India on U.K.'s ‘Deport Now Appeal Later' expanded list for foreign criminals
In an announcement on Sunday (August 10, 2025), the U.K. Home Office confirmed that the scope of its 'Deport Now Appeal Later' scheme will be nearly trebled from eight countries to 23, with foreign nationals from these countries to be deported to their home countries before they can appeal against that decision.
Foreigners who have had their human rights claim refused will have a chance to take part in their U.K. appeal hearing remotely from overseas using video technology.
'For far too long, foreign criminals have been exploiting our immigration system, remaining in the UK for months or even years while their appeals drag on. That has to end,' said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
'Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced,' she said.
The list of countries covered under the remote hearing scheme, revived in 2023 by then Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman, included Finland, Nigeria, Estonia, Albania, Belize, Mauritius, Tanzania and Kosovo.
Now, India will be added along with Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda and Zambia.
The U.K. government said it remains in continuous discussions with 'a range of other countries about joining the scheme'.
'We are leading diplomatic efforts to increase the number of countries where foreign criminals can be swiftly returned, and if they want to appeal, they can do so safely from their home country. Under this scheme, we're investing in international partnerships that uphold our security and make our streets safer,' said Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
According to the Home Office, previously offenders from the countries on the expanded list could remain in the UK for months or years while their cases were worked through the appeals system as an 'added burden on the British taxpayer' beyond the end of the prison sentences.
It also released the latest figures to highlight that around 5,200 foreign nationals were deported since July 2024 when the Labour government came into office, an increase of 14 per cent over the previous year.
Additionally, the government said it is legislating to ensure that asylum seekers who commit notifiable sex offences can be stripped of their right to claim refugee protection under new powers in the Borders Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
It is said to have invested GBP 5 million for the deployment of specialist staff to almost 80 jails around England and Wales to speed up removals and deportations.
The U.K. Ministry of Justice (MoJ), meanwhile, announced it will go further on a previous legislation from June stipulating that most foreign prisoners can now be deported to their home country after serving just 30 per cent of their prison time, rather than 50 per cent.
Stripping back what it termed as 'a decades-old law', new powers will see the immediate deportation of criminals from prison, and such offenders will then be barred from re-entering the U.K.
Terrorists, murderers and others serving life sentences will continue to have to serve their prison sentence before being considered for deportation.
'Deportations are up under this government, and with this new law they will happen earlier than ever before. Our message is clear: if you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing,' said Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood.
The changes will apply to prisoners serving fixed-term, or determinate, sentences and discretion to not use the measure on a case-by-case basis will be retained, the ministry said.
According to official data referenced by the MoJ, foreign offenders make up around 12 per cent of the total prison population, with prison places costing GBP 54,000 a year on average. The tougher new measures will apply to all foreign national offenders already in custody as well as those newly sentenced, with legislation to be tabled in Parliament in the next session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Chilling past, warm present
On August 15, U.S President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin concluded a historic summit in Alaska. After friendly greetings and two-and-a-half-hour-long talks at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, they left without announcing any deal, but claimed to have made progress on many issues. The selection of Alaska as the backdrop for this summit, the first since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was significant in more than one manner. Alaska was under Russian control for 125 years before being sold to the U.S. in 1867. Alaska is separated from Russia by a distance of 88 km, while the Russian Island of Big Diomede is located just 4 km from the U.S. Little Diomede Island, with the Bering strait separating the two. Also read: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit Highlights Alaska has been populated by Indigenous peoples, including the Athabaskans, Unangan (Aleuts), Inuit, Yupiit (Yupik), Tlingit, and Haida, for centuries. In the early 18th century, Danish explorer Vitus Bering was pressed into service by Russian Tsar Peter the Great to explore the regions to the east of Russia's border. In 1728, Bering sailed through the strait separating the Russian mainland and North America (the strait is now named after him). During his second voyage in 1741, Bering spotted the peak of Mount St. Elias, part of an Alaskan mountain range, from his ship St. Peter. His 'discovery' of Alaska was confirmed later during the voyage of Englishman Captain James Cook, who mapped the area in 1778. Trading outposts Russian traders — the Promyshlenniki — soon set up outposts in Alaska, interested in seal-hunting and otter fur trade. The first Russian colony was set up in 1784 on Kodiak island at Three Saints Bay. In 1799, Tsar Paul I established the Russian American company, and in 1806, their capital was moved from Kodiak to Sitka. The Russians had to contend with opposition from the Alaskan natives, including an armed battle in Sitka in 1804 between Tlingit and Russian forces. British and later American trade interest in the region was also a challenge to the growth of 'Russian America'. Over decades, overexploitation of seals and sea otters in Alaska meant that their populations shrank, gutting profitability for Russian traders. Further, Russia was defeated by the British in the Crimean war (1853-1856). Viewing Alaska as a hard-to-defend territory which was also becoming economically untenable, Tsar Alexander II decided to give it up. Despite British interest, the U.S. emerged triumphant in its bid for Alaska in 1867. Russia sold the parcel of land, measured 665,000 sq. miles, to the U.S for $7.2 million, in a deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State William Henry Seward. The deal, dubbed as 'Seward's Folly', was widely criticised, since Alaska was viewed as a barren frozen wasteland. The subsequent discovery of natural gas reserves and rare earth minerals, however, changed the public perception. In 1896, gold was found in Yukon and prospectors arrived to seek their fortunes in the Klondike gold fields. In 1959, Alaska officially became the 49th State of the U.S. Traces of its Russian past persist in Alaska till day. Several Orthodox churches, with characteristic ornate decor and onion-shaped domes, dot the region. The Orthodox diocese in Alaska is reportedly the oldest in North America, and it maintains a seminary on Kodiak island, the site of the first Russian settlement. Local dialects, now fast-vanishing, arose from a melange of Russian and local indigenous language, and persisted in regions surrounding Anchorage. Russian, too, is taught in some areas, such as the Kenai peninsula. Alaska is also a strategically important region. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, the site of Friday's summit, was a forward front of American defence during the Cold War. Given the region's imperial Russian past, it was hardly a surprise that Anchorage was picked as the venue for the Putin-Trump meet — an American town acceptable for the Russians. When Mr. Putin met Mr. Trump on the tarmac of the joint base, he greeted him, saying, 'Good afternoon, dear neighbour.'
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
The British Left's second act
In late July 2025, Jeremy Corbyn announced the formation of a new left-wing political party alongside former Labour MP Zarah Sultana, marking a new chapter for one of Britain's unique political figures in the past decade. Operating under the provisional name 'Your Party', this venture represents Mr. Corbyn's boldest move since his expulsion, last year, from the Labour Party he once led. Mr. Corbyn is also part of the Independent Alliance, a parliamentary grouping of six independent MPs consisting of five Muslims — including Ms. Sultana as the sole woman — who have positioned themselves as vocal critics of the current Labour government's policies on everything from welfare cuts to arms sales to Israel. The announcement has already generated strong grassroots enthusiasm, according to Mr. Corbyn, with over 6,50,000 people signing up for membership in the party's first weeks — a figure that suggests a significant appetite for an alternative to current Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour. This surge of support recalls the unexpected momentum that first propelled Mr. Corbyn to the Labour leadership nearly a decade ago. The Corbyn breakthrough In 2015, Mr. Corbyn's successful bid for the Labour leadership caught the political establishment completely off guard. As Andrew Murray, one of Mr. Corbyn's key advisers, reflected in a recent interview in Jacobin magazine, the victory was 'totally unexpected' and driven by 'exasperation within the Labour membership with the legacy of New Labour'. While his rivals offered tepid continuations of the (Tony) Blair-(Gordon) Brown era, Mr. Corbyn represented something genuinely different: authentic opposition to neoliberalism, a commitment to mass movement politics rather than pure parliamentary politics, and an uncompromising anti-imperialist foreign policy stance. This combination was remarkable in the context of European social democracy. Unlike left-wing movements in Spain, Germany, or France that emerged from communist traditions or as entirely new formations, Mr. Corbyn accomplished something unique in European politics: he captured the leadership of a major, mainstream, social democratic party from a position of fundamental opposition to its decades-long trajectory toward centrism. In some ways, his rise was similar to that of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party in the U.S. at a similar time. His programmatic positions included renationalisation of utilities, massive public investment, and wealth redistribution — policies that were always characterised as 'Old Labour' and hadn't been seriously proposed by Labour leadership in decades, except by popular but sidelined leaders like Tony Benn. The 2017 general election validated this approach. Against all expectations, Mr. Corbyn led Labour to its biggest vote swing since 1945, securing 40% of the vote — a performance matched by only two other Labour campaigns since 1970, under Mr. Blair. Enemies within However, Mr. Corbyn's functioning as Labour leader was constantly undermined by fierce resistance from within his own party. Mr. Murray estimates that at least 80% of Labour MPs opposed Mr. Corbyn 'with different degrees of vehemence and for different reasons'. This internal hostility created what Mr. Murray describes as feeling 'like an encampment in the middle of enemy fire the whole time, coming from your own side'. This was also exacerbated by a hostile media that lampooned or mischaracterised many of his positions ruthlessly. The opposition intensified around Mr. Corbyn's foreign policy positions, particularly his solidarity with Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli policies, honed over decades as a Labour back-bencher and peace activist. This anti-imperialist stance proved especially threatening to the Labour establishment, which as Mr. Murray notes, was willing to tolerate domestic policy changes such as nationalising water companies but 'if a government was going to compromise nuclear weapons or NATO or even support for Israel, those would be red lines'. This foreign policy stance became a focal point of opposition, with allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party being used to attack his leadership. While Mr. Murray acknowledges there were genuine issues that needed addressing, he and others have argued that the controversy was inflated into a smear campaign with the aim of discrediting Mr. Corbyn's critique of Israeli policies. The accusations created a 'moral damage' that paralysed Mr. Corbyn's leadership and drained energy from his team, even if they weren't the primary factor in his eventual electoral defeat. The issue that ultimately proved fatal to Mr. Corbyn's leadership was Brexit. Initially, he managed to straddle Britain's fundamental political divide by promising to 'respect the referendum result' in 2016 while delivering a different Brexit than the Tories. This position helped maintain support amongst traditional Labour voters in working-class constituencies who had voted Leave, while not completely alienating Remain supporters. However, mounting pressure from a newly energised pro-EU movement and overwhelming Remain sentiment among Labour members forced him into an increasingly untenable position. By 2019, Labour had committed to a second referendum — a stance that proved electorally catastrophic. As Mr. Murray predicted, this position cost Labour dozens of seats in traditional working-class strongholds and failed to deliver equivalent gains in Remain-supporting areas. The Brexit debate starkly exposed the deep division within Labour's electoral coalition, pitting its liberal and urban supporters against the party's traditional working class constituency in seats that voted to leave the EU. This split mirrors similar divisions affecting left-wing parties across the developed world, where globalisation has created divergent interests between different segments of the progressive coalition, particularly seen in the Democratic Party in the U.S. with the rise of Donald Trump's populism. Following Labour's 2019 defeat, Mr. Starmer systematically dismantled Mr. Corbyn's legacy within the party. Mr. Corbyn was suspended and eventually expelled, while many of his allies were marginalised or forced out. Mr. Starmer's centrist approach proved electorally successful in 2024, delivering Labour its largest parliamentary majority in decades. However, this victory hid a glaring statistic — Labour actually received fewer votes than Mr. Corbyn had achieved in his 2019 defeat, winning primarily due to the collapse of Conservative support and vote-splitting on the Right between the Tories and Reform UK. With a historically low vote share for a winning party, Mr. Starmer's government has struggled to maintain public support. More problematically for Labour's left flank, Mr. Starmer has continued many Conservative policies, maintaining austerity measures such as cutting winter fuel allowances for pensioners, and continuing defence partnership with Israel despite its devastating attacks in Gaza, which international rights organisations and many in Britain describe as genocide. This has created the political vacuum that Mr. Corbyn's new party hopes to fill. Yet, his new venture faces formidable challenges. At 76, Mr. Corbyn is no longer the energetic outsider who captured imaginations in 2015. As writer Richard Seymour noted in his assessment of the post-Corbyn Left in 2020, the fundamental conditions that enabled the original Corbyn surge — economic austerity as the dominant political issue, faith in traditional social democratic solutions — have evolved significantly. There is a reason why Mr. Corbyn's strongest allies presently have been limited to those who agree with his positions on the Gaza issue. 'Democratic crisis' The current political moment is shaped by different dynamics: immigration anxieties, cultural polarisation, and what Mr. Seymour identifies as a broader 'democratic crisis' that transcends simple economic grievances. The Left's traditional focus on 'bread and butter' issues, while still relevant, may prove insufficient in addressing these deeper structural problems. Moreover, the working-class base that formed Labour's traditional foundation has been fundamentally altered by decades of deindustrialisation and social change. The Brexit vote exposed how many traditional Labour voters prioritise cultural and democratic concerns over economic redistribution, creating the very split that ultimately destroyed Mr. Corbyn's electoral coalition. While his name recognition and symbolic value remain significant assets, the energy and dynamism required for party-building may need to come from younger figures such as Ms. Sultana. Also, the British first-past-the-post system makes breakthrough difficult for new parties, while Labour's current weakness across multiple fronts— facing challenges from Reform UK on the Right, the Greens and independents on the Left, and the SNP in Scotland —suggests the political landscape remains highly fragmented. Yet, the early enthusiasm for 'Your Party' suggests genuine hunger for an alternative to Mr. Starmer's centrist approach. With Britain facing continued economic stagnation, social unrest, and international crises, there remains space for a left-wing alternative. Whether this new formation can avoid the sectarian splits that have historically plagued the British Left, adapt to changed political conditions, and provide leadership beyond Mr. Corbyn's eventual retirement, remains an open question.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Putin emerges from the Alaska summit with increased stature and Trump echoing a Kremlin position
President Vladimir Putin walked on a red carpet, shook hands and exchanged smiles with his American counterpart. Donald Trump ended summit praising their relationship and calling Russia "a big power ... No. 2 in the world," albeit admitting they didn't reach a deal on ending the war in Ukraine. By Saturday morning Moscow time, Trump appeared to have abandoned the idea of a ceasefire as a step toward peace -- something he and Ukraine had pushed for months -- in favor of pursuing a full-fledged "Peace Agreement" to end the war, echoing a long-held Kremlin position. The "severe consequences" he threatened against Moscow for continuing hostilities were nowhere in sight. On Ukraine's battlefields, Russian troops slowly grinded on, with time on their side. The hastily arranged Alaska summit "produced nothing for Mr. Trump and gave Mr. Putin most of what he was looking for," said Laurie Bristow, a former British ambassador to Russia. The summit spectacle Putin's visit to Alaska was his first to the United States in 10 years and his first to a Western country since invading Ukraine in 2022 and plunging U.S.-Russia relations to the lowest point since the Cold War. Crippling sanctions followed, along with efforts to shun Russia on the global stage. In another major blow, the International Criminal Court in 2023 issued an arrest warrant against Putin on accusations of war crimes, casting a shadow on his foreign trips and contacts with other world leaders. Trump's return to the White House appeared to upend all that. He warmly greeted Putin, even clapping for him, on a red carpet as U.S. warplanes flew overhead as the world watched. The overflight was both "a show of power" and a gesture of welcome from the U.S. president to the Kremlin leader, "shown off to a friend," said retired Col. Peer de Jong, a former aide to two French presidents and author of "Putin, Lord of War." Russian officials and media reveled in the images of the "pomp-filled reception" and "utmost respect" that Putin received in Alaska. Putin has "broken out of international isolation," returning to the world stage as one of two global leaders and "wasn't in the least challenged" by Trump, who ignored the arrest warrant for Putin from the ICC, Bristow told The Associated Press. For Putin, 'mission accomplished' Putin "came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war," said Neil Melvin, director of international security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute. "He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished." In recent months, Trump has pressed for a ceasefire, something Ukraine and its allies supported and insisted was a prerequisite for any peace talks. The Kremlin has pushed back, however, arguing it's not interested in a temporary truce -- only in a long-term peace agreement. Moscow's official demands for peace so far have remained nonstarter for Kyiv: It wants Ukraine to cede four regions that Russia only partially occupies, along with the Crimean Peninsula, illegally annexed in 2014. Ukraine also must renounce its bid to join NATO and shrink its military, the Kremlin says. After Alaska, Trump appeared to echo the Kremlin's position on a ceasefire, posting on social media that after he spoke to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up." In a statement after the Trump call, the European leaders did not address whether a peace deal was preferable to a ceasefire. The pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda described it as a "huge diplomatic victory" for Putin, whose forces will have time to make more territorial gains. The summit took place a week after a deadline Trump gave the Kremlin to stop the war or face additional sanctions on its exports of oil in the form of secondary tariffs on countries buying it. Trump already imposed those tariffs on India, and if applied to others, Russian revenues "would probably be impacted very badly and very quickly," said Chris Weafer, CEO of Macro-Advisory Ltd. consultancy. In the days before Alaska, Trump also threatened unspecified "very severe consequences" if Putin does not agree to stop the war. But whether those consequences will materialize remains unclear. Asked about it in a post-summit interview with Fox News Channel, Trump said he doesn't need "to think about that right now," and suggested he might revisit the idea in "two weeks or three weeks or something." Alexandra Prokopenko of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and a former adviser at the Russian Central Bank, posted on X that it was "an important tactical victory for Putin" that gives Moscow "an opportunity to build alternatives and be prepared." More pressure on Ukraine In a statement after the summit, Putin claimed the two leaders had hammered out an "understanding" on Ukraine and warned Europe not to "torpedo the nascent progress." But Trump said "there's no deal until there's a deal." In his Fox interview, Trump insisted the onus going forward might be on Zelenskyy "to get it done," but said there would also be some involvement from European nations. Zelenskyy will meet Trump at the White House on Monday. Both raised the possibility of a trilateral summit with Putin, but Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said it wasn't discussed in Alaska. The Kremlin has long maintained that Putin would only meet Zelenskyy in the final stages of peace talks. "Trump now appears to be shifting responsibility towards Kyiv and Europe, while still keeping a role for himself," Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center wrote on X. Fiona Hill, a senior adviser on Russia in his first administration, told that Trump has met his match because "Putin is a much bigger bully." Trump wants to be the negotiator of "a big real estate deal between Russia and Ukraine," she said, but in his mind he can "apply real pressure" only to one said - Kyiv. Hill said she expects Trump to tell Zelenskyy that "you're really going to have to make a deal" with Putin because Trump wants the conflict off his plate and is not prepared to put pressure on the Russian president. Far from the summit venue and its backdrop saying "Pursuing Peace," Russia continued to bombard Ukraine and make incremental advances on the over 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front. Russia fired a ballistic missile and 85 drones overnight. Ukraine shot down or intercepted 61 drones, its air force said. Front-line areas of Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk and Chernihiv were attacked. Russia's Defense Ministry said it had taken control of the village of Kolodyazi in the Donetsk region, along with Vorone in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Ukraine did not comment on the claims. Russian forces are closing in on the strongholds of Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka in the Donetsk region, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2022 but still only partially controls. "Unless Mr. Putin is absolutely convinced that he cannot win militarily, the fighting is not going to stop," said Bristow, the former ambassador. "That's the big takeaway from the Anchorage summit."
