http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1143877 ... ht/?ref=mr Just seen this on Calender News. The Home Office are in the process of deporting a South African husband and father because his wife doesn't earn enough to support him. IMO it's a pretty stupid decision from the Home Office. The woman and her daughter have every right to live in England because the mother is British. By deporting him back to South Africa the UK Govt may be saving themselves from future payments to him, but they are also creating a virtual single mother who will need to be supported in the process. I think the way they went about his immigration was wrong and illegal. By coming over to the UK on a visitors visa and then trying to stay permanently was wrong. But that's exactly what I did when I went over to live in the USA. For that crime I didn't get deported I simply got fined about $275.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1143877 ... ht/?ref=mr Just seen this on Calender News. The Home Office are in the process of deporting a South African husband and father because his wife doesn't earn enough to support him. IMO it's a pretty stupid decision from the Home Office. The woman and her daughter have every right to live in England because the mother is British. By deporting him back to South Africa the UK Govt may be saving themselves from future payments to him, but they are also creating a virtual single mother who will need to be supported in the process. I think the way they went about his immigration was wrong and illegal. By coming over to the UK on a visitors visa and then trying to stay permanently was wrong. But that's exactly what I did when I went over to live in the USA. For that crime I didn't get deported I simply got fined about $275.

As I read it, he didn't do anything wrong, she decided she wanted to stay in the UK only after he had perfectly legitimately entered on a visitor's visa. He's seemingly applied to change his status whilst here, but you can't.

However there's nothing to stop him going back to SA and making application for the correct type of visa, but if it is a stupid decision then he should win on appeal so I can't really see the problem, to be honest.

We have immense difficulty getting rid of foreign criminals, terrorists, or people who just come here to smash the benefits system for all it is worth. We will even fund a lawyer so they can argue their case to stay, usually over several years and at considerable expense to the tax payer. It's all about human rights, apparently.

Nevertheless, someone from SA, seemingly with a decent background, a genuine relationship, and a few quid in the bank can't stay.

The mind boggles...

We live in a democracy. Over the years, Parliament has democratically enacted a number of laws relating to immigration, deportation, human rights etc. Parliament can change any of those laws whenever it decides.

Parliament also decided to buy into international Human Rights and - upon the agreed due notice - could decide to opt out.

Whilst all these things happen, people in this country simply have the law applied to them as enacted by Parliament. No application or claim or case can ever be made or brought unless it is one which exists under our due process.

I recognise that, on an individual basis, any individual law or case can never meet with each person's approval, but imperfect though democratically enacted laws may be, we don't have a better system available.

I recognise that there will be many cases which won't sit square with many's ideas of fairness or whatever but feel overwhelmingly that the fact that we can and do apply the laws we have passed equally to each person regardless of race, ethnicity etc. is one of the hallmarks that makes our system work. We call it "the rule of law" and it is better than any alternative I know.


Yes he can, if he complies with said laws and if he fits the criteria. He may be personally inconvenienced by temporarily having to return home while he does this but it is hardly the hardship of the century. What we don't and shouldn't do is ignore the law just because someone thinks this guy's a good egg.

Also, I note he isn't able to work. And that he is appealing against the decision. You know, under this ridiculous system of ours which gives even forriners rights including appeal, and as he isn't working, we taxpayers are likely paying for his appeal under the legal aid you so deprecate. How ironic, eh?