What I was trying to get across is that the right to a family life is a very wishy-washy definition that depending on different people's interpretation could cover a wide variety of situations. The term "family life" needs defining better e.g. I could argue not being able to say goodnight and read a bedtime story to my kids was affecting my bonding with them, and hence my family life, if I was imprisoned, though I'm pretty sure if it went to court that I would lose.
If we can ban some foreign citizens from entering the country due to them posing a potential security/law and order risk, although they haven't as yet committed a crime in this country, then surely we should be able to deport foreign nationals who have actually committed serious crimes here.
We also seem to be rather good at preventing an overseas national that has legitimately married a British national from enjoying a family life by refusing them a visa or residency. I don't see the sense in not allowing law abiding spouses in to the country but allowing violent criminals to stay.