to think immigration rules should be applied consistently

[mamamea]

This: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3618903/Hard-working-Australian-family-threatened-deportation-claim-set-fail-continue-battle-remain-UK.html photogenic (white!) family came to the UK in 2011 under a (Tier 4 I believe) Student visa, for the mother, which entitled them to bring their family with them to the UK for the duration of the course, which in Scotland I believe is 4 years (for a BA).

It appears from her LinkedIn profile that she has had a 1 year extension, so in total five years, so just now graduating

Meanwhile, back in April 2012, the Tier 1 Post-Study Work Visa, which provided a straightforward route for overseas students to remain in the UK, was abolished, which caused a massive (50%) drop in the number of Indian students applying to study in the UK - presumably the intention, in order to reduce net immigration.

So since 2012, graduating students must now prove that they are 'skilled', and working in a shortage occupation, in order to gain a visa.

So they have had four years notice of this fact, but they are complaining, and say, effectively, that they want to remain in the UK illegally, because look at us, we should be exempt from the rules, because, er look, here's our photo in the paper aren't we charming.

All of which is great, but you can hardly make exceptions for scrubbed-up families posing for newspapers but ignore the hundreds of thousands of others who are subject to the same rules. In the eyes of the law, they are NO different to students from India (also a Commonwealth country), who are a target for anti-immigration complaints, but there seems to be an implict racism here where they are somehow more deserving of sympathy because they are white.

Immigration rules are frequently strict: as guests in a country you simply do NOT have the same rights as a citizen. I have dealt with the immigration process both entering the UK and also abroad, and the rules very seldom seem 'fair'. There is always the sense that MY family should be allowed in, because we are awfully naice, but the one thing that the rules must be is impartial. You cannot have ministers intervening on behalf of Gregg and Kathryn when he refuses to do so for Samit or Mohammed.

I guess for me the question you raise about inconsistency is a bit of a red herring. Many case-specific immigration campaigns are also highlighting problems with the rules themselves. Allowing this family to stay may be the first step in overturning the rules that are affecting not just them but others, in campaigning for a more devolved approach to regional immigration, etc.

The takeaway from this story is not that immigration rules should be applied consistency but that immigration rules are flawed.

"Precisely.It was abolished after they had arrived in the country with the expectation of using it. To not be retrospective it would have to (and should) apply only to those entering the countryafter the abolition. It is obviously unfair to change visa conditions when a person is already in the country!"

Again, no.

The relevant dates are as follows:

July 2011 - Brains enter UK, on 4-year Student Visa
December 2015, Student visa expires, Brains must have a new visa, or leave the UK.

So any new visa would have to start from January 2016.

However, as of January 2011 (BEFORE they arrived), there were suggestions that the Post-Study Work visa would be abolished from April 2011. www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cecb4a6e-27bc-11e0-a327-00144feab49a.html

And then in March 2011 (STILL before they arrived), it was announced, that there would be NO Post-Study Work visas granted after April 2012.

Clearly they could have NO expectation to continue to stay in the UK on the basis of rules which the government had announced prior to their entry would be scrapped.

There is no retrospective effect at all.

Perhaps rather than saying "arrived in the UK" I should have said "had visa granted".

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect they had their entry visa in place and their life sold up in Australia before the cancellation of the post study visa was announced.

Either way, the law in this, and many other cases is an ass. Scotland has a declining population and wants and needs more immigration - it needs the tools to be able to administer this themselves - obviously taking 40% of the Syrian refugees helps a bit, but that relies in a steady supply of refugees.

Yes, but they still had five years to make alternative arrangements. You don't just hope for the best.

Thank you for the clarification mama. I'm not sure it was necessary to accuse me of lying - I was misinformed, but I don't generally lie about stuff if I can help it. Some of the reportage I've read has seemed to confuse the abolition of the Highlands scheme and the post-study work scheme, and much of it has also seemed to suggest that the laws changed after the Brains got here. But that's irrelevent now.

I still don't think this has anything to do with them being white and 'charming'. Their case highlights the problems with applying blanket immigration laws across parts of the country with vastly different needs. The south east of England may be overcrowded with creaking resources and massive housing problems, but the Highlands of Scotland are desperate for young families, and the Scottish Government in partnership with Bord na Gaidhlig are desperately trying to hold onto what Gaelic speakers they have and to encourage parents to send their children to Gaelic Medium schools. Similarly, as someone said above thread, the £35'000 minimum earnings requirements are grossly unfair when applied to northern Scotland (and most of the north of England, Wales, and NI too), where wages and living costs are so much lower.

When you have laws designed to ameliorate the south of England's problems applied to the north of Scotland, which has the opposite problems, there is bound to be friction and dissent. The Brains find themselves straddling a political faultline, so it's inevitable that their story is more contentious than most.

It would have been interesting to view the comments on this article if it had been published without a picture and without saying they are from Australia, just a commonwealth country.

It would obviously be hugely different. White people who speak English as a first language and who are from a western developed nation wiht a similar culture = tick.

However most people would be disingenuous to say that they wouldn't rather have people migrate from developed western cultures than from Afghanistan. Pakistan and other culturally different nations. Clash of cultures is what leads to segregation and ghettos. Check out the white flight program on the BBC about Newham on iplayer at the moment.

As a country, less immigration from cultures who are different would be better. Integration is a myth.

I am sure I have seen that 'demure' (ill-fitting) blue dress before in a daily mail sad face picture. Do the DM lend them out?