- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
Can you summarize what is the problem with Schedule 2? Much as I love reading through UKBA law/regs/procedures, it is better to get a hint as to what you think the key problem is.mcovet wrote:The wording in Schedule 2 is clearly discriminative if applied to the Free Movement Directive
you missed the point. The Schedule says that the IO may do all the dirty work against an individual NOT BEING A BRITISH citizens. So it's not about treating the EEA nationals and their fam members differently to each other, rather that IO may treat non-Brits (be it EEA or non) differently to Brits which contravenes Art.24.EUsmileWEallsmile wrote:I'm not the original poster.
Only certain provisions of schedule 2 are applicable to the 2006 regs. The difference is that it applies immediately to all non-EEA nationals on entry, but only to EEA nationals that are suspected of falling foul of public policy, etc. Therefore, it has the potential to treat EU nationals and their family members differently.
The same wording was in the 2000 regulations and they appear to have been copied over.
There's nothing fundamental about schedule 2 to cause a problem, but it gives IO powers to make enquiries. If you read chapter 7 section 3, paragraph 3 it deals with these points.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... schapter7/ It's also worth looking at what the law as written says.
Actually, in your original post you did not say what "the point" was. That was why I asked for clarification.mcovet wrote:you missed the point.
I assume you are mostly taking issue with the paragraph you quote.mcovet wrote:The Schedule says that the IO may do all the dirty work against an individual NOT BEING A BRITISH citizens. So it's not about treating the EEA nationals and their fam members differently to each other, rather that IO may treat non-Brits (be it EEA or non) differently to Brits which contravenes Art.24.
Once IOs establish that the entrant is covered by the Directive, he cannot undertake the examination mentioned in the Schedule to the Imm Act 1971, but that Regulation 22 seems to allow it! Surprised noone has raised this issue before.
"1)An immigration officer may examine any person who is embarking or seeking to embark in the United Kingdom F198. . .for the purpose of determining whether he is [F199a British citizen][F200and, if he is not a British citizen, for the purpose of establishing—(a)his identity;(b)whether he entered the United Kingdom lawfully;(c)whether he has complied with any conditions of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;(d)whether his return to the United Kingdom is prohibited or restricted.(1A)An immigration officer who examines a person under sub-paragraph (1) may require him, by notice in writing, to submit to further examination for a purpose specified in that sub-paragraph."
Where is this distinction made? Can you quote it?EUsmileWEallsmile wrote:There is an explicit distinction made between EEA nationals and their family members. Only EEA nationals suspected of falling foul of public policy, etc are affected, but all their family members are. Perhaps that's ok. You may have missed my point.
EUsmileWEallsmile wrote:Well now that you came to the point. No there is no discrimination between British citizens and EU citizens as a result of this. The powers in schedule 2 apply to all who enter the UK and are for the purposes of establishing under what capacity the person is to enter the UK be that British citizen or ILR; EU National, EEA national, Swiss national or their family members; or a person who required leave to enter or has been granted leave to enter. Once established all go down their respective routes of entry. The 2006 regulations soften the schedule 2 requirements by stating that a medical examination cannot be made routine for an EEA entrants, etc, and that examination is for the purposes that someone is covered by the regulations.
There is an explicit distinction made between EEA nationals and their family members. Only EEA nationals suspected of falling foul of public policy, etc are affected, but all their family members are. Perhaps that's ok. You may have missed my point.