Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

Article 18 Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-219563%22]}

If you go before the European Court on Human Rights, the judges will want to know why the UK (Home Office) is forcing you into Appendix FM and denying you settlement under Appendix EU. The UK will be forced to do something which, to date, it has refused. Namely, to explain their reasoning behind the myriad of back door changes. It is clear to most of us that the purpose of these changes is to discriminate against migrants and facilitate a hostile environment. It is your solicitor's job to get this point across to the European Court of Human Rights. The case(s) definitely have merit, should be admissible, and are winnable - in my opinion.

For example, in the case of Juszczyszyn v. Poland (Application no. 35599/20)

311. The real focus of the Court’s scrutiny has been more on the ensuing and closely connected issue: whether the restriction is necessary or justified, that is to say, based on relevant and sufficient reasons and proportionate to the pursuit of the aims or grounds for which it is authorised.Those aims and grounds are the benchmarks against which necessity or justification is measured (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 302).

[marcidevpal]

Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy & CJEU/ECJ

Let's say you are a Zambrano carer who lived in the UK for five years prior to Brexit. You are refused under EUSS (Appendix EU) before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. The judges refuse to take into account the European Court of Justice's ruling in E.K. You basically have no right to an effective remedy. The only option is for the Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) to bring a case against the United Kingdom before the European Court of Justice, and they seem highly unlikely to do so. I suspect you should be able to apply to the European Court on Human Rights and complain that your Article 13 rights have been violated.

[marcidevpal]

United Nations: The UK's Human Rights Commitments

Another argument you can make in your submissions, is to remind the judge of the UK's commitments before the United Nations and to point out how the Home Office's refusal goes against those commitments.

Instruments accepted by the UK
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of facial Discrimination
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

[marcidevpal]

United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm21700.doc.htm

Here are some references/quotes for your appeal -

UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the Human Rights Council, in Geneva on 27 FEBRUARY 2023

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago. The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always. The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1,300 words long. But, all human life is there. The Universal Declaration sets out the rights to life, liberty and security; to equality before the law; to freedom of expression; to seek asylum; to work, to health care and education, and more.

We must heed the lessons of history. As flashpoints multiply and deadly new risks loom, we must fight for our rights. We must protect and promote the global consensus around the Universal Declaration and move forward into a new era of human rights for all. This requires both a laser focus on the rights we have already recognized — and a quantum leap towards a new generation of rights.

Refugee and migrant rights are human rights. They must be respected without discrimination.

[marcidevpal]

UN: Report on Intolerance (& Migration)

https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-inpu ... rapporteur

With enough interest, the UN Human Rights Council could intervene on behalf of Zambrano carers. It's a long shot, but anything is possible.

They may not want to hear from individuals. I am not sure. If you work for an organization, you may want to respond. The call for submissions is on the strategic vision for the fulfilment of the mandate of Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of beloved, facial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The deadline is 17 March 2023.

Purpose: To gather information to inform the report to be presented to the 53rd session of Human Rights Council in June 2023. The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of beloved, facial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, will report to the Human Rights Council for the first time at its 53rd session, in June 2023, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 43/36. Her first thematic report will outline the strategic vision for the fulfillment of her mandate.

The Special Rapporteur would appreciate written submissions from a range of stakeholders, including States, civil society organizations and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) on the following topics:

The key trends in beloved, facial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance that have been observed in recent years, including any intersections with developments in information technology, migration, climate change, inequality and the COVID-19 pandemic.

[marcidevpal]

UN Declaration on the Right to Development

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/fil ... RtD_EN.pdf

You may want to explain in your witness statement how the refusal affects your ability to progress in UK society. You have a right to develop. That means, to improve your economic status, strengthen social ties, engage in cultural pursuits and participate in the political process (without excessive delay).

On 4 December 1986, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development. 146 Member States voted in favour, 1 against with 8 abstentions.

Is the right to development justiciable? No, the Declaration itself does not create a cause of legal action.

However, many of the elements of the right to development are reaffirmed in binding international law, including international treaties, customary law and regional instruments. To the extent that these constituent elements of the right to development are justiciable, so too is the right to development itself. Some key elements of this right, including sovereign equality, equity and the duty to cooperate, are also evident in the larger body of international law, beyond human rights.

What UN principles are justiciable? The UK has a legal obligation to uphold the human rights principles of equality, non-discrimination, participation, accountability and transparency.

If your lawyer won't raise the issue of how the Home Office refusal goes against the UK's commitments as a Member State in the United Nations, you may want to ask yourself, why? Will the judge probably ignore your arguments about the UN violating its UN commitments? Almost certainly. But, in my opinion, you should raise the UN points anyway as a matter of principle.

[marcidevpal]

Submissions

A suggestion. One way to structure your submissions is as follows:

1.) The appellant submits the refusal violates or interferes with the following legal instruments, to which the United Kingdom is a Contracting Party:

• United Nations Convenants/Conventions/Protocols

• European Convention on Human Rights

• The Political Declaration

• The Withdrawal Agreement

• The Human Rights Act

• The UK Immigration Rules

Under each section, you would reference the relevant case law, provisions, etc.

[marcidevpal]

Zambrano appeal from 2013

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 0e6ab0b2c1

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE A M BLACK

Between N M (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent

Below is a summary of a Zambrano case from 2013. The Zambrano parent won, at least in part, because she relied on Article 8 ECHR and Article 20 TFEU. There is no rational reason why these arguments should not be allowed in today's appeals.

1. The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who applied for a residence card in 2013 on the basis of her derivative right to a residence card, her child being a British citizen. Her application was refused and she appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. First tier Tribunal Judge Lal allowed her appeal in July 2014.

12. It is noteworthy that the appellant's counsel at the hearing focussed her argument "on Article 20 TFEU and Article 8 ECHR, because the children would be left in the United Kingdom without a carer if the appellant leaves the UK". That was a difficult submission given the evidence that the husband "will have to take care of his children and would so if his wife was not present in the UK" [22]. The FTTJ found, on the oral evidence of the husband, that the children would not leave the UK if the appellant were required to do so. That was a finding which was open to him.

Decision
14. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error on a point of law.

[marcidevpal]

EU Settlement Scheme Statistics - Refusals

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ember-2022

As of 31 December 2022
14,790 applications received from Zambrano applicants
12,870 concluded applications for Zambrano applicants
10,300 refused applications for Zambrano applicants

Total number of refusals for derivative rights applications 10,790. Zambrano applicants accounted for 95% of the total refusals.

So about 2570 Zambrano applicants were successful as of 31 December 2022.

10,300 Zambrano applications were refused - out of 12,870 decided applications.

[marcidevpal]

Over 10 Thousand Disappointed Zambrano Carers

What is happening with these 10 thousand + Zambrano carers?
Are they all moving to Appendix FM?
Are they still waiting on the outcome from their appeals?

Imagine if they filed a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Imagine if just one filed a judicial review in the Admin Court.
Even better, would be if they appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

[marcidevpal]

Discrimination

Zambrano carers are 23 times more likely to be refused than any other group who applied to the EU Settlement Scheme. This figure supports the assertion that the Home Office (and judiciary) discriminate against Zambrano carers, the majority of whom are of black, Asian and Eastern European descent or ethnicity.

In the period up to 31 December 2022

6,859,670 applications had been concluded
12,870 Zambrano applications had been concluded

12,870/6,859,670 = 0.00187618355 - just 0.188% of all EUSS applications were from Zambrano applications

442,770 refused applications
10,300 refused Zambrano applications

10,300/442,770 = 0.023262642 - yet 2.33% of all refusals were Zambrano refusals

2.3/.1 = 23. So, Zambrano carers are 23 more times likely to be refused. Yet, no one investigates or even asks why, or whether these refusals are lawful.

For non-EEA nationals, the top 5 nationalities in concluded applications were:

Indian (86,990)
Pakistani (74,230)
Brazilian (54,920)
Nigerian (34,820)
Albanian (34,250)

[marcidevpal]

Discrimination continued

90% of Zambrano carers who applied to EUSS were refused. That figure just seems too convenient. It comes across as a target. It is as if they said, how can we refuse as many Zambrano carers as possible, without appearing as though we have a blanket ban on giving Zambrano carers settlement under EUSS?

The bottom line is this: In theory, it should be relatively straightforward to show to the judges at the European Court on Human Rights that you were refused even though your situation is similar to other Zambrano carers who were granted settlement under EUSS. Therefore, the United Kingdom is guilty of discrimination.

The Withdrawal Agreement says in the Preamble,

RECOGNISING that it is necessary to provide reciprocal protection for Union citizens and for United Kingdom nationals, as well as their respective family members, where they have exercised free movement rights before a date set in this Agreement, and to ensure that their rights under this Agreement are enforceable and based on the principle of non-discrimination;

Also in the Withdrawal Agreement, ARTICLE 12 Non-discrimination says,

Within the scope of this Part, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 18 TFEU shall be prohibited in the host State and the State of work in respect of the persons referred to in Article 10 of this Agreement.

The European Convention on Human Rights says,

When bringing a complaint under Article 14, the applicant has to show that he or she has been treated differently from another person or group of persons placed in a relevantly similar situation, or equally to a group of persons placed in a relevantly different situation. The other person or group of persons to which the applicant is compared to is called the “comparator”.

The requirement to demonstrate an analogous position does not require that the comparator groups be identical. An applicant must demonstrate that, having regard to the particular nature of his or her complaint, he or she was in a relevantly similar situation to others treated differently (Fábián v.Hungary [GC], 2017, §113; Clift v.the United Kingdom, 2010, §66; Demokrat Parti v. Turkey (dec.), 2021).

UN instruments
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of facial Discrimination, 21 December 1965
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989

United Nations - Talk to a Special Rapporteur

• Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants

• Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of beloved, facial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

References

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-migrants
https://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/r ... /index.htm
https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Ar ... 12_ENG.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... munity.pdf

[marcidevpal]

Submissions regarding Article 14 +8 ECHR

A. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article 8

Appellants’ submissions

1. The applicants submitted that they have been treated differently in respect of their enjoyment of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention from other persons who were granted settlement under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules in the United Kingdom. In particular, they rely on the example of other Zambrano carers, 2500 of whom had been granted settlement under Appendix EU in the United Kingdom.

2. The applicants submit that Zambrano carers who had leave to remain under Appendix FM had been in an analogous position to Zambrano carers who did not have leave to remain under Appendix FM at 31 December 2020. In each case the person had established an entitlement to temporary residence in the United Kingdom. The difference in treatment between Zambrano carers who had leave to remain under Appendix FM, on the one hand, and Zambrano carers who did not have leave to remain on "Brexit Day", on the other, can not be objectively and reasonably justified.

3. The applicants also submit that they have been treated differently, without objective and reasonable justification, from other applicants to the EU Settlement Scheme. They are over ten times more likely to be refused settlement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

4. The applicants rely on the domestic decisions of [Akinsaya?] and [?], in which both the Court of Appeal did not appear to determine a public interest justification for distinguishing between Zambrano carers with leave to remain under another part of the Immigration Rules on 31 December 2020, versus those who did not, especially given both are considered Zambrano carers under the 2016 EEA Regulations.

[marcidevpal]

CASE OF HODE AND ABDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 22341/09)

Here is a case against the United Kingdom before the European Court on Human Rights regarding discrimination. You can find the case on the HUDOC database - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/

50. The applicants must demonstrate that, having regard to the particular nature of their complaints, they had been in a relevantly similar situation to others treated differently (Clift v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 66)

51. The Court must consider whether or not the difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified.

52. The Court recalls that a difference in treatment has no objective and reasonable justification if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. The Contracting State enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (Burden, cited above, § 60; and Carson, cited above, § 61). The scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and the background.

54. In light of the above, the Court does not consider that the difference in treatment between the applicants, on the one hand, and students and workers, on the other, was objectively and reasonably justified.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 read together with Article 8 of the Convention;
3. Holds that it is unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 8 read alone;

[marcidevpal]

Comparators (Discrimination)

To win the discrimination argument, you have to show the group you are in is treated badly - and for no good reason - than other similar groups. I identified at least five groups:

a.) Zambrano carers who did have leave to remain under Appendix FM on 31 December 2020
b.) Zambrano carers who did not have leave to remain under Appendix FM on 31 December 2020
c.) Derivative rights holders who applied to EUSS
d.) EU applicants to the EUSS
e.) Appendix FM

Group A are people who had the exact same situation as you, and got through anyway. Groups B through D are people who are similar enough to you, and achieved settlement. Group E is an interesting one. When you apply under Appendix FM, the Home Office doesn't refuse your application just because you had status under another Appendix at some point. Therefore, why should the Home Office refuse you just because you had status under Appendix FM at one time or another? Your refusal doesn't make any sense or serve any purpose to advance society's aims, interests or goals.

[marcidevpal]

UK Judges

What a pickle. The Government have announced they will introduce new and clearly unlawful statutory instruments. It will deprive asylum seekers rights guaranteed to them due to the UK's membership in the Council of Europe and the United Nations. Regarding the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) requires the UK to treat each migrant individually and do a balancing exercise. They should weight the person's wishes against society's best interests. The UN has the Refugee Convention.

If the UK judges do what the government wants, they will become a laughing stock on the global stage. No one will take them seriously because they will not have taken their responsibilities seriously. But that's just my opinion only. If the judges do what the ECHR requires, which is to ignore or disregard legislation that violates the ECHR, the judges will be hypocrites. It means they only do the right thing under ECHR when the media is watching them. They clearly won't apply ECHR to EUSS applicants. It will be interesting to see which way they go.

[marcidevpal]

Nigel Farage on violating the ECHR

We are signed up to a whole series of United Nations declarations....We are signed up, by treaty, to the European Convention on Human Rights with its associated court in Strasbourg...Believe me folks, it means nothing. What nobody has said thus far is this: Number one, the judges in Strasbourg won't like any of this. But number two, What about British judges? British judges are going to revert to an international treaty. They will say we have an obligation under international law to obey what we signed up to. This isn't going to work. And let me tell you something, the Government already know it isn't going to work.

How is it that Nigel Farage understands UK judges must apply ECtHR jurisprudence yet UK judges do not?

[marcidevpal]

Another Comparator - Asylum Seekers

Perhaps UK judges will agree to follow ECHR and ignore or invalidate the pending statutory instrument by the Government. That can only mean EUSS applicants are being discriminated against. There is no reason for one type of migrant group to have their human rights considered on an individual basis, and for another to not. I don't see how the Celik decision against EUSS migrants can be allowed under this scenario.

Comparators (Discrimination)

To win the discrimination argument, you have to show the group you are in is treated badly - and for no good reason - than other similar groups. I identified at least five groups:

a.) Zambrano carers who did have leave to remain under Appendix FM on 31 December 2020
b.) Zambrano carers who did not have leave to remain under Appendix FM on 31 December 2020
c.) Derivative rights holders who applied to EUSS
d.) EU applicants to the EUSS
e.) Appendix FM

Group A are people who had the exact same situation as you, and got through anyway. Groups B through D are people who are similar enough to you, and achieved settlement. Group E is an interesting one. When you apply under Appendix FM, the Home Office doesn't refuse your application just because you had status under another Appendix at some point. Therefore, why should the Home Office refuse you just because you had status under Appendix FM at one time or another? Your refusal doesn't make any sense or serve any purpose to advance society's aims, interests or goals.

[marcidevpal]

A tale of two migrant communities

So, the Government have proposed new legislation that would tell UK judges to ignore ECHR for asylum seekers. The Government has repeatedly passed secondary legislation against derivative rights holders and UK judges today already ignore ECHR for Zambrano carers (and others). The same behavior triggers two very different responses.

UNHCR
The United Nations' refugee agency (UNHCR) has publicly condemned the legislation against asylum seekers. The UN directly asks MPs and peers to block Rishi Sunak’s “profoundly” concerning plan. The UNHCR says further, the new plan risks "undermining the core principle of the universality of human rights”.

UNHRC
Why is the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) quiet on Zambrano carers? It seems the UNHCR is the only body willing to talk about migrants in the UK. Why can't the UNHRC's special rapporteur's call out the UK on its treatment of other migrant groups? What do they think about the Celik decision?

Bottom line: you may want to keep your eyes open to see if the UNHRC makes a public announcement about migrants in the UK. A quote could be useful in your submissions...

[marcidevpal]

Silly media

If you pay attention to the news, you may notice pundits desperately trying to make sense of the governments' latest moves. In rather bizarre fashion, they tend to blame it on a poster from Nigel Farage. The poster seems to imply to remain in the EU will lead to an invasion by people who are of a different ethnicity and/or religious background. They also say it is to distract the UK public from more pressing issues such as the cost of living crisis. In my opinion, the government's latest bill is the natural consequence of their success against derivative rights holders. The government's playbook is well-established at this point.

The Government Playbook
Step one, pass secondary legislation (statutory instrument) that is not obviously unlawful. Step two, create guidance that is directly unlawful. Step three, the UK judges deny most appeals by migrants, who are either poorly represented, or who act as litigants in person, chiefly because they did not "say things in the right way." (At this step, one must ensure that of course, some applicants are successful so as not to appear biased.) Step Four, after much delay, the UK courts declare the policy guidance and perhaps statutory instrument to be unlawful. No real compensation is made. No efforts are made to put right the damage done. Step Five, the Government introduce new legislation or update their policy guidance to caseworkers in a new, unlawful way. So, the reason the asylum seekers are facing the predicament of unlawful bill, soon to be followed by unlawful guidance accompanied by illegal deportations, is simply because it works. Word will perhaps spread quickly that if you go to the UK, you will be (unlawfully detained) and summarily deported. That's why the bill was introduced in my opinion.

Why does this matter for Zambrano carers?
Because you can look at the submissions made on behalf of asylum seekers. The two worlds are remote at this point, but they can be drawn closer together. When the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) eventually rules the treatment of refugees violates the ECHR based on the arguments put before them, you can be fairly confident that your submissions will also succeed.

[marcidevpal]

Straight from the horse's mouth

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has apparently written to all Conservative MPs to say that there is a

"more than 50% chance" the legislation is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)"

This quote is potentially useful for your submissions. It shows the Government knowingly and blatantly creates unlawful legislation (and guidance) on immigration.

[marcidevpal]

A telling assumption

Some commentators say the new legislation that violates ECHR will be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights. It doesn't have to reach the ECtHR. The First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal, and even the Supreme Court have the authority to stop such legislation before the procedures become established. So, when people talk about cases before the ECtHR, they are saying they either have no faith in the UK judiciary to stop the Home Office, or they believe the UK Judiciary supports the move by the Home Office. If they believe the UK judiciary agrees with the Home Office, that feeling must be based on some sort of evidence. I wonder where they would get that impression? Perhaps from the way the Courts have repeatedly ruled against migrants on the EUSS appeals?

[marcidevpal]

Make it make sense

Suella Braverman: What we can't go on accepting, is people breaking our laws, jumping the queue.
Journalist: They are not breaking the law.
Braverman: I am afraid you are wrong....They are coming here unlawfully because they don't have a lawful basis to be here.

Meanwhile... The 1951 Refugee Convention says...

A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion... The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.

The above example is useful for showing the Secretary of State's thinking. One, her reasoning is circular. Two, she directly ignores provisions in international instruments. One question journalists should ask themselves is: How did we get here, to this extreme in law-making? If they dug deeper, the logic would lead them to the EUSS abuses. A question for Ms Braverman would be: "What are you willing to do to put things right by the migrants you deport, if the Courts say you were wrong?" Braverman's answer (or non-answer) shows you her true intentions. If you passionately believe something, and you are proven wrong, the decent thing to do would be to make right the damage caused by your flawed thinking. Meanwhile, Zambrano carers are still waiting for the Home Office and Judiciary to apply the case of Ms. EK v Netherlands. Anyway, if I were a First-tier Tribunal judge, I would not go along with Ms Braverman's clearly unlawful scheme. Nope. They would have to fire me. But, to each his own, as they say.

[marcidevpal]

On "Illegals"

When Mr Sunak and Mrs Braverman refer to refugees as illegals, they are implying the refugees have no right to be in the country, just by virtue of the way they arrived. As you can see from the above post, the Refugee Convention says that even if one enters illegally, the illegal entry is justifiable if they claim refugee status. Only after an individual assessment is conducted, the applicant is refused and the person remains, should they be considered illegal.

Why is this important to Zambrano carers? It serves as yet another example of the way in which the Government knowingly and willfully corrupts concepts to suit its aims. And a Government which pushes its personal priorities above logic or governance principles, is one liable to discriminate.

[marcidevpal]

Their silence deafens me

Have you noticed how quiet Labour Party is on immigration? All you hear are crickets and birds chirping. Sir Keir Starmer almost never raises the issue, even though immigration consistently ranks in the top five issues UK people care about most. As a human rights barrister, it can't be for lack of knowledge. Today, when the Shadow Home Secretary did challenge the Government, there was no mention of any group apart from asylum seekers. No mention of the abusive language and misleading theories that incite riots and lovely. Even worse, the plans put forward by Labour do not address the bad legislation that already exists. The irony is, had UK judges, barristers, solicitors and charities taken the Zambrano appeals seriously, the new barbaric policies toward refugees probably would not have been proposed. Instead, Zambrano carers had to fight, for the most part, on their own. And lost. Many didn't have the funds to pay lawyers, some didn't speak English fluently and some had too much on their plate already given the struggles of being a single parent in a foreign country. The least the Labour Party could have done is ask one of the Prime Minister's a question. Just one. I would not expect too much from the next Labour Government. But that's just my opinion.