Please can you explain this quote

[hanenyo]

I was going through the Jonathen devereoux's response to ILPA and I came across this quote in response to availability of another parent/carer for British Citizen. Please kindly explain what he means:
"It is our emerging position that a person is only to be regarded as a primary carer where they are the direct relative or legal guardian of the British citizen and have either a) primary responsibility for that person’s care or b) equally shares the responsibility for that person’s carer with a person who does not otherwise have a right to reside in the UK"

[thsths]

I was going through the Jonathen devereoux's response to ILPA and I came across this quote in response to availability of another parent/carer for British Citizen. Please kindly explain what he means:
"It is our emerging position that a person is only to be regarded as a primary carer where they are the direct relative or legal guardian of the British citizen and have either a) primary responsibility for that person’s care or b) equally shares the responsibility for that person’s carer with a person who does not otherwise have a right to reside in the UK"

Is this in response to Zambrano?

"It is our emerging position" - we do not feel bound by the law
"Primary responsible" - single mom or dad
"does not otherwise" - if one parent already has a legal stay, we will not admit the other

In conclusion the position seems to be that a child only has the right to a single parent. Which is of course contrary to pretty much every other interpretation of for example article 8 - the UKBA is asking for another bloody nose here.

Maybe they were caught by surprise by the verdict? On one hand Zambrano is only logical, on the other it is quite a radical break with previous policy. So the UKBA is making a (feeble?) attempt for "damage limitation".

[hanenyo]

I was going through the Jonathen devereoux's response to ILPA and I came across this quote in response to availability of another parent/carer for British Citizen. Please kindly explain what he means:
"It is our emerging position that a person is only to be regarded as a primary carer where they are the direct relative or legal guardian of the British citizen and have either a) primary responsibility for that person’s care or b) equally shares the responsibility for that person’s carer with a person who does not otherwise have a right to reside in the UK"

Is this in response to Zambrano?

"It is our emerging position" - we do not feel bound by the law
"Primary responsible" - single mom or dad
"does not otherwise" - if one parent already has a legal stay, we will not admit the other

In conclusion the position seems to be that a child only has the right to a single parent. Which is of course contrary to pretty much every other interpretation of for example article 8 - the UKBA is asking for another bloody nose here.

Maybe they were caught by surprise by the verdict? On one hand Zambrano is only logical, on the other it is quite a radical break with previous policy. So the UKBA is making a (feeble?) attempt for "damage limitation".

Thanks Thsths, yes it is their response to zambrano. I guess ukba are bringing this type of cases (a british and non-british/eu parent) under the new immigration that will kick in on 9-7-2012. What do you think?