Should bureaucracy or compassion be our priority

Most of us have read/heard of some foreign born person who has committed a terrible crime, such as rape or serious assault, to stay here as some judges think the ‘right to family life’, is an absolute, unqualified right. If that is the case, why is this very elderly, innocent person not allowed the 'right to a family life'.

I wonder if people realise the implications of what they are saying. If the, I agree, pitiable woman has no legal right of residence and her family have indeed practiced deception on her behalf to have her remain in the UK then technically she has to go.

Sympathy is being offered towards this white, elderly lady because she looks and sounds 'like us'. We look at her and think, 'that could be my mother.' Would there be such a furore if the person who overstayed their welcome and bent the rules was a 20 year old Somali male with a criminal record?

For what it's worth, as far as I am concerned, she can stay. Compassion demands it due to her age and her helplessness.

But then everyone has a story and a 'need' to remain.

This is the problem with the migration crisis which created its own heart rending metaphor. Those on the small boats on the sea were sunk by the attempts to rescue others and bring them aboard a boat already full. It is a horrible conundrum for those who feel and who think.

I wonder if the very elderly relative of a cabinet minister would be deported however illegally they were here. Actually I don't wonder at all!

Teacher 11 if your Dad had died and left your Mum all on her own with no family thousands of miles away and in her 90's & in poor health. Are you saying you would not bend the truth to have her near to you?

Politicians and Government civil servants bend the truth every day when it suits them.

None of us are perfect but I know what millions of us would do to help our love ones.

It is not a question of what rules we would bend for our own family, but of what happens when it is discovered that those rules have been bent.

If, for instance, we were to claim benefits by saying that we have no means of support, while working and earning a good wage, we would be (rightly) in trouble for breaking the rules.

If the judge has decided that rules have been broken in this case - and we do not know what rules those are or why the women are being labelled as "not credible", that is where we are commenting in the dark then he is bound to follow procedure.

It is very likely that there is a case to be made here for mercy. leniency, compassion - call it what you like - but that has to be made as an exception, otherwise there is no point in having rules at all - just a big bag of money with someone giving it in handfuls to all who hold out a hand would be all that was needed.

I don't care if she has lied, stolen , or what ever, she is aged and needs her daughter

I am pleased I started off this thread and greatly appreciate all the support for the elderly lady.

Elegran, i don't think it is up to us to support the Gov of the day or support the status quo, if it is moraly wrong to take such a bureacratic decision then we should say so.

I just cannot understand any such lack of compassion towards a 92 year old lady. If it was a member of my family I would be knocking at the door of Bucks House if necessary.

These cases make me so angry. If the lady has family here and none in SA, is it really going to make a significant difference to our immigration figures if she's allowed to stay for the rest of her life? And the usual "her condition is not life-threatening" argument is not exactly sound . . . - whether she stays or goes she will not live for ever - the human condition is, by definition, life-threatening!!! Grrrrrr!

Deporting this woman is morally wrong, it is brutal too

NanaBridget I did not say that we "should" support the decision. I said that the reason that the judge took it is because of evidence that HE has seen but we have not. Hearing the decision without the evidence means that there are things hinted at which we do not know, and which might influence us if we did know.

There has been such a lot of public outcry about sending this woman back that it could well be that the decision is reversed - if so, good. If so, I hope that we hear more about the grounds on which the judge said she should go, and the grounds on which an appeal says she should stay.

I think I would call what the judge has done due process of the law rather than bureaucracy. Following the law and making rulings according to the law as it stands is what judges are supposed to do.

If a case can be made for an exception to be made in this woman's case, that is fine, but the judge may not have had that option available at the time of the decision. It's too easy to apportion blame to civil servants without knowing the restrictions they are working under.

If the law is unfair it needs to be changed but it is not a judge's job to change the law.

What judges do and what they are suppose to do are not always the same

That may be true, but do you actually know whether it is true in this case? I suspect not.

I agree that there is more to this case than we know about in view of the Judges summing up which says that mother and daughter are not persons of credit. We know the mother came in on a visitors visa and we do not know what the paperwork should have been to get permisison to stay permanently. Unfortunately an income of £300 a months is not enough for the person to cover her costs if she needs to pay for medical care. However is she does have a right to a British passport this needs to be explored. Also what ever the circumstances you would have thought thet the Human Rights Act gave the daughter the right to have her mother here as her mother's only remaining relative.

Then there is compassion and humanity.

I have signed the change org petition.

" Reverse the amendment of the immigration rule on adult dependant relatives which came into force in July 2012 radically changing the previous rule (which was in place for over 40yrs) which allowed British nationals and other settled persons (i.e. persons with indefinite leave to remain) to be joined by their parents/grandparents aged over 65yrs if they could be accommodated and financially supported by their children/grandchildren without reliance on the public purse.

3) Reinstate the previous immigration rule on family reunion to enable others like Myrtle to be granted leave to remain in the UK."

This is part of the change.org petition.
As can be seen, the rules changed two years before Myrtle Cothill came here to visit her daughter, it having been acceptable for over forty years before then for her to come and live with her daughter. Her friends told the daughter that she was not safe on her own.
Do any of you know what the rules are if you want to have any foreign relatives to live with you?

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122145

There is now a petition on the government website.
The change.org has 130,000+ signatures. The government one 203.
It needs a few more to get a response.

204 now.

206 now. It's a bit slow.

The lie that I saw was that they said she was 92 and she was only 91.

I know we're all living longer but being 92 seems life threatening enough to me.

I agree, Deedaa, having just been to see my 94 year old mother in law.

I hardly think this woman is going to be a threat to national security.
She's not going to try and bring her family in from South Africa, as she doesn't have any left there.

I find it amazing that some people try to defend the indefensible.

There must be a few good Judge Deeds about that would find ways of curtailing the orginal decision, i am no legal beadle but surely frailty and failing health is good enough.

Makes me wonder how true to life is Judge Deed when the story line so often infers Whitehall is being accused of putting pressures on the Judiciary, not that I am claiming that actually happened in this case.

It is just my sub conscious keeps telling me that somewhere along the line compassion went out of the window.

I don't have any problem with this lady staying in the UK. I would just like to know the full story because there's something we're not being told by the family. That missing information is the reason she's being threatened with deportation.

I don't lack compassion, just information.

She is being threatened with deportation because quite simply she is South African, and came to the UK on a South African passport with the usual time limited visitors visa necessary to come to the UK.

She was becoming increasingly frail and unable to look after herself and no longer had a family or support system left in South Africa so her daughter brought her over to the UK to be with her. I assume her daughter's intention was to get her mother with her and cared for first and then apply for right to stay once she was here. In her circumstances I would do the same thing

When the elderly lady applied for right to stay this was refused. The government response was that there were charities in South Africa that could look after her if she returned home. Somehow that response only makes their refusal look even more callous.

Nothing suspicious about the deportation at all. She is being deported because she has overstayed her visitors visa and the authorities can see no reason to allow her to stay on compassionate grounds!!!!!!

Then why did the appeal judge say they had deliberately tried to make their situation more complicated and that neither the mother nor the daughter were people of credit, which I read to mean that they were not credible? Did they lie thinking it would help their case? What did the judge mean?

I understand that the old lady will undergo a medical examination and have no doubt she will be allowed to stay in the UK.