Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Best Interest of a child: New Supreme Court Judgement

Family member & Ancestry immigration; don't post other immigration categories, please!
Marriage | Unmarried Partners | Fiancé/e | Ancestry

Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, Zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, Administrator

Locked
HRY2005
Member of Standing
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Best Interest of a child: New Supreme Court Judgement

Post by HRY2005 » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:45 pm

Another breakthrough for people who fits in this position.

New Supreme Court Judgement : ZH (Tanzania) (FC)

The Court's Press Summary
Last edited by HRY2005 on Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Live and let live

mochyn
Diamond Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:02 pm

Post by mochyn » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:40 am

A travesty

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 14128
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by Obie » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:48 pm

A good day for human right. This ruling is well overdue.
After thinking long and hard, I have come to the conclusion that brexit is a cancer. The only good brexit is a dead brexit.

HRY2005
Member of Standing
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Post by HRY2005 » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:01 am

It is appalling that someone could call that a ''travesty'' of justice!!! :shock:
Live and let live

mochyn
Diamond Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:02 pm

Post by mochyn » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:31 am

Public reaction to grant an asylum seeker the right to stay in the UK has been one of anger as the woman in question made fraudulent claims to stay in the UK and when refused then used the babies to stay in the UK.
Pretending to be Somalian prompted the Supreme court to say that the womans immigration history was appalling but decided not to punish the children for the mothers actions.
As usual those who seek entry into the UK support this decision but most british born citizens are angered as evidenced by letters written to the media and discussed in forums
The immigration dept should not be held to ransom by those wishing to subvert the immigration rules

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... holic.html

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 14128
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by Obie » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:34 pm

The argument could also be constructed in the opposite direction, that these children's future and welfare should not be held to ransom because of their parents actions, or the desires of UKBA to punish their parents.

Looking at it from proportionality point of view, is it proportional to punish a whole family including citizens children, because the mother was so desperate to have a status, that she made a fraudulent application? does the punishment really fit the crime?

It is important to remember that her action did not cause any harm to any members of society, it is dishonesty for sure, but does it have any victim per sa? except of course individuals who have zenophobic or lovely agenda.
After thinking long and hard, I have come to the conclusion that brexit is a cancer. The only good brexit is a dead brexit.

HRY2005
Member of Standing
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Post by HRY2005 » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:49 pm

Obie wrote:The argument could also be constructed in the opposite direction, that these children's future and welfare should not be held to ransom because of their parents actions, or the desires of UKBA to punish their parents.

Looking at it from proportionality point of view, is it proportional to punish a whole family including citizens children, because the mother was so desperate to have a status, that she made a fraudulent application? does the punishment really fit the crime?

It is important to remember that her action did not cause any harm to any members of society, it is dishonesty for sure, but does it have any victim per sa? except of course individuals who have zenophobic or lovely agenda.
Well said Obie. That comment represents one individual opinion on this forum and only try to use public reactions to defend it. Its appalling how people always look at a coin from one side. Of course, he's a daily mail reader.

He's only got 6 responses to that article as I am typing this, does that represent the public or public reactions? One of them was clearly not impressed with the article. His comment :

''I'm sorry, but why was there need to mention the fact the children's father is HIV positive? I get that the Mail are trying to paint a bad picture of him (alcoholic, adulterer), but by putting HIV positive next to them, you're suggesting that it too is something only terrible people have. It's an ILLNESS, you wouldn't put 'cancer sufferer' and suggest he was an awful person because of it? Surely we have moved on from the days where people with HIV and AIDS were chastised and thought of as unclean?''
- Andy, Cumbria, 02/2/2011 11:15
Live and let live

mochyn
Diamond Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:02 pm

Post by mochyn » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:36 am

Obie wrote:The argument could also be constructed in the opposite direction, that these children's future and welfare should not be held to ransom because of their parents actions, or the desires of UKBA to punish their parents.

Looking at it from proportionality point of view, is it proportional to punish a whole family including citizens children, because the mother was so desperate to have a status, that she made a fraudulent application? does the punishment really fit the crime?

It is important to remember that her action did not cause any harm to any members of society, it is dishonesty for sure, but does it have any victim per sa? except of course individuals who have zenophobic or lovely agenda.
It goes without saying that the children should not be held responsible for the parents action but if you say that I am a lovey or xenophobic then you could not be further from the truth as my wife is of a different skin colour than mine and she entered this country legally.
My beef and that of many people who live in this country is that you should abide by its laws and this lady chose to circumvent the laws and the JUDGE not I commented on her appalling immigration history.
As for the comment that her actions do not cause harm to any members of society is very simplistic in its view if one remembers the failed asylum seeker that killed a 12 year old girl with his car which prompted the distraught father to say that his daughter would still be alive if he had been deported.

I stand by my principles.
If you wish to live in this country do so legally.
When in Rome do as the Romans do

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 14128
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by Obie » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:12 pm

With factually inaccurate, and potentially misleading poison like this Daily Express article being circulated with impunity, not to mention the gabbage being uttered by their Daily mail friend, It is hardly surprising that some narrow minded brits hold view similar to that of yours.
After thinking long and hard, I have come to the conclusion that brexit is a cancer. The only good brexit is a dead brexit.

HRY2005
Member of Standing
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Post by HRY2005 » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:05 pm

mochyn wrote:if one remembers the failed asylum seeker that killed a 12 year old girl with his car which prompted the distraught father to say that his daughter would still be alive if he had been deported.
Its so sad that a little girl lost her life in such unfortunate circumstances and my heart goes to her family. But we should ask ourself the following questions

1. Does that accident happen because the driver was an asylum seeker?

2. What would the parents of all other victims of car accidents driven by Brits say?
Live and let live

Brown212
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:29 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Brown212 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:09 pm

HRY2005 wrote:
mochyn wrote:if one remembers the failed asylum seeker that killed a 12 year old girl with his car which prompted the distraught father to say that his daughter would still be alive if he had been deported.
Its so sad that a little girl lost her life in such unfortunate circumstances and my heart goes to her family. But we should ask ourself the following questions

1. Does that accident happen because the driver was an asylum seeker?

2. What would the parents of all other victims of car accidents driven by Brits say?
That is a good Thinking, Accident can happen to anybody if the driver was a British, where will they deport him to.

r3gistered
Newly Registered
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:51 pm

Post by r3gistered » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:35 pm

so what visa will she be issued with? settlement or DL?

Brown212
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:29 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Brown212 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:23 pm

mochyn wrote:
Obie wrote:The argument could also be constructed in the opposite direction, that these children's future and welfare should not be held to ransom because of their parents actions, or the desires of UKBA to punish their parents.

Looking at it from proportionality point of view, is it proportional to punish a whole family including citizens children, because the mother was so desperate to have a status, that she made a fraudulent application? does the punishment really fit the crime?

It is important to remember that her action did not cause any harm to any members of society, it is dishonesty for sure, but does it have any victim per sa? except of course individuals who have zenophobic or lovely agenda.
It goes without saying that the children should not be held responsible for the parents action but if you say that I am a lovey or xenophobic then you could not be further from the truth as my wife is of a different skin colour than mine and she entered this country legally.
My beef and that of many people who live in this country is that you should abide by its laws and this lady chose to circumvent the laws and the JUDGE not I commented on her appalling immigration history.
As for the comment that her actions do not cause harm to any members of society is very simplistic in its view if one remembers the failed asylum seeker that killed a 12 year old girl with his car which prompted the distraught father to say that his daughter would still be alive if he had been deported.

I stand by my principles.
If you wish to live in this country do so legally.
When in Rome do as the Romans do
I Think you are generally unhappy with people settling in this country, i've been reading all your comments on people case and i find it very disappointing and i'm glad you are not the secretory of state, and you are not a supreme court judge, if you where to be i think no immigrant will be in this country, so your opinion doesn't count, you are nobody simple, mochyn or what did you call yourself.

shazan
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:17 am
Location: NORTHAMPTON

Re: Best Interest of a child: NEW SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

Post by shazan » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:31 pm

Hello friends,

I have the same case. The mother is foriegn and her son is British who living overseas. Mother wants her son to have British education and health. The mother applied for leave to enter the UK for visit in order to bring her son to the UK for British education howver the British mission overseas have denied the mother leave to enter on inadmissable grounds. The IAT have unbale to determine the appeal and refered the case to Europena Court of Justice. Ian Macdonald QC has been instrcuted to take the case on. By the time Mr. Macdonald has concluded his findings I have no doubt the UKBA will be crucifed.

vinny
Moderator
Posts: 28235
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Post by vinny » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:08 pm

This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any jurisdiction. Please click on any links for further information. Refer to the source of any quotes.
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

sierra
- thin ice -
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:30 am
Location: eu

Post by sierra » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:34 pm

well not every one on this forum is here to help some of them even senior members will pretend to be an angel despite they are humans . and will say any shit comes in their brains .

jkmuk
Newly Registered
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:47 pm

Post by jkmuk » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:38 pm

I am not a Brit by birth but would strongly stand by the principle that one must respect the laws of the land. Failing to play by the rules/law and then expect the same to be fair, considerate, humane etc... is just plain hypocrisy. Humans being humans resort to desperate means at desperate times which I do not blame and at the same time the supreme court's ruling reflects the tolerance levels of the UK society. As long as such cases are an exception and not the norm, I guess live should go on normally. So 'peace'?

ironboots
Newly Registered
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:30 am

Post by ironboots » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:54 am

jkmuk wrote:I am not a Brit by birth but would strongly stand by the principle that one must respect the laws of the land. Failing to play by the rules/law and then expect the same to be fair, considerate, humane etc... is just plain hypocrisy. Humans being humans resort to desperate means at desperate times which I do not blame and at the same time the supreme court's ruling reflects the tolerance levels of the UK society. As long as such cases are an exception and not the norm, I guess live should go on normally. So 'peace'?
I agree, everyone should respect the laws of the land. nobody should ever be above the law.

Locked
cron