To wonder how Theresa May can sleep at night - young girl being deported on Mother's Day

[NadiaWadia]

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-home-secretary-fightforyashika-stop-this-sixth-form-student-being-deported-alone-she-deserves-a-future

Yashika Bageerathi, an A-level student of 18 or 19, fled Mauritius with her family due to life threatening domestic violence, seeking asylum in the UK. She is very well thought of by both staff and students at the school and was just about to finish her A-levels. She has been taken alone to a detention centre and will be sent back to Mauritius, alone, tomorrow. Apparently she has nobody in Mauritius. Theresa May apparently feels it would be 'inappropriate' for her to 'interfere' in this.

British Airways refused to take part in this, good for them. So now the government are sending her back via Air Mauritius. Change.org are now asking people to email the Chief Executive of Air Mauritius, Andre Viljoen at [email protected] asking him urgently to do the same. Worth a try don't you think?

Personally I find the actions of the government sickening and inhumane. This poor girl (and her family). Sounds like she would have been an asset to the UK.

And asylum has nothing to do with political instability per se. Apologies - we don't take in every person from a politically unstable country. There are quite strict requirements that have to be met to get asylum. It's why the Home Office refuses around 85-90% of claims.

I'm a great big bleeding heart liberal but in this case I agree with T. May, much as it goes against the grain. Even YB's barrister isn't claiming that she has a valid claim for asylum - the claim is to do with her human right to a better future quality of life. If DV is not a valid reason to claim asylum (and it isn't) then YB and her mother and siblings are simply economic migrants, attempting to create a better life for themselves at the expense of the hard-pressed British taxpayer. You can hardly blame a Tory Home Secretary for applying the rules in what looks like a completely clear-cut case.

I have done a bit of reading around the case and none of it seems to add up or ring true. Even really basic details like exactly how old she is and when she and her mother and siblings came to the UK are different in different media reports, leading to a sense that a lot of lying and deception has been going on. There's also a lack of clarity about who exactly it is that is a threat to their safety back in Mauritius - is it family members, is it criminal gangs, is it family members who are involved themselves in criminal activities?

It's also odd that there's absolutely no mention of a father - AFAIK, Mauritius is a very traditional, Hindu-majority, society where single motherhood would be very much frowned upon. I wonder if the threat to the family's safety is actually from the father and/or his relatives.

I read it was a family member. And also different reports on when they came to the UK. One said the Mother came first and the other said the Mother and chidren came together. And I agree no mention of the father is significant. I wonder if he's the one they are fleeing from.

Viviennemary
That would make sense if they came over together.
But
if the report about her coming over first is true then it would make sense that the father was looking after the children and sent them after, thinking that he could follow them.

there are far too many stories and not enough facts about the case.

Quite simply you find it intolerable to be disagreed with,and swear and name call
rabid unpleasantness ahh you don't want to be factually corrected when you're wrong
You've not been attacked,but you've not been met with a crescendo of you're so right!

Wouldn't the easiest/kindest thing at this point be to offer the rest of the family a flight at the same time as this woman so they could all go home together?

Then she wouldn't be alone.

Would it be more acceptable to deport her on Monday then?
It won't be Mothers Day ( which I'm not sure they have in Mauritius anyway)
Whole family should go,sounds like they are looking for a better life than fleeing anything - understandable but NOT grounds for asylum

I don't know the details and what I have read, well some reports say the family arrived together, some that mum arrived first.

For me there are two issues, one is the legality of her being here and the other is here treatment here.

She has been attending school and studying, the government have known where she is but have put her in a detention centre anyway. How much is that costing the tax payer?

Considering the government has paid for her education up to this point surely she should be allowed to sit her exams? A levels are taken when? May? June?

I'm also unsure that we should split asylum claims when a family has made a claim together, just because one of them turns 18.

It's common practice for healthy, mentally well adults to be in detention centres while they're waiting for flights - it prevents absconding. It's horrible but serves a purpose.

It is also generally sensible to consider adult children's asylum claims separately. What that means is that the facts will usually be cross-checked between the family's applications but different decisions can be, and are, made. In immigration/ human rights law, the day you hit 18 you are no longer dependent on your parents and no need to be in the same country as then unless there is a particular bond or exceptional circumstances like a particularly vulnerable child/disabled/ unwell. And that's often tough to argue successfully.

Even if a parent is at risk it doesn't automatically follow that an adult child will be.

I see so many threads on here where people are shouting that 18 year olds are adults and should be standing on their own 2 feet... It's the same principle.

Re: coming to the UK, whether they came separately or together it's extremely unlikely that she made the decision either to leave or to come to the uk. It will have been her mum's decision or another family member, or the agent if they used one so please give her a break on that one.

The whole family can't be removed without delaying her removal. Their application was only refused a couple of days ago.

Removals take time to set up - the Mauritian authorities have to agree they are Mauritian if they don't have valid passports (they may have travelled in on false documents - I don't know in this case). Seats on a plane have to be found. Some airlines won't carry removals. And there has to be 72 hours at least between notification and removal in order for the legal bods to see whether anything can be done.

Another x-factor OP, sad but irrelevant sob story used as a justification for special treatment.

This case is such a good example of the macro / micro attitude towards immigration and asylum.

General public wants politicians to be tough on immigration: we are a small overcrowded island ; we can't take in all the world's problems; we should limit net migration; refugees should go home when they can; wishy-washy judges don't make tough decisions ...,,

Individual case, usually involving photogenic child or committed family man arises: we should be ashamed of how we treat people; we should make an exception in this case; horrible judges make harsh decisions...

(Constituency MPs are often the worst for this sort of flip-flopping)

I'm with you on that one.

I signed.

FamiliesShareGerms: but there is an impact for every individual affected by a macro policy, and many people might find themselves shocked by the trauma that can ensue.

I feel there should be a humanitarian case for people who arrived as minors and are still completing their education. Their childhood was interrupted, and by wrenching this girl out of school at this point, will never be completed.

We make many concessions to the long term effects of difficulty on a child's life, for example having been adopted from care remains a priority admissions criteria in most community secondary schools. Maintaining a duty of care for a person this country supported as a minor just to allow her to take her A levels would seem more in keeping with our values, and hardly a risk to the country.

And as I said earlier, equip her better to make a contribution to Mauritius' burgeoning knowledge led economy, which actually serves this country well .

She's not a young girl and DV isn't a reason to give asylum.

Blu the problem there is that many many people who seek asylum have children - often young children. You are then agreeing to house a family for possibly 10 years or more (what about children then born after they've got to the UK). The families are not allowed to work so are forced in to only taking from society.

10 years is a long time for people to put down roots, find British husbands etc etc if they are motivated to do so. It would massively increase illegal immigration. Especially as you wouldn't need to have a good case, just a school age child.

DV can, in certain circumstances (though apparently not this one) be a reason to grant asylum

The original post is VVU.

1. There's no case for asylum here.

1. There was a court case with due process. Politicians aren't supposed to intervene unless there are exceptional circumstances and there aren't. Have a look at the kind of countries where politicians routinely overturn court decisions they happen not to like, and decide whether we should be one of them.

1. It is irrelevant that it is Mothers Day. Any other days we should avoid? St. George's Day? Pancake Tuesday?

1. The Abu Hamza argument is a silly straw man. The government didn't let him stay while mercilessly deporting nice A-Level students. The government worked tirelessly to find a legitimate, legal route - see how that works? - to deport him, and was eventually successful.

It's also unreasonable to start a thread on a discussion board, and then complain when people discuss it and disagree rather than just say how lovely the OP is and do what they want. Unreasonable too to describe people raging with you as an attack, when it isn't.

I don't support this case. However, if hundreds of thousands of people do then why do they all not make a donation and she can study at university as an overseas student. But no. She has to do things unlawfully by telling lies and deception and entering on a student visa.

Lots of struggling students would love a scholarship and not be saddled with enormous loans. But they don't qualify for them. And she doesn't qualify to live in this country and take advantage of all the benefits it offers. Why can't people see this.

Sorry. I meant she entered on a visitor's visa.

No she can't apply for a student visa. You can't get one of you are already here illegally. And given she's already overstayed a visit visa she would be unlikely to get one even if she applied from Mauritius.

So basically she has broken the law. But is meant to be such an upstanding credit to the country.

Vivienne you need to understand something. When your life is in danger, when you have no other option, you will do whatever you can to get away.

She should not be blamed for applying for a visit visa using deception ( although the Home Office DOES blame people in those circumstances, they shouldn't). She overstayed. Yes, she broke the law in doing so. Was she under 18 at the time? Probably. Vulnerable. In a foreign country. It is not an easy life to live.