The Guardian is usually law-abiding but when it comes to people in difficulty with immigration authorities they seem to take a more elastic view. [1] The problems, are usually down to a “mix-up”. (The same logic applies in the so-called Carers Scandal” which they have cooked up. People didn’t claim money they weren’t entitled to; they simply made a mistake, didn’t understand the rules).
The latest immigration mix-up concerns an American family. As usual the story is strong on emotional points and thin on details. (Again; this is the template. A few years ago there was a spate of stories about ‘food banks’. Each story was redolent with the unfairness of the situation, the dignity of the people using the food bank, and the compassion of the staff, but invariably failed to explain why, given the social security net in the UK, people actually had to go to the foodbank). We are told how awful the family feel. How their children are “burdened” with the situation, and so on. The family say they just want the Home Office “to put things right”.
The main problem seems to be that the either one or both of the adults, (it is not clear which), came to the UK in 2019 on a work visa. They brought the children with them. After 5 years they have put in an application for indefinite leave to remain – as they are entitled to, under the current law. But it has been rejected. Well; that appears to be that. The law is the people have a right to apply. The law does not say that they have to be granted indefinite leave to remain.
There is this rather curious sentence:
It is unclear whether the application was rejected because the family used the wrong form to make the application or because the Home Office made an error in the way the application was processed.
Or – perhaps, it was simply rejected? The article appears not to allow or consider the possibility that the Home Office did not make a mistake, and the application was simply rejected. The premise of the article appears to be a belief that after 5 years people have the automatic right to receive indefinite leave to remain. This is not the case. Are the family trying it on, with the misguided help of the media, or do they genuinely believe that? We can’t know the answer to that question – but we can note that this is not really journalism; it is an apparent attempt to put pressure on the Home Office to meet these people’s desires.
Another curious aspect of this story is that it appears to be quite possible to appeal a refusual to grant indefinite leave to remain. [2] But, nothing in the story, about whether the family have filed an appeal. It is distinctly odd, and in fact very characteristic of these kinds of dubious strong on emotions weak on facts stories we find in the UK’s leading “facts are sacred” newspaper.
Notes
