In 2012 the Government made a number of controversial changes to the Immigration Rules, which it claimed would ‘comprehensively reform the approach taken towards ECHR Article 8 in immigration cases’. This paper examines the judicial response, arguing that the courts ‘fell into line’, adapting human rights law to the government's aims through unprincipled and opportunistic techniques, whilst inflicting hardship and injustice on working-class British citizens in particular. Four key moves are identified. First, the courts created an ‘incapable’ test which immunised the rules from in principle challenges. Second, Lord Bingham's Article 8 test, in which the reasonableness of any family member relocation was a central consideration, was replaced with a far less family-friendly test. Third, the courts adopted an ultra-lax rationality test at common law, even when the ‘fundamental rights’ of British citizens were engaged. Finally, the courts identified immigration policy as the ‘constitutional responsibility’ of the executive.

中文翻译：

---

掉线？恶劣的环境和“法官起义”的传说

2012 年，政府对移民规则进行了一些有争议的修改，声称将“全面改革在移民案件中针对欧洲人权公约第 8 条采取的方法”。本文考察了司法回应，认为法院“顺从”，通过无原则和投机取巧的手段使人权法适应政府的目标，同时特别对英国工人阶级公民造成困难和不公正。确定了四个关键动作。首先，法院制定了“无能力”测试，使规则免受原则上的挑战。其次，宾厄姆勋爵的第 8 条测试，其中任何家庭成员搬迁的合理性是一个核心考虑因素，被远不利于家庭的测试所取代。第三，法院在普通法中采用了极其宽松的理性测试，即使涉及英国公民的“基本权利”也是如此。最后，法院将移民政策确定为行政部门的“宪法责任”。