UKH

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/oct/15/uk-deport-academic-to-dem...

Did I miss Boris’ pledge to end this cruel nonsense in the Queen’s speech?

Did I, indeed, miss his apology for the Windrush fiasco on behalf of the government he was part of?

These people are so contemptible.

jcm

The Guardian article seems hugely loaded.  

They would no doubt be accusing me of racism if I referred to the DRC as being full of rapists.  But the Guardian makes its case that this woman should not be returned to the DRC, the country for which she holds a passport, because of exactly that.

Perhaps its nothing to do with "hostile environments" (an ironic description for the UK since she wants to stay here) and a result of faults in her application that neither she discloses or that the Guardian is aware of.  When a court finds someone guilty and, because we don't have all the details we don't like the result, its considered poor form to claim a wrong-doing has occurred.  Why is that not the case when it comes to Home Office case-work?

The DRC is scary?  My other half was there willingly only a few months ago.  They go on to cite the UCU and "Unis Resist Border Controls"...as if they have credibility as impartial observers on such issues.

In the other case about a woman working here while her husband works in Yemen, its of course unfortunate she cannot be with her son.  But for her claims of tearing her family apart, two things come to mind.  One, she has chosen to work across the world from her husband, and away from her son.  Who exactly is "tearing them apart"?.  Two, millions of people in developing countries go to work away from their children; Filippinos in the UK, Bengali's in Dubai, Burmese in Thailand...leaving their children in the hands of grandparents and relatives.  They do so to secure a better life for them and their offspring.  It is normal.  The Guardian just shows how out of touch it is with the real world by presenting this as some unique horror.  

This does seem like a case were common sense should come before protocol.

I went there willingly a few years ago and can confidently say that it is quite possibly one of the most broken countries I have ever been to. No electricity, no sanitation, crumbling infrastructure, rampant corruption etc Was it scary? Not as such, but pretty unnerving at times when you are being pulled over by a drunk 17 year kid in a Barcelona shirt armed with an AK-47 who is supposedly a policeman, or knowing that if you were victim to any serious injury or illness your immediate hopes or rescue and evacuation are slim. Going there 'willingly' as an adventurous type with the full knowledge that it is for a set period of time before you return to your creature comforts is one thing, going there to live is quite another.

No court found her guilty of anything, she did not commit any crime or offense. Moreover, the problem here is that she doesn’t have the right to challenge the decision in court, so whether the Home office is at fault or her, we can never know, because it cannot be reviewed by a court.

Thats exactly the problem with the hostile environment, the home office can take whatever decision they like, and you don’t have the right to challenge it in court. Basically the home office are judge, jury and executioner.

Incidentally, for cases where the applicant has the right to get their case reviewed by a court, the home office loses 40% of appeals. That tells you a lot about the quality of the decisions they make.

There is more to this story than meets the eye, why is she claiming to be from Nigeria yet holding a DRC passport ? If she wishes  to stay here then why hasn't she naturalised and obtained a UK passport ?

You cant play the game each way holding onto a nationality yet expecting not to get deported when you fall on the wrong side of visa guidelines.

Yes, it's unfortunate.  Though it's generally incumbent on visitors to countries to ensure they follow the requirements of that country.  

Common sense should be required of visa applicants.  The assumption that you will be a) guaranteed a visa for the UK, and b) return to a country other than you have citizenship for, are foolish assumptions to make. 

At the very least I don't think "these people" (whoever they are if referring to the UK home office) are "contemptable" and the claim that they are looks like politically motivated sh1t-stirring.

Again, it's interesting how, it's often not permissible to paint such a pessimistic image of African nations.  But when the political stars align they can readily be described as utter sh1tholes. 

DRC is better than its been in a long time and is on par with, or a hell of a lot better, than a lot of African nations.  Presumably when Dr Asani arrives in Kinshasa she will then be eligible to book an onward flight to Lagos and all that is happening here is a reasonable requirement that a failed visa applicant be returned to the country they have legal documents to enter.

She clearly didn’t have the option to naturalise as a British citizen. If she was doing her doctorate years spent doing that don’t count towards residence for ILR. Otherwise, she wouldn’t be applying for a visa. 

What “game” has been played ? She never lived in Congo despite being a citizen of it, not everybody has the chance to have the citizenship of the country they call home.

In any case, if this was going to court, the home office would be thrashed in 10 minutes, but the problem is that they can do whatever the fuck they want because you can’t usually go to the courts to dispute their decisions, or they just make it near impossible for you to do so.

tough visa policies are one thing we can debate, but the problem here is that we are routinely deporting people without proper judicial process.

I'm inclined to say that your response to this thread is 'politically motivated sh1t-stirring'.

I don't know if you've noticed but the Home Office has 'previous' in this area. Remember Windrush? And there are plenty more cases like this floating around at the moment. They are not to be trusted at all.

She can't. If you read the article you find this is where the real problem has arisen. Her father moved to Nigeria in 1968 (allegedly as a refugee) and has been annually renewing his temporary residency visa. Dr Asani got DRC nationality because the residence in Nigeria where she was born was 'temporary'. Because Dr Asani has not been renewing the residency Visa while living in the UK she can't now get one and Nigeria have foreseen the UK visa situation and refused her a Nigerian visitors visa. 

Just a red herring...

Entirely misses the point, quite deliberately I suppose...

When you travel to the UK on a student visa there is no automatic right to be granted residence or citizenship here.  So she should have ensured she had the means to return.   An emerging lack of evidence that she ever intended to return might well be among the reasons she has been denied her UK visa application. 

Get your paperwork in order.  If she can put together the required paperwork to come to the UK then she should surely be aware of her status in her own adopted country.

A thread that labels Boris and the HO "contemptable", based on two immigration decisions where we know nothing about the cases other than what the Guardian tells us.  That looks like political shit-stirring to me.  

I could tell you the sun rises in the east and you'd be accusing me of politically motivated shit-stirring.  Just hold a view contrary to your own, likewise.   

"Not to be trusted at all" is something you could equally say about the click-bait that counts for Guardian journalism these days.  It's the Home Office's job "to have previous" in this area.  They're in the business of turning down applications that are fraudulent, incorrect and ineligible.  It's the Guardian's business to turn these into shock-horror news items for sale.

DRC national, raised in Nigeria, spends 5 years as a student at the university of Johannesburg, spends the following 5 years as a student a Sheffield University (so not without means and well experienced at negotiating life as an ex-pat), finds a job as a lab tech at Leicester university and retrospectively applies for a work visa, for which she's turned down as she doesn't meet the requirements; over 26 years old, salary under £30,000, not classed as exceptional talent.

...am I missing what the story is here?

The story seems to be that, in a tough media industry, there are newspapers to be sold and money to be made from tabloid, shock-horror, journalism.  People are also more than willing to be taken in by narratives that back-up their political outlook - even if those narratives are false or misleading.  There's an enemy to be slain and a few untruths or witch-hunts are a price worth paying.  

Dismissing any criticism of the HO and Johnson as 'political sh*t-stirring' is an attempt to  undermine the point without any substantive argument. Slagging the Guardian using overblown generalisations is a similar tactic. The Home Office's business has gone beyond their original remit into acting out an extreme policy, the so-called 'hostile environment'. They have created chaos and incompetence in the their administration of this policy. That's open to criticism by anyone.

The story is simply that the government is going out of their way to boot out highly qualified people out of the country.

If you transfer the case to sweden, she wouldn't have been allowed to even start the job and could only apply for a work visa whilst residing outside the country. 

Whilst this doesn't make it right or wrong, it highlights that the HO isn't administering a policy that is exceptionally out of line with the rest of Europe.

There is much debate here because genuine exceptional talent does slip through the net, because they have just a few months after finishing a PhD etc to find employment, otherwise they must leave and apply for posts and visas from another country.

Lovely place DRC. You must holiday there all the time

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/20/democratic-republic-congo-girls-lives-s...

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/democratic-republic-...

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/AfricaRegion/Pages/CDIndex.aspx

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/democratic-republic-of-the-congo

It’s both sickening and chilling. I can imagine Patel’s evil smirk as she boasts about these “achievements”. 

Hmm... and how does Cyprus compare Rom?

The said Ministry is competent to examine whether regarding the specific profession or job there are no available or adequately qualified Cypriots and then to make a recommendation for employment of aliens.

https://www.cyprusvisa.eu/cyprus-work-permit.html

So as a potential lab tech, if we followed Cypriot immigration law, she'd have no chance. Why do you continually hold the UK to standards not met by any other country in the entire world, including your own?

You clearly have zero clue about U.K. immigration policy so maybe work on that before you start whataboutering about those of other countries.

I’ve hired foreign nationals with PhDs both in the U.K. and Cyprus so I am very familiar with the process, and I can confirm you are talking absolute rubbish, but that’s not news really.

I know we don’t have job quotas based on whether you’re European or not, unlike Cyprus. And in a thread largely based on how, supposedly, UK immigration laws are uniquely harsh, a bit of whataboutery seems entirely justified.

edit: in reply to your edit: it’s there in black and white on Cyprus’s own visa website. Which you haven’t bothered to look at, no surprise really, you never do, convinced you know everything as always.

also, do you never get bored with your MO. Someone disagrees with you, links evidence backing it up. You ignore the evidence, make some bullshit claim hinting at how superior you are, offer no evidence of your own and then tag on a casual insult for good measure?

What you found on that website tells you absolutely nothing about how it works in practice, and in fact exactly the same thing applies in the U.K. it’s called the labour market test except it’s a lot tougher.

No I’m just refuting your MO which is to talk absolute bollocks when you have no experience of the topic at hand, then throw some random quote from a website that tells you absolutely nothing useful.

Sounds like a shithole doesn't it?  What's your point exactly? 

In other words official sources mean nothing, cos you know better.

Ask one of your alleged Phd employees, they'll be able to confirm that in the hierarchy of evidence, anecdotal comes right at the bottom (that's just above your usual operational area of bullshit & blather ).

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-hierarchy-of-evidence-showing-increas...

You seemed to be implying that it was fine to send her to DRC and that the article only described it as a sh1thole for the sake of convenience.

While that doesn't relate to the legality or otherwise of her right to stay. It seems disingenuous to suggest that she would suffer no consequences in being sent to DRC. implying a lack of sympathy or compassion for her plight.

What's your opinion on the official stance on EU Nationals entering Cyprus:
https://www.cyprusvisa.eu/cyprus-eu-residence-work-permit.html

Is that bollocks too?

All this whataboutism is just a distraction from the central discussion. Very Trumpist...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Yes, I am implying its fine.  It's not perfect.  But then again, it's not perfect to be sending any visitor from DRC (or much of Latin America, Asia or Africa) back to their home countries.  They are going back to countries few of us would want to live in.  So the solution is to let them stay here?  There's 70-80 million deserving cases in DRC alone. 

The Guardian could run similar articles on every single deportee from Africa.  The researcher in this case seems to be in a surprisingly privileged position, we are clearly only getting half the story, and the Home Office isn't responsible for failures by individuals to get their home paperwork in order.  Her arguments about not speaking the language or knowing anyone in DRC get little sympathy from me.  She seems to be well qualified.  I've gone to a developing country where I did not speak the local language and obtained employment.  It's not unusual, extreme or terrifying and its not something another country that Im not a citizen of has any responsibility save me from.  

As for sympathy, I'm sympathetic to just about anyone living in developing nations.  Our lives on the dole here, let alone in minimum wage employment, are ones of extravagant luxury compared to theirs.  The problem is, there's billions of them.  If sympathy to them requires us to abandon visa restrictions and allow anyone who lives there to migrate to the UK, how is that realistic?  There are millions of more deserving cases than this woman and I simply don't believe the fact that her papers not being in order back in Africa means the Home Office, or Boris, are to blame, or that she becomes our responsibility. 

no, it’s not, but if you read it you’ll find out it’s a lot less restrictive than UK policy. As I’ve said I’ve hired non-EU nationals in both countries so I know full well that it is extremely difficult and expensive in the U.K. and much easier in Cyprus where it’s no more than a formality.

In any case that wasn’t the issue.

I'm sure it isn't when you have 1st world citizenship to fall back on.

I agree with what you said above, she has probably not helped herself over the years, considering the vulnerable situation she was born into. I would however prefer it, if my own country did not deport people to countries they have never been to and do not speak the language.

As I've implied before, I doubt you feel that strongly about this, you just seem to come on here to play right wing contrarian.

No, having actually gone through each process multiple times is not anecdotal, I know exactly what the requirements are to hire non-EU nationals and I’m regularly in touch with PwC immigration consultants who help us navigate these rules, and what I can say from your comments is that it’s pretty clear that you have no effing clue.

What do you actually have to do to hire a non EU national in Cyprus then? If it's a simple formality I'm surprised you didn't just explain what needs to be done.

It would be correct to accuse you of vast generalisation if you said that.  The Home Office produce country guidance notes (quick google will throw them up).  Every 6 months (dependent on Country) they send a team of people to research issues to help primarily with asylum claim decisions.  The HO does indeed state sexual violence is pervasive.

I can tell you from my daily experience that Home Office case work is sub standard. Most asylum seekers get granted following appeals etc. coz the HO constantly get things wrong and immigration lawyers are better at their job then they are at theirs (if that makes sense?)

Note that it's such a simple process that he finds himself  "regularly in touch with PwC immigration consultants who help us navigate these rules" 

This Telegraph article from last year appears to agree with you - paywalled unfortunately:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/19/wish-surprised-windrush-sca...

Oh, and here's the Commons Public Accounts Committee:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/06/home_office_windrush_data_slammed_...

I don't think it is that their work is substandard it's that they are *supposed* to ignore the rules and reject everybody.  They want to make life so unpleasant and expensive with fees and legal bills that people who are entitled to stay will leave on their own.  The Tories are only interested in reducing overall immigration numbers to placate the xenophobic morons that might otherwise vote for Farage and its a lot easier to get a law abiding, productive person with other options to leave on their own than catch and deport desperate people with no options.

Speaking generally, what does the uniqueness or otherwise of something have anything to do with whether it is fair or just, or desirable? That's a spurious element to add to considering how this country currently treats people, I think, which means it isn't relevant.  It's about how decent do we want to be as a country. 

Nigeria is likely to still be an option for her, despite what the Guardian claims.  And whether there, in the DRC, or South Africa, with the benefits of her education and international experience, she may have access to a standard of living leaps and bounds ahead of her compatriots.  Points the Guardian will studiously fail to mention.

In an ideal world that would not be the case.  But I don't think trial-by-media of the Home Office is fair either and I don't think it is incumbent on them to find alternatives (or be backed into a corner) on account of her failures.

Happy to be that person if all there exists is left-wing contrarianism.  A pity that disputing the Guardian's take on things is automatically seen as right-wing though. 

It's easy to complain and come up with better sounding solutions to anything....when you don't need to deal with the repercussions.  But back in the real world, when those solutions likely become precedents allowing gaming of the system and even more unfair treatment, you need to be hard-nosed I'm afraid. 

But you are right.  I don't feel strongly about her.  What I feel strongly about is when people, be they Tories or otherwise, get portrayed as some sort of pantomime villains when a govt department (or private organisation) simply exercise necessary policy.  My issue is really with the Guardian; it's intent to ham-up issues and present half-truths as the full facts.  It's tendency towards sensationalism and inflaming sentiment is up there with the worst of tabloid trash.

Nothing, from the point of view of the individual concerned.

It makes it undesirable from the point of view of those who remain behind, to prevent someone from doing a necessary job when there's nobody else available to do it. 

(See also the hounding out of the country of thousands of nurses, care assistants etc., whose work we have apparently judged to be worthless to the rest of us because they're paid less that £36k to do it.)

?News items aren't the same as an in-depth investigation. It's not the job of the reporter here. 

See the links I posted above... they're known to be inept. Public bodies need criticism, especially when they have the kind of power that the Home Office has. 

Are you kidding? Have you looked at the state of the world? This is quite paranoid. 

I'm all for proper application of the law but basic competence is required first, and as mentioned above public organisations should be held to this. 

'simply exercise necessary policy.' See above... And we know that your issue is with the Guardian, obsessively and inaccurately. 

Yes, unfortunately we have to require their services in the U.K. because of the huge fines  you are exposing yourself to if you break any of the rules, and because we have to make sure every application is watertight as the home office is looking for any reason possible to reject, plus the costs are huge. We’ve estimated the overall costs of hiring non-EU nationals in the U.K. at 13,000£ per annum.

In Cyprus it’s a lot easier, although the bureaucracy is chaotic and you seem to get different requirements every time, we’ve basically never had one rejection and the costs are lower by a factor of 20 to 50.

Hm I doubt helping one individual amounts to letting billions in. However the possiblity that we are sending her back into harms way should be a consideration by any decent humanitarian standard. Given that her father fled from the DRC. I would say that political asylum should at least be a consideration. Granted the Guardian article does not tell all the facts of the case and we are both extrapolating according to our own bias.

I confirm. The worrying problem is that their solution to that is to remove the right of appeals everywhere possible.

I do wonder why you were downvoted for that one. That is literally what they have done with the EU settlement scheme.

Some people have a problem with their jingoism getting in the way of facts.

EU settlement scheme as it is a joke, they can literally remove your status on the spot at the border just because they don’t like your face, and face no repercussion.

The EU insisted on very strong protections, monitoring bodies, and statutory appeal right in the withdrawal agreement, so one can only hope it will be ratified.