and most of
these individuals have lived in the EU member countries for more than 15 years. As a result
of this, the EU countries have resorted to applying measures of internal control by limiting
undocumented migrants’ access to privileges and services reserved for EU citizens in order to
force them to return to their home countries voluntarily. However, a significant number of
these immigrants are refuges of war and poverty from third world countries. Some of them
migrated to EU with their children whilst others bore children whilst in the host countries.
The immigration bill, which is supposed to facilitate the expulsion of illegal
immigrants from the country, was created with good intentions, but it will not significantly
reduce the level of immigration, said MP from the Conservative Party Dominic Raab. The
politician believes that the bill prepared by the government must be amended, according to
which the UK will have the right to expel from the country those immigrant criminals whose
prison term exceeds one year. Dominik Raab, in an interview on the BBC-4 radio station,

Deportation 4
described his proposal as very practical.
At the moment, many immigrants who have broken the law are challenging the decision to
deport from the UK, relying on the eighth article of the European Convention on Human
Rights. According to this article, an immigrant who breaks the law can stay in the country if
he has relatives here. 89% of successful appeals against the deportation decision use this right
to “family life”. Raab believes that even if an immigrant has relatives in the UK, he can be
expelled from the country if his sentence exceeds one year. The only reason an illegal
immigrant can be left in the UK should be a threat to life or health in his home country.
However, the Ministry of Internal Affairs is already trying to simplify the procedure for the
deportation of illegal and illegal immigrants. Thus, the number of grounds for appealing
against a deportation decision will be reduced from 17 to 4. In addition, foreign criminals can
be expelled from the UK even before the outcome of their appeal, provided that their life or
health is not seriously threatened at home.
Background
For decades tens of thousands of English children from poor families have been sent
halfway around the world to live "a better life" but many of them have been victims of
slavery and rape.
Most of the countries - members of the European Union and other major democracies,
when making the final decision on deportation, take into account family circumstances and
other ties with the country of residence. However, in the United States, immigration judges
have their hands tied: they cannot do anything for protecting the family or recognizing those
notable services that non-citizens have in front of society or the country.

Deportation 5
latest plans to reform UK Immigration Rules include tightening laws on illegal
migrants and offenders in an effort to “protect our borders” and curb abuse of the asylum
system by those who are not allowed to stay in the UK.
In accordance with the current Immigration rules, the UK Home Office can expel a
migrant from the country if the migrant does not have a valid permit to stay in the UK. On the
other hand, deportation orders are generally used to expel individuals (offenders) whose
actions are considered contrary to the public good, and these orders allow such persons to be
held in custody pending actual deportation. Moreover, deportation orders prohibit offenders
from returning to the UK while the orders remain in effect and will revoke any permission to
stay in the country prior to or during the deportation order.
Currently, rejected asylum seekers (who have exhausted all their rights of appeal and
are therefore subject to expulsion) can submit new evidence to the UK Home Office as part
of a “follow-up”. This procedure practically gives asylum seekers an opportunity to put
forward new arguments about why they should be allowed to stay in the UK and prevents
their immediate deportation. In addition, an increasing number of prisoners who are nearing
the end of their prison sentences have been found to make late or perceived asylum
applications (often citing health reasons, or claiming to be victims of modern slavery) in an
attempt to delay or prevent your deportation from the UK. Immigration experts also point out
It is believed that the ambitious plans of the UK Home Secretary are aimed at the
“prompt removal” of rejected asylum applicants by avoiding last-minute appeals and “further
submissions”, as asylum seekers will be required to submit all their arguments and evidence
upon request. submitting your asylum applications. With regard to foreign offenders, Priti
Patel is planning to “urgently expel” criminals sentenced to 12 months or more in prison,
although she admits that this is not an easy task. In addition, an automatic prison sentence is
also offered for deported offenders who return to the UK.

Deportation 6
While the UK cannot (in view of the European Convention on Human Rights) expel
offenders or rejected asylum seekers to states where they may be subjected to torture,
inhuman treatment or other violence, these proposals may also remain “unenforceable” for
legal and logistical hurdles that are not easy to overcome, ”said David Wood, former Director
General of the Immigration Enforcement Service at the UK Home Office.
Research Problems
The impact of deportation on families of illegal immigrants residing in continents
such as North America and Asia have been extensively studied. However, considering the
magnitude of the repatriation incidences in Europe, there is an astonishingly limited amount
of legal research publications available that explores the problem from the family’s
standpoint. When an undocumented alien is repatriated, the deportation impacts both the
deportee and also the family that is left behind in various ways. Therefore, this study analyse
the implication of deportation on the children and families of undocumented foreigners living
in the UK.
The UN has repeatedly drawn the attention of the American authorities to the
consequences for children of the so-called "zero tolerance" policy, which provides for the
automatic imprisonment of migrants - including asylum seekers. At the same time, their
children are taken away from them and placed in detention centres. Experts note that even
children under one year old who are breastfed by mothers, and children with disabilities who
need special care are separated from their parents.
A large number of foreign citizens enter the territory of our country in accordance
with the migration legislation, but often, for one reason or another, they lose their grounds for
staying in Russia, as a result of which they become illegal migrants.

Deportation 7
Rationale
Deportation is a statutory power granted to the UK Home Secretary whereby he has
the power to order the removal of a person from the UK if the person is not a UK citizen and
the person is considered to be in the country “not conducive to the public good”. The UK
Borders Act 2007 states that a deportation order must be issued against a “foreign criminal”
subject to certain exceptions.
The most commonly used exception is that the deportation of a person from the UK
would violate their human rights (in particular the right to family and private life). Prior to
2012, the rights to family or privacy were weighed against the public interest using the
proportionality criterion from the Razgar case, taking into account a wide variety of factors.
This approach led to significant debate and criticism, not only because foreign
criminals were given the right to appeal deportation decisions, but also because foreign
criminals (albeit a small number) won those appeals, seemingly on little private grounds. and
family life.
The government argued that individual rights were not sufficiently balanced against
the public interest, and too much weight was placed on unsubstantiated and unconvincing
human rights arguments, leaving foreign criminals in the UK. As a result, in July 2012, new
rules were introduced to define the characteristics that must be contained in a treatment based
on family or private life in order to outweigh the public interest in deportation cases. The
updated rules also stated that any foreign criminal sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment or
more cannot rely on exceptions based on private or family life. And the decision on
deportation can be canceled only if the presence of "very convincing circumstances" is
proved.

Deportation 8
Aims and Objective
The main aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of deportation on children
and family. The objectives of the study are following;
1. To explore the Windrush Generation in little work has been done
2. To review legal literature and cases on separation of families and evaluate the
effects of this separation on household members of the deportee in relation to Article 8 of the
ECHR.
3. To speculate about the current issues and their future impact investigate the
impact of deportation.
4. To analyse legal implication of enforcing Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to
deportation of undocumented immigrants.
5. To analyse two different cases and compare them to find impact of
deportation.
Migrant children are especially vulnerable - especially in those cases when no one is
accompanying them, they travel without parents or relatives. Many of them experienced
trauma and harassment even before they arrived in Europe. They need to be accepted with
care and respect for their rights. And yet there are many reports of harsh treatment.
State authorities must never forget that migrant children, including those who seek
asylum, are children first and foremost. Children's rights should always be a priority and all
actions should be based on the best interests of the child. In other words: control over
immigration should never override the need to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child .
Homes to Return: High Risk Projects

Deportation 9
A number of European Governments are currently considering possible solutions to
facilitate the return of unaccompanied children. The authorities of the Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden and the United Kingdom, as well as Denmark as an observer, are trying to establish
an institution in Afghanistan called the “Reception Center”. The coordinator, Sweden, is
currently discussing specific premises with the authorities in Afghanistan. The idea is that the
children will stay in this center until they can reunite with their families.
Local and international NGOs, as well as bodies within the UN and the Council of
Europe, have expressed concern about the plan. The expert report on this issue emphasizes
that it is almost impossible to find a family of children in Afghanistan. Lessons learned - so
far limited - of placing children in homes for return to countries affected by armed hostilities
has also shown that such procedures pose a very high risk of child trafficking for sexual and
military purposes, and overall risk of victimization. persecution in the country of
return. Many children disappeared a few days after their return to these countries.
The principle of non-refoulement prohibits forced return to places where there is a
threat to a person's life or freedom. It is a fundamental principle that children should never be
returned to places where their safety and well-being are at risk. Thus, the states returning
children are responsible for their further fate.
Deportation often cause injury
The best interests of the child are often not fully taken into account when making
decisions on the forced return of migrant children. Some deportation procedures involve the
use of force - and even when force is used against adult family members, the child is also
traumatized.
Such decisions often lead to juvenile detention, with or without family. Thousands of
migrant children are detained in Europe every year, although they have not committed any
crimes. This practice still exists in many countries, even where it is prohibited. France is an

Deportation 10
example of this. And although cases of detention of underage migrants still occur, it is no
longer as common as it was before the decision to ban this approach in 2012.
Forced return can lead to family separation, for example when parents have different
nationalities and are deported to different countries, or when one or both parents are deported
and the child is not.
Deportation decisions are often made even when the unaccompanied migrant child
does not have adequate access to asylum procedures - especially in countries without
effective guardianship systems such as Greece. It is always necessary, and as soon as
possible, to appoint a guardian who can represent the child in the asylum procedure.
Expulsion to countries unknown to the child
In recent years, Western European countries, mainly Austria, Germany, Sweden and
Switzerland, have forcibly deported several thousand people to Kosovo * and other Balkan
countries. A number of children affected by this decision were born in the host country and
have no connection at all with the place where their parents fled.
And now they find themselves in a country whose language they do not speak, where
they have inadequate housing conditions and often limited opportunities for obtaining school
education. Many of those returnees belong to minorities, especially Roma. It is easy to
imagine the tragedy of a child who is forced to leave the country, school and friends.
Best interests of the child
Detention, separation from their parents, the use of dubious X-ray tests to determine
age, hasty decisions to deport ... Migrant children do face an increased risk of violation of
their rights. And those who are separated from their families obviously face an even greater
risk.
It's time to rethink the policy on migrant children. Children are children first and
foremost, and public authorities in European countries must always act in their best

Deportation 11
interests. Forced returns to countries where the best interests of children may not be met must
end.
///////
Literature Review
Hundreds of children, including children as young as 10, who were born in the UK for most
of their lives or even were fined or warned by the Home Office for criminal acts such as petty
theft Application for British citizenship. Activists estimate that in the past five years, as many
as one child per week has been denied a British citizenship application for failing to meet the
requirements of good character. This prompted members of Congress and activists to call on
the government to abolish the "good character" test for children in citizenship applications.
The Runnymede Trust Fund and the British Citizens and Children's Registration Project
(PRCBC) highlighted the dangerous effects of denial of their home country citizenship
applications for young children because of minor crimes. The trust fund stated that this
impact could curb rehabilitation and could potentially increase children’s participation in the
criminal justice system. It believes that rejecting children from their home countries in this
way greatly affects whether the children will choose more criminal lives.
According to the director of PRCBC Solange Ballades-Simmonds, the 2006 Immigration Act
severely affected the intent of the British Nationality Act of 1981 and no longer protects
children close to the UK.
The 2006 Immigration Law has brought many political opinions on the current child
citizenship application process. This is because as many as 400 children were denied
citizenship applications because they did not meet the "good character" test, which gave rise
to the main belief that they should be abandoned. In particular, Labour MP David
Lamy stated that "good character requirements target minority children and children in need
of care", which in turn "drags more innocent people into uncertainty and despair." He
believes that this policy should help those who "have been drowned in the incompetence of
the government."
In addition, Scottish National Party Member Stuart Macdonald stated that the requirement for
British citizenship should be based on "their power to connect with this country, because this
is their home, and this should be the end of the problem."
However, the Ministry of the Interior has been trying to defend the current policy on the
grounds that only children 10 years and older have good character requirements because "this
is the age of criminal responsibility."
The Ministry of the Interior also stated that "the revised guidelines on the requirements of
good character will be published soon" and we look forward to seeing how activists will
evaluate the updated policy.
In the context of globalization, cross-border population flows are accelerating, domestic
immigrants continue to increase, and multiculturalism has become a more common mode of
national integration. Major Western countries such as Australia, Canada, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Sweden, and the Netherlands have adopted multiculturalism

Deportation 12
policies to resolve domestic ethnic conflicts and the integration of immigrants. For example,
the Netherlands adopts different policies for different groups: different education systems are
set up for Catholics and Protestants, and they are allowed to set up their own trade unions and
their own media. In addition to providing English education to various minorities, the United
Kingdom also provides education in their own language . Among the existing research
results, the assimilation model is considered to be a national integration model that is
opposed to multiculturalism. Before the 1970s, the Australian government adopted an
Angloization policy, that is, an assimilation policy, hoping that Australia would be a country
of Anglo descent. France has also implemented assimilation policies for foreign races and
immigrants. Thailand has adopted the same policy towards many ethnic minorities in the
country. However, in the context of globalization, the awareness of various ethnic groups to
maintain and inherit their own culture has become stronger and stronger, and the assimilation
model has become increasingly difficult to sustain. In recent years, the Malaysian
government has been under pressure from the domestic ethnic groups and is gradually
changing its assimilation policy in the past. Through the analysis of the existing literature, the
existing studies have tried to simplify the study of the national integration model. Although
the method is desirable, it cannot fully reflect the connotation of national integration. In terms
of process, national integration is a long-term process. It is impossible for any country to
adopt only one of the above-mentioned policies or models. Some countries have used both
assimilation policies and multiculturalism; in terms of content, national integration It is not
only the construction of national identity and respect for different cultures, modern nation-
states are also paying more and more attention to the satisfaction of people's rights, which are
all means to achieve national integration.
the connotation of national integration at the social level
According to the classification developed by a research team of Queen’s University in
Canada, this article divides the minority groups in domestic society into three categories:
aboriginal people (indigenous minorities), minorities (natal minorities) and immigrant groups
(immigrant minorities). Indigenous peoples refer to groups that lived in the country before the
main ethnic group. Minorities refer to groups that have a certain population size and region,
their own history, language and culture, and autonomous history in a sovereign country. They
even have their own national identity and nationalist aspirations. The immigrant group is a
minority group who later immigrated to the country. The United States, Australia, Canada,
New Zealand and other countries all have indigenous people. The social and cultural policies
of these countries have basically experienced the evolution process from assimilation to
multiculturalism. In the history of Australia, the policy of assimilation has been implemented.
The police sent the children of the indigenous people in the frontier areas to the boarding
school thousands of miles away for training. The Canadian government also implemented
similar policies from 1870 to 1970, forcing approximately 150,000 Aboriginal children
between the ages of 5 and 16 to go to boarding schools far away from the Aboriginal
reservations for education. There, they could not speak their native language and were
physically and mentally abused. In the 1950s, the Canadian government even moved 87 Inuit
to live in the Arctic to strengthen the country's influence in the Arctic. In recent years, these
countries have begun to reflect and apologize. In 2008, the Australian government apologized

Deportation 13
and compensated the indigenous people. In 2006, a Canadian court ordered the Canadian
government to compensate more than 80,000 indigenous students in boarding schools with
US$1.9 billion. On June 11, 2008, then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally
apologized to them in Parliament. Two years later, the Canadian government apologized to
the Inuit who were resettled in the Arctic in the 1950s. In recent years, for the indigenous
people, various countries have begun to adopt multiculturalism policies, mainly from the
aspects of land rights, cultural rights and political rights: recognition of indigenous people’s
ownership of land, respect for indigenous people’s right to form autonomous governments,
and respect for the original The cultural and custom rights of the inhabitants (hunting, fishing,
traditional customs, etc.), giving the indigenous people the same legal status and rights as the
main ethnic groups, and even establishing the representative rights of the indigenous people
in the central government.
Quebecers in Canada, Macedonians in Greece, Corsicans in France, Ryukyus in Japan,
Catalans in Spain, Scots and Welsh in the UK are all ethnic minorities. The separatism of
ethnic minorities has long been a problem in the integration of related countries. Facing the
separatist tendency of ethnic minorities, some countries choose cultural assimilation policies,
and some choose multiculturalism policies. Among them, Greece basically adopts the
assimilation policy for Macedonians and Japan for Ryukyu people, while other countries
mainly implement the following multiculturalist policies in terms of autonomy, language
rights and representation: respect the autonomy of ethnic minorities, and construct the
country in a federal form; Respect the language rights of ethnic minorities, establish ethnic
minority languages as official languages in ethnic regions, subsidize ethnic minority language
schools and ethnic minority language media; respect the representation rights of ethnic
minorities, and allow ethnic minorities to have their own rights in the central government,
parliaments, and courts Support the participation of ethnic minorities in international
organizations. For example, Quebec in Canada has extensive autonomy in the fields of
education, medical care, justice, taxation, and immigration policies. French is even the only
official language of the province. Most countries in the world are multi-ethnic countries. The
integration measures of relevant countries basically choose between assimilation policies and
multiculturalism policies. Austria, Denmark, and Japan have long chosen assimilation
policies; Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, the United States and other
countries have recently implemented multiculturalism policies to meet the needs of various
ethnic groups in respect of multiculturalism: public schools have opened Multicultural
courses and public media allow minorities to open audio channels and open media, respect
religious immunity, allow dual nationality, and officially fund the cultural activities of
minority groups. Canada has been implementing multiculturalism since 1971, and it is a
country with a relatively long-lasting and successful implementation of multiculturalism
policies. Australia has also achieved remarkable results. Although the multiculturalism policy
has been generally questioned in European countries in recent years, there has been no
tendency to abandon the multiculturalism policy.
It can be seen that when nation-states integrate society, they generally choose between
cultural assimilation policies and multiculturalism policies. Under the assimilation policy, the
country promotes a common language and religion, common cultural values, common
symbols, common holidays, and a unified education policy. When different social groups
abandon their own social characteristics and adopt the culture of the dominant group, the

Deportation 14
assimilation can be achieved. After the French Revolution, successive governments adopted
assimilation policies at home. The Kurds in Turkey have also accepted the assimilation policy
and actively integrated into the political, economic and social affairs of the mainstream
group. But the assimilation policy has also been criticized, and it is considered that it does not
respect the social culture of minority groups. Pluralism or pluralism (Pluralist
politics/multiculturalism) refers to the fact that in a pluralistic society, different cultural
groups live together and are not mixed in a political unit. Each group has its own government
and is a political unit. No matter how different the groups are, they cannot go beyond the
concept of pluralism. Usually, in each political unit, the dominant party controls state power.
The realization of pluralism generally depends on three aspects: political equality, economic
decentralization and cultural pluralism. In politics, all groups and races enjoy equal rights.
Economically, implement the decentralization of power between the central and local
governments, and give local governments full power to develop independently. Culturally,
respect and protect multiculturalism, abandon the assimilation policy, and achieve this
through preferential employment policies, preferential policies in the education system, and
cultural protection and inheritance.
Modern Great Britain belongs to one of the most diverse in terms of ethnic and religious
composition of the population of European countries. Powerful migration processes in the
second half of the XX century. and the beginning of the XXI century. led to the formation in
the country of large communities of migrants from Asia, Africa and Europe. Approximately
every sixth inhabitant of Foggy Albion today belongs to one or another ethnic minority. The
total number of migrants and their descendants exceeds 10 million. The life of the British
society of our time is already difficult to imagine without Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis,
Poles, Africans, Chinese, visitors from the Caribbean archipelago, as well as mixed ethnic
groups. Migrants from Sub-Saharan African countries began to actively arrive in the former
metropolis in the 1960s and 1970s. By the 2010s. the number of African Britons has
exceeded 1 million and continues to grow rapidly, both due to high birth rates and thanks to a
small but stable influx from Africa and European countries. The most numerous African
diasporas were created by immigrants from Nigeria, South Africa, Somalia, Kenya,
Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Ghana. Speakers of over 250 African languages can be
found on the streets of British cities. Africans try to preserve the languages of their countries
of origin. The most common in Great Britain are such African languages as Somali, Yoruba,
Shona, Akan, Igbo, Lingala, Amharic. The forerunner of the massive arrival of Africans in
modern Britain was African migration in the colonial era, during the formation of England as
a world power, "mistress of the seas", from the 16th century. to the first half of the XX
century. Information about the Africans of the colonial period who lived in the metropolis is
fragmentary and scarce. However, even on the basis of the available data, it is possible to
fairly reliably trace the main channels of penetration of Africans into the UK, the number of
African migrants, their areas of employment, social status, social and even political activity.

Deportation 15
post-war UK policies led to the migration crisis
Generation Windrush
In 1948, Empire Windrush entered Jamaica to bring home British troops on the island. At the
same time, there were still many empty seats on the ship, and rumors had already spread in
Jamaica that a new citizenship law would soon be passed. This document introduced a special
status - a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Citizen of the United Kingdom and
Colonies - CUKC), which allowed residents of London's overseas possessions to move to the
metropolis. Therefore, hundreds of inhabitants of the islands of the Caribbean Sea, without
hesitation, bought a ticket to the Empire Windrush. “After the Second World War, Britain
was short of labor, and therefore it was decided to involve the inhabitants of the colonies. The
British society did not resist this - the decision looked logical, "said Elena Ananyeva, head of
the Center for British Studies at the Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences, in an
interview with RT. According to experts, the fact that the first settlers arrived in the UK from
Jamaica was a kind of regularity. “The Caribbean islands were closely associated with the
metropolis. There was practically no indigenous population left on them; their inhabitants
arrived or were imported from the Eastern Hemisphere. They were close to English culture,
and Britain itself was a distant great homeland for them. They did not separate themselves
from the British Empire. On June 22, 1948, 1,027 passengers landed on British soil from the
Empire Windrush, 492 of whom were immigrants from the West Indies. And on January 1,
1949, the UK citizenship law officially entered into force.
Western "education"
The Empire Windrush's passengers were soon followed by other migrants, mostly from the
West Indies and South Asia. In 1961, 100 thousand immigrants from the Indian subcontinent
already lived in the British Isles, and 10 years later - about 500 thousand. And at first there
were no special problems with the placement of migrants in the United Kingdom. “Initially,
the visitors were aimed at fully embracing the culture of the host country. Then the
immigrants were more focused on earnings, ”said Ananyeva. When post-war migration was
just beginning, Britain was convinced that Western society was able to reshape
representatives of other cultures according to its patterns, said Valery Korovin, director of the
international non-profit foundation Center for Geopolitical Expertise. “They wanted to bring
up immigrants from Africa and Asia in the Western cultural tradition and make them people
of the West,” Korovin said in a conversation with RT. In addition, in the first half of the
1960s, a scientific and technological revolution was gaining momentum in the country, and a
large banking sector was formed. The economy required qualified personnel, and official
London introduced in 1962, 1968, and also in the early 1980s, a number of restrictive
measures aimed at reducing the flow of people from South Asia and Africa to live and work
in the Kingdom. Indeed, in the 1970s, about 1.5 million immigrants from the Commonwealth
countries already lived in Britain. However, the first immigrants from the so-called Windrush
generation in 1971 were granted unlimited residence permits in London. At the same time,
attempts to assimilate visitors were unsuccessful. "The children of immigrants found
themselves in a void: they lost touch with their historical homeland, but at the same time they
did not feel that they were welcome in Great Britain,"

Deportation 16
The peak of the politics of multiculturalism in Britain came in the late 1990s - early 2000s.
However, the terrorist attacks on the London Underground, which were carried out in 2005
by descendants of immigrants who were born in the UK, sparked a heated debate in society
about how to "embed" newcomers and their children into society. “The policy of
multiculturalism allowed ethnic groups to live in isolation in their communities. But in 2011,
the British Prime Minister announced its failure, ”
The integration process is no longer possible
As of 2011, about 87% of the United Kingdom's population was fair skinned. However, the
demographic situation in London by this time looked quite different. The capital was home to
only 45% of fair-skinned Britons and 14% of fair-skinned immigrants from other countries.
Over 18% of London's population were immigrants from Asia, more than 13% - from Africa.
Experts note that the model of interethnic relations that existed for decades in the UK has
given rise to a number of serious problems. This point of view is partly supported by
publications in the British press over the past few years. We are talking about crimes against
British citizens and, in particular, children. In several small towns in the United Kingdom,
such as Rotherham and Telford, Pakistani diasporas have committed acts of violence against
minors. Local authorities and police in the comments to the press emphasize that "they were
afraid to be branded as racists" and therefore did not react to what was happening for years.
Even after a huge scandal erupted in the country, only a part of the defendants in these cases
ended up in the dock. “The process of integrating immigrants in the UK is no longer
possible. There are too many of them for this. Moreover, the process of reverse assimilation
began. Some Britons try on the identity of visiting peoples, "Valery Korovin said in an
interview with RT. In order to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of society, the British
security forces have developed an "anti-migrant" scheme of actions. So, the BBC and The
Guardian wrote that the UK Home Office had a formal database on the expulsion of migrants
outside the United Kingdom. However, the deportation threatened not the criminals, but the
respectable Jamaican pensioners, representatives of that very generation of Windrush.
The fact is that the British Ministry of the Interior in 2010 destroyed the documents on the
basis of which immigrants from the West Indies were legalized on the territory of Great
Britain, as a result of which it became possible to register almost any visitor as illegal.
Another scandal erupted, as a result of which the British Home Secretary Amber Rudd was
forced to resign . At the same time, bringing to justice the immigrants who violated the law ,
today in the United Kingdom is very problematic. According to Valery Korovin, ethnic
enclaves have long turned into powerful political entities. “The social and political position
of immigrants from the former British colonies in the United Kingdom is constantly
strengthening. You don't have to go far for examples. Suffice it to recall that Sadiq Khan,
who comes from a family of Pakistani immigrants, became mayor of London in 2016, " Anna
Vilovatykh, a senior researcher at RISS, candidate of political sciences , said in an interview
with RT . In 1998, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of modern immigration
to the United Kingdom, one of London's squares was renamed Windrush. The model of the
ship was used at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics in London. Modern British
people realize that people from the former colonies have made a huge contribution to the

Deportation 17
development of their country, but at the same time the lifestyle that migrants lead today does
not suit the native inhabitants of the British Isles.
..
In early May 2016, Theresa May, then Interior Minister, attempted an unprecedented act of
deportation - expelling all foreign students who received visas through the English Language
Test (TEIOC).
TEIOC is an English language test designed to measure skills for people working in an
international environment, and passing it was sufficient reason for people to obtain a visa to
enter the UK. However, after Panorama TV exposed one of the colleges in London that
conducted tests on corruption grounds, the Home Office decided to deport all foreigners who
received a visa after passing the test.
As the Politika website noted, many families were immediately divided - they were woken up
at dawn, husbands were separated from their wife and sent to pre-trial detention centers
before deportation. The only crime of these people was that they passed the test previously
recommended by the Ministry of Internal Affairs [8] . 48,000 of them were deported. 70%
were Indian citizens. On 23 May 2016, the Chamber of Immigration and Asylum of the
Upper Tribunal suspended this practice, and measures were also taken to return those
previously deported. [nine]
She made an especially hard impression in 2016-17. deportation of Afghan citizens seeking
asylum. They were sent to the provinces of Afghanistan, which are considered "safe",
i.e. controlled not by the Taliban, but by government forces. However, it is known that the
Afghan government controls only 60% of the country's territory. In other regions, Islamist
groups dominate, or active hostilities are taking place. Of the 90 groups recognized by the
UN as terrorist and included in the sanctions lists, 20 are based in Afghanistan.
The total number of Afghans forced to leave their place of permanent residence and seek
refuge, as already indicated, has reached 1.2 million. Their return became possible after the
decision of the governments of Germany and Great Britain that Afghanistan, namely those of
its provinces, which are controlled by the government (basically it is only the capital -
Kabul), is a "safe" place for the return of refugees.
In the UK, there have been cases of racial profiling, including violence during identity checks
and arrests. This follows from a 2016 special investigation by the Nomad Movement, as well
as from a parliamentary investigation by Labor MP David Lammy, who concluded that
“Metropolitan police may be over-targeting young people of color and black ethnicity, as a
result of which they are subject to increased abuse by courts, prisons and the justice system. ”
Figures for 2016 show that of the 3,626 people registered in one of the police offender
databases, 78% were black, with another 9% from other ethnic minorities. Moreover, ethnic
minorities make up 40% of London's population. Teresa May also acknowledged the racial
bias of the criminal justice system. After she became prime minister, she stated in one of her

Deportation 18
speeches: "If you are black, you are treated more cruelly through the criminal justice system
than if you are white."
…
Britain, taking advantage of the exceptions from the EU immigration policy and not entering
the Schengen zone, practically does not face directly the actual flow of immigrants from
North Africa and the Middle East and does not participate in resolving the migrant crisis in
the EU. Over the next five years, London plans to house 20,000 Syrian refugees from the
camps directly located in the conflict area. D. Cameron advocates the settlement of problems
in the regions of exodus of migrants, as well as the arrangement of refugee camps in order to
reduce their flow to Europe. Britain provides aid to developing countries, primarily Africa, in
the amount of 0.7% of GNI, and is also the second largest donor in Syria (over 1 billion
pounds). Nevertheless, the immigration problem as a whole has a serious impact on the
domestic and foreign policy of the country.
The net annual immigration is 300 thousand people, and half are from outside the EU. So,
from June 2014 to June 2015, a record number of Chinese - about 90 thousand, Indians -
more than 86 thousand people entered the UK (Indians are the largest non-European diaspora
in the country).
In 2014, 8.3 million inhabitants (13%) of Britain were born abroad, of which 5.3 million were
in non-EU countries; 40% of overseas-born Britons have received or already had UK
citizenship. Since 2013, the annual inflow of EU mobile citizens has exceeded the inflow of
immigrants from third countries.
Illegal immigration is estimated at 1.1 million people (in 2010), and it continues to grow. The
share of deported or legalized immigrants is negligible. Moreover, in 1998, under the Labor
Party, the border control when leaving the country was abolished, which does not allow
keeping records of illegal immigration. Only in May 2015, under the conservatives, the
accounting was restored (transport companies are obliged to provide information on
departure by tickets), but the official data has not yet been published.
Britain during the period of Labor (1997-2010) pursued a policy of multiculturalism that
emphasized the rights of groups represented by various ethnic and religious communities,
rather than the individual rights of citizens. This method of social and cultural adaptation of
immigrants has replaced the attempts to carry out assimilation. During that period, the model
of "tough" multiculturalism was actively introduced: a wide system of measures was adopted
to support national minorities in order to preserve their culture and traditions, as well as a
number of laws against any form of discrimination on national, religious or racial grounds.
The most active part of the immigrant community in the UK is Muslim, most of whom are
concentrated in metropolitan areas. 2001 and 2011 censuses show that in England and Wales
(the main areas of residence of immigrants and their descendants), the proportion of Muslims
increased from 3.07 to 4.8%, or 2.8 million people, with about 60% of them under 30 years
old. 46% of Muslims live in 10% of the most depressed areas of the country. Mono-religious
and mono-ethnic quarters have emerged, even "Sharia zones" in which the laws of the
country are not fully effective.

Deportation 19
The Labor Party was interested in an influx of immigrants, since they mostly voted for
it. However, due to British military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the sympathy of
Muslim voters has shifted from Labor to Liberal Democrats who condemned the war in
Iraq. As the proportion of the Muslim population grows, the inter-party struggle for Muslim
votes is intensifying.
The Conservative Party did not share the policy of multiculturalism, insisting on
assimilation. D. Cameron pointed out back in 2008 that multiculturalism leads to legalized
"cultural apartheid" and to the growth of radicalism at the expense of state funding of a part
of extremist ethnic communities and religious organizations. In 2011, at the Munich Security
Conference, Cameron acknowledged the failure of multiculturalism, since, in his opinion, it
contributes to the alienation of new subjects from a single civil "British identity", parallel and
closed existence of communities within one state. Cameron considers the main threat to be
terrorist attacks on the country, which are carried out by British citizens themselves -
representatives of the second and third generation of immigrants.
Tolerance is increasingly giving way to personal identification based on ethnic, cultural or
confessional characteristics. In addition, the British are convinced that there are twice as
many immigrants in the country than there actually are. The rejection of "outsiders" extends
to citizens of other EU countries. In September 2015, 71% of respondents considered
immigration to be the main problem for Britain (in May 2015, only 52% thought so). And in
1997, when Labor came to power, there were only 5% of them.
The problem of immigration has taken on a political character. The frankly right-wing radical
parties - the British National Party, the British Defense League - do not have wide influence,
but the United Kingdom Independence Party, somewhat lowering its radical tone, is attracting
more and more new supporters. In the 2015 parliamentary elections, she received 12.6% of
the votes (3.9 million voters), but only 1st place in parliament due to the majoritarian
electoral system. But PNSC won the elections to the European Parliament in 2014, beating
the Conservatives and Labor and consistently gaining votes in local elections.
Tolerance towards immigrants is characteristic of the sympathizers of the Liberal Democratic
Party and the Green Party - only 8 and 12% of them admit that they "do not like
immigrants." Among Tory supporters, 24% have latent or overt hostility towards
immigrants; Labor - 18% (2011).
Taking into account the mood of voters, in an attempt to reduce the attractiveness of the
country for immigrants of any country of origin, conservatives even during the period of the
coalition government began to rebuild the system of social benefits in order to eliminate
"social dependency" and "social tourism", although in fact no more than 16% of newcomers
of working age apply for benefits.
In 2014, the government passed the Immigration Act 2014. After winning the 2015 elections,
the Tories announced a number of new measures. Thus, illegal stay in the country will be
considered not an administrative but a criminal offense; rental housing owners are required to
check the migration status of tenants, and illegal immigrants are prohibited from issuing
driver's licenses and opening a bank account. The earnings of illegal immigrants are supposed
to be alienated in favor of the state, and employers will be fined for employing illegal
immigrants. The presence of a family can no longer serve as a basis for an appeal against a
deportation decision. In addition, it has become impossible to appeal against deportation
decisions if it is recognized as an act promoting the public good. A fund was created to teach
spouses of immigrants English, which is intended to facilitate the integration of visiting
women into British society. However, if they do not make progress in 2.5 years, then they are

Deportation 20
subject to deportation. It is planned to eliminate personnel shortages in a number of
specialties (teachers, engineers, doctors) and, as a consequence, the need to attract migrants
for these vacancies, through training personnel from the local population.
The government regards mass migration to Britain as an inevitable product of globalization,
believing that immigration should not be blocked, but regulated, since the economy needs an
influx of labor. Britain is unlikely to be able to move from the entrenched practice of
multiculturalism to assimilation. In these conditions, London will try to reduce immigration
through restrictive measures of a socio-economic nature.
..
Family and children in deportation cases
Introduction-Purpose of this paper In recent years, the long-term stay of foreigners staying in
Japan has been pointed out, and some of them are married in Japan, have children, and set the
base of life in Japan. It came out. In addition, the family form is diverse depending on the
nationality of the members. In this way, the situation at the time of the McLean incident has
changed significantly. Therefore, there are problems that were not expected at that time. The
problem is the intervention of immigration administration in the family life. In recent years, it
has been pointed out that deportation has an impact on family life, such as the abandonment
of life or the separation of families formed in Japan1. In addition, an increasing number of
cases of dispositions such as the issuance of a deportation order for foreign residents have
been pointed out2. Deportation is to force deportation against the will of the target person.
However, the criteria for its implementation are ambiguous and the outcome is difficult to
predict. However, given the impact of deportation on the subject, ambiguous criteria are not
desirable. Therefore, in this paper, I would like to discuss how family life should be
considered in deportation, and present the factors and judgment methods that should be
considered. Therefore, first of all, I would like to clarify how family life is considered in the
case law by organizing and analyzing the case law. At that time, the number of Supreme
Court cases dealing with deportation cases is small, so lower court cases are the main focus3.
In addition, Guideline 4 regarding special residence permit announced by the Ministry of
Justice will be considered at any time. It has long been pointed out that the criteria for
determining special residence permits in immigration administration are unclear, and the
guidelines are the only clue to know the criteria for determining special residence permits in
practice5. Therefore, it can be said that it is indispensable when dealing with the issue of
deportation, so we will refer to it in this paper as well.
In addition, the judicial precedents of the European Court of Human Rights will be referred to
as providing important guidelines for Japan's discussions6. In particular, the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights is said to be paying attention to the Supreme Court7, so its
usefulness is extremely high8. The Human Rights Committee also has cases 9 in which
deportation of foreigners has become a problem, but the number is not large and it is said that
it has not reached the systematic level10. The Convention on the Rights of the Child also has
provisions (Articles 9 and 16) that can limit deportation, but "general complications of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child: individual compliance with the Convention on the
Rights of the Child. Due to the lack of legal authority to investigate, there is no reliable
interpretation at the international level for interpretation11 ". On the other hand, the European
Court of Human Rights has dealt with a number of cases in which deportation of foreigners
has become a problem, so it can be said that the judgment method is mature to some

Deportation 21
extent12. Furthermore, since the European Court of Human Rights has presented
comprehensive criteria that take into account the situation of member countries with different
backgrounds such as judiciary and administration, it may be relatively easy to divert to Japan.
The point is also a reason to refer to. According to Article 8, Paragraph 1, 13 of the European
Human Rights Convention, which stipulates respect for family life, the European Court of
Human Rights states that deportation is an intervention in family life, and Paragraph 2
determines whether or not the intervention is unreasonable. Adopting the method 14. In
considering the judicial precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, since the
European Human Rights Treaty is one of the many human rights treaties, we will refer to the
general opinions of other human rights treaties as needed15.
Japan, of course, has not ratified the European Human Rights Treaty, but considers the spirit
and purpose of the treaty as an important factor in stipulating respect for family life and
deciding whether to grant permission to the Hokkaido University Hosei Journal No.18 2011.
Case law 21 that must be seen is now being seen. For the above reasons, in this paper, we will
refer to or indirectly apply the judgment method adopted by the European Court of Human
Rights through the Covenant on Civil Liberties and the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, and how to make family life in deportation. We will discuss what should be considered
and present the factors to be considered and how to judge them. It has ratified the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 (hereinafter referred to as the
International Covenant on Civil Rights) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child 17.
Therefore, it seems possible to interpret and apply these articles in the case of deportation
with reference to Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention18. The direct
application of these treaties would be difficult given the attitude of conventional case law
towards the treaty19. However, in the form of reference and indirect application, it seems not
so difficult20. In fact, in the case of deportation, the Covenant on Civil Liberties and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child are specially resident.
Legal nature of deportation
Deportation is a deportation based on the right of expulsion of foreigners who are recognized
by the state and are deemed unfavorable for their own country22. The Immigration Control
Act stipulates that in Article 24. Article 24 stipulates the person who is subject to deportation,
and the procedure is stipulated in detail in Chapter 5. Regarding deportation based on Article
52, it is said that "if there is an imposition of obligation, it is understood as compulsory
execution (among them, direct coercion), but if it is not at this stage, it is interpreted as
immediate deportation." Therefore, it is said that the distinction between immediate
administrative enforcement and compulsory execution is unclear23. In addition, there is an
opinion that Article 52 is regarded as immediate compulsion (immediate execution), and
since it is a typical exercise of public authority, the principle of proportionality is naturally
applied24. On the other hand, regarding the refugee status determination, which is also
stipulated in the Immigration Control Act, the Refugee Convention does not provide any
refugee status determination procedure for confirming refugee status. It is said that it is left to
the legislative discretion of the Contracting Parties25.
Family in Cases of Deportation of European Court of Human Rights Cases
This chapter has the following structure to show how deportation cases are handled by the
European Court of Human Rights. First, we will show the legal nature of Article 8 and clarify

Deportation 22
its scope of application. The definition of "family life", which is an important element of
Article 8, and the concept and definition of "family" in international law are shown. In
addition, I will give an overview of the judgment as to whether or not the deportation
corresponds to "interference" in Article 8.
Regarding the legal nature of the obligations of the state under Article 8 of the European
Human Rights Treaty
Article 8 is for the integration of the family by developing the obligation (passive obligation)
to the state to refrain from arbitrary acts on family life and the connection of the family. It has
an obligation (active duty) to enable it to take the desired method. However, both are
clarified, as "consistently, the European Court of Human Rights case law cannot clarify the
exact boundary between positive and negative obligations76". It is difficult to distinguish
between. In Gul v Switzerland77, the European Court of Human Rights said, "The essential
purpose of Article 8 is to protect individuals from arbitrary acts by public authority." "In
addition, there is an effect on family life. Includes positive obligations with respect. "
However, "the boundary between the state's positive and negative obligations under Article 8
does not lead to an accurate definition." “In the relationship between the two, a fair balance
between the competitive interests of the individual and the interests of the community as a
whole must be considered, and in the relationship between the two, the state has a certain
tolerance for interpretation. You can enjoy the range. " In other words, it is at the discretion
of the state to decide whether the state has a positive or negative obligation.
In the case of deportation of foreigners, the negative obligation of the state is a problem in
most cases78. For foreigners, the positive obligation of Article 8 becomes a problem when
the so-called family reunification, which calls the family in the country of nationality to the
country of stay of the foreigner, becomes an issue 79. The legal nature of Article 8 related to
the deportation case is as follows. Article 8 does not provide the right to enter or stay or stay
in a Contracting State. Also, Article 8 usually does not include the positive obligation to be
allowed to form the family itself in a particular country. This has been confirmed by the
courts many times each time the deportation of foreigners became a problem. The reason is
that "as a matter of international law, the state is entitled to restrict the entry and stay of
foreigners in its territory as the subject of its treaty obligations." Therefore, "the treaty does
not guarantee foreigners to enter and stay in a particular country" 80. "Parties can expel
foreigners who have committed crimes." However, "this decision must be in compliance with
the law and must be justified by a democratic society, or social need, especially the purpose
of the law." In many cases, deportation of foreigners is done by national law, so in principle,
deportation does not violate Article 881. However, if the balance between the two is
imbalanced, that is, too much emphasis is placed on the interests of the country, and
unjustified intervention in family life is made, it is said to be a violation of Article 8.

Deportation 23
The scope of application of Article 8
The European Human Rights Convention stipulates in Article 8 the right to respect private
and family life. Article 8 (1) states that "everyone has the right to respect for his / her private
and family life, housing and communication" (emphasis point author). Article 8.2 states, "For
the exercise of this right, the protection of health or morality is based on the law, for the sake
of national security, public security or national economic well-being, and for the prevention
of disorder or crime. There shall be no interference by any public authority other than that
necessary in a democratic society for the sake of, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others. " The scope of application of Article 8 is wide 82. Case 83 applies to the
confidentiality of private life, which falls within the scope of privacy rights in the narrow
sense, such as police wiretapping, celebrity privacy, and respect for housing. Furthermore,
from the perspective of respecting "private life" and "family life," inmates' freedom of
correspondence, name, gender description change on the birth certificate of persons with
gender identity disorder, homosexual rights, and right to request self-information disclosure. ,
Protection from sexual violence, etc. are also included. In Article 8, the human rights of
foreigners are problematic in cases of family reunification and deportation in which
foreigners staying in the country call their families from their home countries. In this way,
Article 8 is applied to solve various problems, and "the actual range is considerably
overlapped with the range of Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan, which is relied on as the
basis for new human rights. It is said that "84.