rebeccajo

Is this the article you refer to? It is one of three I could find from the Beeb.

Threat of deportation of 92-year-old Myrtle Cothill is lifted - BBC News

I don't see anything in this article (or the other two) asserting "her family were trying to push their luck and attract the attention of leftist public hysteria and the likes of the Greens and Corbyn." Is that your interpretation, perhaps?

At any rate, I see from the article that the Immigration Minister, the good Mr. Brokenshire, has keened to grant limited leave to remain to Mrs. Cothill based on further evidence AND based upon compassionate circumstance. It might interest you to know that compassionate circumstance is something ECO's are supposed to take account of if an application fails on the basis of the rules. The practice of Home Office deficiency in this exercise was duly noted by peers on the bench of the UK Supreme Court during the recent MM and Others proceedings.

Shirtback

Very interesting, if a bit dated, article, thank you.

So there *is* an immigration *law* (& amendments)after all, which governs "policy", rules & the SoS .

Shirtback

The majority of articles in the British Press, Left Right or Centre politically, quote the judge who originally heard the case as ruling 'she was not a “person of credit” and had “obtained entry into the United Kingdom by deception and that she and her daughter arranged their affairs with the deliberate intention of making her removal difficult”'.

Of course humanitarian/compassionate grounds should be considered (& have been). I think the original point is/was that the lady in question/her daughter did not go about this in the right way.

rebeccajo

Yes, of course there is law. It's the same here in the US. There is immigration law and there is immigration policy. Policy can be changed without an Act of Parliament (or an act of Congress in the US).

rebeccajo

Judgments are not written to give sway to the side being written against. That's what dissenting opinions are for.

The lady in question may have used deliberate deception. Or she and her family may have been ignorant of policy.

Or they may have done what they had to do to take care of Mother - policy be damned.

Pulaski

Not sure if you saw this, and subsequent posts #26, #27, and #29.

I'm not sure why you find "Thatcher acolytes" entertaining? ..... Perhaps it is because you didn't have to live through the era of random strikes causing blackouts, shutdowns of the rail system, leading to delays to the mail (which mostly went by rail back then), never mind the flying pickets from the mining, railways, and iron & steel industries, meaning that an industrial dispute in one industry frequently shut down multiple other industries. Never mind the unions trashing the productivity and timeliness of the shipbuilding and car manufacturing industries by calling wildcat strikes, sometimes literally on a daily basis!

So perhaps you care to explain your side of the story, why someone who didn't live through that crap has such a downer on the prime minister who said "Enough!", and put Britain back to work?

spouse of scouse

Editha

I'm very glad that Myrtle Cothill has been given leave to remain. As someone whose own mother is just entering her nineties, I identified with the mother and daughter's predicament and I was appalled that Myrtle might be deported.

BritInParis

Anyone who overstays their visa, enters the country without entry clearance or by deception is breaking the law.

It was clear from the judge's comments regarding deception that she had broken the law, namely Section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971. She couldn't have been threatened with deportation otherwise.

rebeccajo

I believe the judge wrote there was deception because the family had arranged Mrs. Cothill's affairs (before her entry) in order to make her removal 'difficult'. I'm not sure he realized just how double-edged that statement was, when he wrote it.

I also believe that if someone is stamped in at arrival, even if they are lying through their teeth while standing there, that the admission itself is legal.

Mrs. Cothill overstayed and, yes, this violates immigration law. But there were remedies available to her, and one was applying for residency based on compassionate and exceptional circumstance.

I really don't see this as a case of the media interfering, thus causing the Home Office to back down. They don't back down, no matter who interferes. They often back down when someone reminds them that their policy conflicts with the law.

Mrs. Cothill may have technically "broken the law" by overstaying, but she was under color of law while the application was in play. The Home Office violated their own policy when they denied her first application by refusing to apply compassionate and exceptional circumstance to that application.

I do agree with you that Myrtle and her family didn't go about things the right way. She probably violated immigration law. But there is a bunch of Home Office policy out there, right now, that may be in violation of the law. Until the courts get around to deciding these cases, the Home Office has the upper hand because they are the 'rule maker'. To me, the fact that they changed their decision is very telling. And it's not telling me that they were bowing down to 'leftist ideals'.

Shirtback

Thank you.

BritInParis

There was deception before she even arrived in the UK because she applied for a visitor visa when she clearly had no intention of returning to South Africa. This is usually a ten year ban from the UK and deportation if you're already in the UK.

That would be deception and again is illegal.

She broke the law, full stop. There were plenty of legal alternatives to her situation including applying for an adult dependent relative visa or simply staying in South Africa and using the proceeds of the house sale to fund her care.

A decision has now been made to permit her to stay in the UK outside the Immigration Rules on a discretionary basis. I doubt such a decision would have been reached without the accompanying publicity.

Editha

This is what the JCWI has to say about the adult dependent relative visa:"It remains almost impossible to succeed in this visa category."

There are occasions when the law is an ass and change is needed. It offends most peoples values, and sense of morality, that a ninety year old should be prevented from living with her daughter. The family in this case did not have the alternatives you suggest. They were unlikely to succeed with the adult dependent relative application, and quite rightly, did not think it acceptable that Myrtle remained in SA without family support.

I supported their campaign by both signing their petition and writing to my MP. I'm very pleased that the campaign was successful and I will continue to support the campaign to change the adult dependent relative criteria.

BristolUK

I can't believe I read that.

The only civilised country (or whatever the definition was) to see an increase in infant mortality under her government; millions unemployed a (and that was only the ones who counted because of a dozen changes in the way the figures were calculated so as to exclude those who previously counted); Union membership banned; illegal weapons found in police lockers tolerated but they were just 'souvenirs'; increased homelessness; increased home repossessions; interest rates through the roof; benefit cuts while the rich had their big tax cuts and huge pay rises hand in hand with removal of exchange controls so they could take 'their' money out of the country; awarding arms contracts to directly benefit her son...

The war and all those deaths created to divert attention from the damage...

Ah what a paradise that was back in the 80s.

And, sadly, the "me...me..." attitude persisting like it never did before.

Pulaski

My father worked in the steel industry, and lost his job, twice, in that era and ended up leaving the steel industry and taking lower-paid work, but he never had a good word to say about the Labour party and the unions, and the damage they did to the whole country.

And of course Tony Blair didn't get the UK involved in any wars. Remarkably, two consecutive Labour Chancellors managed to bankrupt the country, with Dennis Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF and Gordon Brown presiding over an even bigger financial melt-down after an unprecedented borrow-and-spend binge.