We all understand that sometimes deportation is necessary. When people are here illegally; or if they are here on visas but commit serious crimes; or if they over-stay a short visa and try to defy the system. There are dishonest people in the UK who do not have the right to be here and indeed should be deported.
Mrs Clennell made the UK her home for 27 years. She married a British man who had two sons. She became his full time carer through his illness – something that our social care system can no longer sufficiently cater for with all the cuts. In those 27 years she returned to her home country for long periods of time to care for her parents. Of course one of the conditions or “rules” of Indefinite Leave to Remain is that the individual doesn’t spend more than a set amount of time outside the UK.
Deportation should be more than a technicality
It is entirely possible that Mrs Clennell has broken the technical rules of ILR, but she did that so that she could go and care for her parents. This woman appears to do nothing other than spend her time caring for others. She doesn’t abuse the system, take up housing, take jobs from others, or any of the usual xenophobic slurs we here. In fact, by caring for her husband she does a great service to the country and maybe instead of deporting her we should be paying her for all her caring work.
Where has our compassion gone? And what about her ill husband? Is he to be left to broken social care system? What about the two children for whom she has become a mother?
Why am I being left to ask all these questions?
Because the Home Office refuse to comment on individual cases. Surely that is just not good enough. We live in a democratic society that elects into power the government to represent us and our needs. If the Home Office are to be so brutal in the application of specific tiny details on this case, why are they not so stringent with other cases? Perhaps the Home Office could focus on the positive contributions she has made and re-establish her ILR with a minor slap on the wrist for breaking the rules.
Deportation Double Standards?
There is an embarrassing contrast…if one looks uback several years to the hassle and problems caused by trying to deport the deplorable Abu Hamza. He abused all of our laws in order to spreading hatred; was involved in many serious issues and crimes, inclauhding extremism and terrorism. He then made a mockery of British law and EU law by using Human Rights lws to prevent his being sent away.
And yet they deport a compassionate woman who does nothing but care for others. Perhaps the difference lies in the strength of legal representation Mrs Clennell has had. Without knowing more about her personal financial situation it is hard to say, but it is clear in the UK at the moment that a legal defence is something that you can either afford, or you can’t. If you can’t afford a proper legal defence then often your case – in all areas of law – becomes a matter of crossing your fingers and hoping that the powers that be will see your case fairly.
However, the deportation of Mrs Clennell, along with the effect on her ill husband, and in spite of her being a carer for her parents as well, the decision was swiftly administered.
Was this the deportation of a person, or the deportation of compassion?