The illegal migration bill faces stumbling blocks that could see its introduction scuppered, according to an immigration lawyer.
The bill passed its first test in Parliament despite pro-migrant demonstrations taking place.
The bill aims to stop people claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means, although it has been denounced by the UN’s refugee agency as an effective ‘asylum ban’.
Speaking to GB News, immigration lawyer Skylar McKeith told Eamonn Holmes and Isabel Webster that it’s “not just lefties” opposed to the legislation.
Protesters took to Parliament as they voted through the first stage of the illegal migrant bill
PA
She said: “There are people from Suella Braverman’s own party [opposed to the bill].
“The bill starts with a statement by the Home Secretary that she’s unable to say that its visions are compatible with the ECHR and admission of possible incompatibility.
“This is an acknowledgment that the bill could lead to a breach of its international obligations under the ECHR.
“It’s unusual for a British Government to declare itself in advance open to breaking international law.
Left-wingers won't be the Illegal Migrant Bill's only stumbling block, says an immigration lawyer
GB News
“Making this type of statement, known as a section 19.1B statement doesn’t necessarily show a lack of respect for human rights.
“It just shows that the Government is taking the task of assessing the human rights implications of this legislation.”
Ex-prime minister Theresa May is among those to have criticised the bill, saying modern slavery victims will be “collateral damage” and have the for shut on them by measures within the bill.
The bill would mean migrants can be detained for 28 days without recourse for bail or judicial review, and then indefinitely as there is a ‘reasonable prospect’ of removal.
It moved onto a second reading in the Commons after MPs voted 312 to 250, a majority of 62.
McKeith says there are more ways in which the bill could undermine the rule of law.
She said: “A number of provisions in this bill have retrospective effect.
“Retrospective lawmaking may undermine the rules of law as well.
“Labour not only has no plan to stop the boats, they have no desire to either.”
“Where Parliament has passed legislation knowing that it may be in breach of the convention, the courts will consider that it has chosen to do so.
“As Parliament is sovereign, that will be given due respect, but that will not necessarily stop the courts from finding the act to be incompatible with the convention.”
Labour tabled an amendment which sought to block the Bill but it was defeated by 249 votes to 312, majority 63.
After the votes, Ms Braverman said in a statement: “Tonight’s vote proves what we already knew – the Labour Party cannot be trusted to stop the boats and the gangs that profit.
“Labour not only has no plan to stop the boats, they have no desire to either.”
