The legality of deportation and removal of migrants in the United Kingdom within the context of liberal democracy

Abstract

The main question that this thesis seeks to examine is whether the United Kingdom complies with its substantive and procedural obligations under International Human Rights Law in the deportation and removal of migrants and ancillary to the above, is whether the United Kingdom complies with its treaty obligations in the detention of migrants pending deportation. The thesis explores the substantive and procedural application of immigration legislation with respect to deportation and/or removal of migrants in the United Kingdom within the framework of International Human Rights Law in the context of liberal democracies. To that effect, it queries the availability and the exercise of rights of migrants in the face of deportation and/or removal. The standards established for the protection of the rights of individuals in the State’s territorial jurisdiction with specificity to detention and deportation will be employed to measure the United Kingdom’s compliance with its obligations with emphasis laid on the safeguards provided by international legal instruments and extending to the right of legitimate expectation, in addition to the demands, salient features and values established by liberal democracies. The thesis concludes by asserting inter alia that prolonged detention-indefinite detention, pending deportation and/or removal as practiced by the United Kingdom is at variance with its status as a liberal democracy and its obligations under International Human Rights Law which illuminates the finding that through their laws and practices, liberal democracies rather than comply with their commitments and obligations appear to wield unbridled power against migrants in enhancing deportation and/or removal. The thesis raises the query as to whether legislation associated with deportation and removal are in an unconstrained manner, constantly enacted, revised and re-enacted to achieve deportation and/or removal in contrast to the doctrine of legitimate expectation encapsulated under the principle of legal certainty. In addition, the research found that crimmigration heightened the velocity of deportation by expanding deportability grounds by way of triggering broader, harsher, and more frequent criminal consequences leading to conviction, thereby creating a suitable avenue for deportation and reducing the scope for challenging deportation decisions.