For those who missed it, here’s a run-down of our event on Tuesday evening (Balancing act: a 36 Immigration Forum on Article 8). It involves some sellotape, the Brexit debate, falafels, Swiss migration policy and more.
The day started with a personal set-back. Before I’d even arrived at my office I had some fiddly business to do.
My daughter gleefully snapped my once trendy pair of glasses in two. Unfortunately my spare pair are also broken (by her). A lunchtime trip to the opticians failed to fix things. TBC…
Following the shock referendum result last week, we tweaked the Balancing act programme to include a thought provoking section on the immigration implications of the Brexit by Miriam Carrion Benitez.
This got our attention, for good reason.
I’ve invited Miriam to guest blog about this shortly so we can share it with you all, but the the gist of her presentation was that the Leave campaign’s promised reduction in the number of EU migrants in the UK seems at odds with available statistics from the European Commission. The numbers show that both Switzerland and Norway (which were held out as models the UK could follow) have signicantly higher proportions of EU migrants than the UK.
There was little or no public debate in the UK about what we can learn from the recent experiences of the Swiss. Their referendum on migration quotas in early 2014 has led to over 2 years of legal wrangling with the EU over free movement rights, with many Swiss citizens becoming frustrated by the process.
David Ball presented on the clutch of recent deportation cases in the Court of Appeal, most of them fairly negative for claimant advisers, with the exception of the yet-to-be-reported case of MN-T (Columbia) (2016) [sic], which I’ve written about here.
I also talked about Parliament’s first and possibly last attempt to guide Judges on how they should consider the human right to family and private life in immigration appeals. In short, my view is that parts of this framework [1] are arguably incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, and recent Upper Tribunal decisions fail to discuss and correct this.
And then came The Food.
#immigration #law a stimulating seminar tonight surrounding article 8 with bonus brexit round & superb Banquet! pic.twitter.com/87mF5tTQcI
— The 36 Group (@36BedfordRow) June 28, 2016
The presentations and forum discussions were informative and warmly received by our guests. Among them was Miranda Grell of Hackney Law Centre and the Justice Gap. Here’s our #Notaselfie:
Superb #immigration #law seminar at @36BedfordRow. Fantastic to finally meet the wonderful @benamunwa in person! pic.twitter.com/EXLejOCwty
— Miranda Grell (@MirandaGrell) June 28, 2016
Don’t miss our next immigration forum, coming soon…
[1] Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Great post. I am always breaking my glasses (or looking for them-as they sit perched on my head). Yes, I was recently thinking about the Swiss and what lessons are to be learned from their experience. My mother will often say: ‘you should learn from experience, other people’s experience.’ Last thing…Hackney Law Centre. Respect. They do such good work there.