Should bureaucracy or compassion be our priority

www.change.org/p/the-government-ailing-92-year-old-facing-forced-removal-from-uk/u/15724274

www.change.org/p/the-government-ailing-92-year-old-facing-forced-removal-from-uk

She's allowed to stay.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/24/myrtle-cothill-92-year-old-facing-deportation-at-risk-of-death-in-months

An update on her situation.

If I was an only child and had an elderly parent living 6,000 miles away without any family around her then I would move heaven and earth to get them to the country I was living in to live with me.

Given the irrational way our immigration system works I can well see that the parent and child involved could be tempted to be 'economical with the actualite' as a senior civil servant said in a court case, in order to ensure that they are allowed to stay.

This dancing around the facts of this case is ignoring the basic facts: A 92 year old parent 6,000 miles from their only child and with no family in their country of origin. If this is not a case for compassionate leave to stay, then nothing is.

Eloethan I think that a similar arrangement was offered to people living in Hong Kong at the time it was handed back to China. That's how the mega rich Hong Kongese ended up in London.

Every time I read about the £18600, it crosses my mind that most people don't know about it.

Thanks for that information dj.

I think, Eloethan, the problem was that they did not apply the right way.
She came in on a holiday visa, and then applied. She should have applied when in South Africa, but they did not know that.

Unfortunately she only has a pension from her husband's employment of £300 per month.

I think the reason this woman got so much coverage is because of her age.

I agree about the rules being unfair. James Brokenshire says the rules are unfair as they do not apply to those in the EU, so he is going to close the loophole.
I assume he means he will apply the rule to all immigrants, not reduce the amount, as suggested in court.
A bit like when the pension rules were evened up for men and women, and most people thought it would mean men could retire earlier.

On the face of it, it seems totally inhumane. However, I'm not sure we have all the information relating to this case. For instance, how was this elderly lady managing before she came to the UK? Are all the details permitted to be put into the public arena or are there some details which cannot be, or which have not been, divulged?

Personally, I think the immigration rules relating to reuniting families are unfair, but they are unfair to a lot of people who perhaps don't get the coverage that this particular case has.

I think it's even worse that a person (and children) from outside the EU who does not have UK citizenship cannot join his/her British citizen spouse if that spouse is not earning a minimum of £18,600 per annum. Apparently almost 40% of British citizens earn less than that amount.

According to a BBC report in 2015, a non-UK/EU resident who has £2 million to invest in government gilts or bonds, buy shares or give a loan to a Company operating in the UK can get a "Tier 1 investor Visa" - initially for three years, which can be extended by two years and then permanent residency applied for. I don't know if this covers family as well.

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.

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!!!!!!

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.

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

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

206 now. It's a bit slow.

204 now.

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.

" 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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.