First, Phil makes some entirely sensible points about this. The law, as presented on the Today programme at least, applies to those born abroad. Thus, it would seem to allow - and I don't know the details of exactly how decisions on deportation are made, although I do think that those without the right to remain are automatically deported if convicted of a criminal offence - people who have settled permanently in the UK, married, raised families, bought property, contributed to the tax system and so on to be summarily deported on completion of a criminal sentence, which, for those like them in every other respect apart from their place of birth, results in being released back into the community at large. That strikes me as an obviously bad law, so, beyond quite generalised and relatively low-level 'the law should be enforced, simply because it is the law' concerns, I'm hardly particularly troubled by the Home Office's failure to enforce this law. It may be indicative of a general problem of incompetence, in which case by all means highlight that, but it is, of itself, hardly the proper grounds for a national panic. Indeed, as Phil points out, the rationale behind the measure seems disturbingly authoritarian - that the suspicion that an individual might commit crimes is a just ground for the suspension of some of their civil rights - and one which civil libertarians, however indirectly, should not be supporting.
Slightly less seriously, I offer this, this, this and this. The first two are Cirdan giving a level of careful consideration to arguments for hereditary monarchy which I would not have the patience or sense of humour for, and worth reading as examples, if not quite exemplars, of how analytical philosophy is done. The third I include mainly because it contains the full text of a speech given to what seems to be the official forum for apartheid apologism and nostalgia Alex found whilst investigating something quite different. The content of the speech has to be seen to be believed: I found it something of a struggle to convince myself it wasn't a hoax of some sort or other, it's so comically over the top. Lastly, Rochenko provides an example of why it is not a good idea to combine alcohol with philosophical argument.