Since Immigration Act entered into force May. 21, 1999, it seemed to have some problems about the discrepancy among the opinions of laws concerning the deportation. Thus, it’s often to be heard that different explanations of the law would be made by different law-users. Surely, if a law executer applied to law cautiously, it would be easy not to regard Immigration Act as a bad law. However, if the competent authority ignored the importance of the human rights, and recklessly restricted foreigners’ obligations or freedoms, it would be tallied not only with the international human rights standard, but also with our Constitution principle.
This study began by the freedom of migration, and discussed the deportation would restrict the freedom of movement. Besides, as it mentioned the four points in question (moral order, criminal record, purpose of visa and leading the public officers to register incorrectly) as the restriction of the freedom of movement, not only should the article match the constitution principles, such as principle of improper connection forbidden, equality principle, clear principle of law, but also the article should conform to the principle of proportionality concerning the restriction of freedom of movement.
In consequence, the study designed the cases by what the writer saw and hear in person, and hoped as the four cases in discussion would help find the correct explanation of the law, it would supply the competent authority an adequate reference for sure. Furthermore, in order to return to the human rights that the foreigners were supposed to have, we would also anticipate the government could modify, and abolish the out-of-dated laws as well as the regulations.