Abstract
In situations where immigration decisions impact upon the right to family life the ability of a State to control entry and residence to its territory is to be weighed up against the rights of the individuals concerned to the enjoyment of family life. Any decision in this area depends heavily on the particular circumstances that are involved. When it comes to individuals illegally present in a State, international practice has usually held that the right of a State to control immigration outweighs the right to family life except in the most limited circumstances. The Human Rights Committee's decision in Winata is significant for the Committee has held that the removal of individuals illegally present in the territory would result in violations of the right to family life. This marks a shift in international practice which has commonly given States a wide margin of discretion in upholding their immigration laws when it comes to individuals illegally resident in the territory. This article will look at the Committee's decision and compare it to international practice with a view to determining if there now exists for families a right to live wherever they choose.