Mediaboss Marketing

London: Thousands of protesters in London took to the streets to march against the governments illegal migration on Saturday, according to Anadolu Agency.

The protesters gathered at Portland Place, outside the BBC headquarters in central London, chanting slogans such as refugees are welcome here.

The protest was organised by the Stand Up To Racism group and supported by many different groups and organisations, including Stop the War Coalition, Black Lives Matter, Muslims and Jewish societies as well as several unions and environmental organizations, reported Anadolu Agency.

The protesters rejected the Conservative partys migration policies, and criticized the countrys Interior Minister Suella Braverman over the controversial Rwanda plan and the recent Illegal Migration Bill.

Stop deportation, Safe passage, not Rwanda flights and Seeking refuge is not a crime were among banners and signs held by protesters during the rally. The protesters later marched toward Downing Street.

Speaking to Anadolu, Melly, a protester, said that she attended the demonstration to show solidarity with those who arrived in the country and are not treated fairly as they should.

On the governments Rwanda plan, she said that it is illegal, as everyone should have a choice, adding that the plan has caused stress and trauma for many immigrants.

Introduced in March this year, the UK governments Illegal Migration Bill, makes the provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes, according to the statement released by UK government.

To make provision about unaccompanied children; to make provision about victims of slavery or human trafficking; to make provision about leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the statement read.

To make provision about citizenship; to make provision about the inadmissibility of certain protection and certain human rights claims relating to immigration; to make provision about the maximum number of persons entering the United Kingdom annually using safe and legal routes; and for connected purposes, the statement added.

After the British Home Secretary introduced the Migration Bill, the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said that the UK asylum bill would undermine international law.

British Home Secretary Suella Braverman introduced an Illegal Migration Bill this week aimed at tackling people crossing the English Channel to reach the UK, which if passed would amount to an asylum ban, the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said in a statement.

Migrants who come to Britain illegally by boat will be detained, removed and banned from re-entering the country, said UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Over 45,000 people illegally crossed the Channel in small boats last year.

That is unfair to those who come here legally and unfair to the British people who play by the rules. Todays Illegal Migration Bill introduces new laws to stop the boats, said Sunak.

The Illegal Migration Bill ensures that if you come to the UK illegally you cant stay. People must know that coming here illegally will result in their detention and swift removal once they do, they will not come, and the boats will stop, he added.

This post was last modified on March 19, 2023 7:07 am

Read more:
Protests in London against illegal migration bill - The Siasat Daily

California is a sanctuary state, but only for illegal immigrants. In fact, the state is such an illegal immigrant haven that it is considering fighting to keep illegal immigrants in the state even if they are felons.

California sets aside roughly $45 million in grants for nonprofit organizations that provide defense and other legal services to low-income immigrants and their families. These funds are used to help illegal immigrants in deportation proceedings. Illegal immigrants who have committed serious or violent felonies are prohibited from benefitting from these funds.

FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMS BIDENS IMMIGRATION PAROLE PROGRAM IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL

Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer wants to change that, because violent felons in the country illegally should be welcome in California too. The Rep for All Immigrants Act ensures racial justice and true equitable access to crucial immigration services for all not some, Jones-Sawyer said.

Who needs actual justice, where convicted felons who should not be in the country in the first place are deported with little issue, when we have racial justice. If those violent felon illegal immigrants arent being defended with Californian taxpayer dollars for their deportation proceedings, then we do not have equity.

After all, California already does everything it can to help get violent convicted felons and gang members out of jail early if they are U.S. citizens. Why not extend that privilege to illegal immigrants as well?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As usual, the loser here is the everyday Californian, who is simply trying to pay the bills in the most expensive state in the country while avoiding being killed by the felons that state Democrats are trying to keep out of jail. Even the illegal immigrants who are simply trying to get by day to day in California (you know, the ones who aren't violent felons) are made less safe by this. California is protecting them from being deported, sure, but not protecting them from being killed by people who clearly should be deported.

Jones-Sawyer is right about one thing: this is what equity looks like. Equity in practice means that people must be less safe because members of woke protected classes should not be held accountable for their actions. Illegal immigrants are one of those protected classes, and therefore even the violent convicts among them get special treatment. It doesnt matter how safe you are, it only matters how equitable the dangers can be for everyone.

Visit link:
Is California going to fight the deportation of violent convicted felons? - Washington Examiner

President Joe Bidens plan to cancel billions of dollars in student debt has run into a few legal snags, but New York City Mayor Eric Adams has a plan to help some people avoid incurring student debt in the first place. Those lucky people are 100 illegal migrants who found their way to the Big Apple bused or flown there by the federal government, or governors of other states, or arrived of their own volition.

On Thursday, Mayor Adams announced a plan to send recently-arrived migrants to college for a year at the State University of New Yorks Sullivan Community College, fully paid by New York City. Thats $12,000 a year for tuition and room and board per student. The plan is the brainchild of the citys newly-created Office of Asylum Seekers Operations, an agency that was formally announced on Tuesday. (Talk about bureaucratic efficiency!)

This would be the same Mayor Adams who estimates that his cash-strapped city will spend $4.2 billion in the next year to provide for the 50,700 (and counting) migrants who have arrived in the Big Apple since President Biden unleashed an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration. (For the record, that works out to $82,840 per migrant.) Adams has been pleading with the federal government for assistance to cover those costs, which he knows hes not going to get.

New York City residents may not be thrilled with the idea. The city is facing myriad problems from failing schools, to rampant crime, to communities overrun by rodents since garbage collection has been cut back. And many New Yorkers are struggling to finance a college education for their own kids. Residents of Loch Sheldrake, the bucolic Catskill Mountain community where Sullivan Community College is situated, arent so keen on the idea either.

Its a nice, quiet town and we dont know who these people are, worries Raj Patel, who owns a local wine and liquor store and a gas station. They could be criminals, they could be drug dealers. They have no documentation. It seems unfair to me that you give free housing and a free college education to people just because you need a place to put them. Other townspeople expressed similar concerns.

When the tuition-free, debt-free migrants begin showing up Loch Sheldrake, Sullivan Community College will be partnering with the nearby Center for Discovery, where they will be learning English, American culture and personal finance. The Center for Discovery does not reveal its funders, but it is interesting to note that it was recently the recipient of a large federal grant facilitated by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Between 2019 and 2020 (the most recent year for which IRS documents are available), the centers revenues jumped from $1,149,541 to $6,804,465. But that could just be a coincidence.

A new report by FAIR, issued this week, finds that New York residents spent nearly $10 billion in 2022 to provide benefits and services to the states 1.45 million illegal aliens and their U.S.-born kids a price tag that does not include New York Citys estimated additional cost of $4.2 billion for the new migrants. So, whats another $1.2 million to send 100 migrants to college for a year, right?

View post:
Isnt That Nice? Eric Adams Wants to Send Migrants to College for ... - Federation for American Immigration Reform

Kenilworth and Southam MP Sir Jeremy Wrights writes from Westminster.

THE GOVERNMENTS proposals for dealing with illegal migration have provoked extensive debate but, as ever, that debate has not been improved by slogans and soundbites on either side of the argument. This is an important area of policy, of great concern to many, so I make no apologies for setting out my position in detail as the Illegal Migration Bill reaches the House of Commons for its Second Reading.

The starting point should be immigration and asylum policy more broadly. For anyone with this countrys best interests at heart, taking back control of our borders as a result of leaving the European Union must mean being able to determine for ourselves who we should and should not allow to live here, either as migrants who can contribute to our collective economic or cultural prosperity, or as refugees to whom we owe a duty of care as responsible global citizens. Due to our geographical location, accepting only those who come from adjacent countries which meet humanitarian need criteria is unlikely to meet that duty. The numbers in the first category should be determined by what our economy and society need and wants, and in the second category by how many people in need our public services and housing stock can sensibly sustain. Limiting the numbers in either category is a perfectly sensible thing to do and any Government must be entitled to take action to ensure that those who are economic migrants should not be able to use the refugee route to enter the United Kingdom if they are not really refugees. Any Government is also entitled to reconsider its international law commitments if they are preventing it meeting such clear and legitimate domestic policy imperatives. That includes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Of course, writing the rules which will deliver those outcomes is not straightforward and will often be controversial. I recognise that the Government must act in the face of unprecedented flows of migrants across the English Channel in wholly unacceptable circumstances. I recognise too that deterring people who are not really refugees from making those dangerous journeys and enriching criminal gangs in the process is likely to require a clear, consistent, and robust approach from the UK Government and Parliament, and that the Illegal Migration Bill represents a good faith attempt to take such an approach. However, having considered it carefully, I am concerned that the Bill as it is currently drafted will not work, either legally or practically, in delivering the Governments objectives.

Legal challenges to the approach the Government seeks to take are inevitable and recognised as such by the Government. The fact that legislation is likely to face legal challenge does not make it wrong, but where such challenge is not only foreseeable but foreseen, it obviously makes sense to construct legislation that minimises the scope for successful challenge, as well as to take practical steps outside the legislative language that will also strengthen the argument for it.

On the legislation itself, there are a number of vulnerabilities. The relevance of the ECHR to the provisions of this Bill is inconsistently described. The Bill seeks to exclude from operating on its provisions Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which requires all UK legislation to be interpreted , where possible, compatibly with ECHR rights. First, the need for this exclusion is not evident, as Section 3 of the HRA is already explicit that this can only be done as far as it is possible to do so, meaning that Parliaments clear subsequent wishes to contravene respect for ECHR rights must prevail, even if Section 3 of the HRA is not excluded from operating on that subsequent legislation. Secondly, excluding the operation of ECHR rights is inconsistent with later clauses of the

Illegal Migration Bill, which say that the UKs obligations under international agreements, specifically including the ECHR, may be used to persuade it not to apply the long-term sanctions for which the Bill provides on those defined as relevant illegal migrants.

I will not go into detail on the likely legal challenges to the reduction of protections under the Modern Slavery regime for those who qualify as illegal migrants under the Bill, or the intended exclusion of judicial review of Ministerial decision making on the treatment and detention of such migrants, but the defensibility of these proposals, in a court of law and in the court of public opinion, is likely to depend on how the Bill balances fairness to the individuals affected with fairness to society as a whole. That balance will in part be tested by reference to the likely treatment of children. The Bill requires the refusal of later applications for entry clearance by a migrant who has sought to enter the UK illegally within the terms of the Bill. The prohibition on entering the UK subsequently is intended to be lifelong and the triggering illegal entry could take place at any age. As I read the Bill therefore, a migrant brought into the UK illegally by their parents as a baby (and therefore without any choice in the matter) would be prevented from entering the UK lawfully as an adult decades later. Such consequences could only be avoided if their imposition would constitute a breach of the UKs international law obligations (including, as mentioned earlier, under the ECHR) or, in the case of shorter-term permissions to enter the UK, where there are compelling circumstances in relation to the individual which would make it appropriate to grant the subsequent application. Interestingly, discretion based on compelling circumstances is not available in relation to longer-term entry arrangements, including indefinite leave to remain or citizenship. This would mean that, in the case of someone subject to this Bill as a result of illegal entry as a baby, as an adult they would be unable to gain long-term leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a UK citizen, for example. I am not convinced the Bill strikes the right balance in this respect.

That brings me to my practical concerns. As the Government approaches inevitable legal and political challenges to the provisions of this Bill, it should ensure that it has the most persuasive case for the necessity of the measures it proposes, and it should be ready to deliver the real-world effects the policy demands and the legislation would authorise. I have concerns on both counts. The case for tough action against those who seek to enter the UK illegally and unsafely is stronger if it is clear that there are safe and legal routes which those in genuine need could use instead. That is not currently clear, beyond schemes specific to countries like Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong. Those crossing the Channel in small boats are sometimes accused of jumping the queue for entry into the UK. Being punished for jumping the queue is legitimate if there is a queue and it is clear how you might join the end of it, less so if the queue is hard to find. The Government can and should do more to clarify the schemes which are available for those genuinely seeking asylum and expand them, if necessary, subject to the point on numbers I made earlier. The case for tough action along the lines of the Bill would be stronger following such clarification. The case for the Bill would also be stronger with clarity on where illegal migrants would be detained, as the Bill requires them to be for at least 28 days in almost all cases. Again, I do not yet detect that clarity.

I repeat that I do not believe the Governments approach in this Bill is wrong in principle, but it can only be justified with a clear demonstration that those deserving admittance to the UK could get it another way; with clear evidence that the practical measures needed to implement the provisions of the Bill are in place; with great care taken to avoid unfair and disproportionate outcomes in individual cases; and with proper recognition that judicial scrutiny is part of Ministerial accountability. I am not currently persuaded that these requirements are met in the Illegal Migration Bill as currently drafted and therefore I could not support it at this stage.

See the article here:
MP Sir Jeremy Wright says he cannot support Government's Illegal ... - Leamington Observer

Mr Raab disclosed he had already met with senior Strasbourg judges to discuss UK concerns over interim injunctions, where a single unnamed judge in a late-night sitting last summer blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda until the entire policy had been tested in the UK courts. It is currently before the appeal court.

Tory MPs are preparing to lay amendments to the illegal migration bill that would toughen the approach to the ECHR so that the Government could ignore interim injunctions and even wider rulings. However, they have accepted any debate about leaving the ECHR will have to be left for the manifesto.

Last week, Rishi Sunak warned lawyers preparing to challenge his illegal immigration crackdown that he is up for the fight and will win, as he accused the ECHR of being opaque, unfair and unjust. He made clear, however, he had no plans to leave the ECHR.

The illegal migration bill is expected to return to the Commons in two weeks time just before the Easter recess when the Government will face a backbench revolt over the detention of children.

Former ministers Sir Robert Buckland and Caroline Nokes have urged a rethink of the proposals to detain children and women which ministers say is necessary to prevent people smugglers targeting them.

The Liberal Democrats said on Thursday they would be tabling amendments to maintain the ban on the detention of children for immigration purposes.

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP said: It is all very well for Robert Buckland and other Conservative MPs to wring their hands on the backbenches about how dreadful this Bill is.

But last night they voted for it so their actions so far do not match their words. Sooner or later they will have to put up or shut up.

More here:
Britain prepared to consider leaving ECHR if it blocks illegal ... - The Telegraph