Mr Cabrera is facing deportation because his Wife is dead!

His Immigration status was based on his wife's job status as a Nurse, the fact that she was killed through criminal negligence means that he has to now go through a fight, with the spectre of deportation hanging over him.

Should he stay or,

Should he go.

Moss

Link

Edit: Link added

I can't vote either way. This seems like an unjust case!

Of course you can vote Suegha, I just made it a little difficult with Black and White responses, Yes or No, wouldn't want to make it easy.

Everyday we are confronted by decision making processes, some we enjoy, some we don't, there are some we don't enjoy, yet others revel in their delights.

In the last two weeks I have had to release three men from employment, did I enjoy it, no, but was it the right thing to do, I obviously thought so, Immigration obviously think they are doing the right thing, but there is doing the right thing and there is doing things right.

I am just curious about others points of view, c'mon what's yours?

Moss

Well actually Moss it's the wording of the question and the options that makes it difficult. Let me put it this way, I don't think he shoud have to leave - no way! However, I don't know which option in the poll would express this!

Well actually Moss it's the wording of the question and the options that makes it difficult. Let me put it this way, I don't think he shoud have to leave - no way! However, I don't know which option in the poll would express this!

Ah, I see, English never was my strong point!!

It should read: Yes, he should go, Rules are Rules.

No, he should not be deported.

Moss

He can apply to stay on compassionate grounds - so he should stay!

Key for me......They both worked in a hospital. For years in the UK the "dirty" jobs in hospitals, essential for the care of the Nations's sick have been done by foreign nationals as the great unwashed in middle England sit on there ass collecting the dole.

The poor man was a " worker ", he gets my vote.

It should read: Yes, he should go, Rules are Rules.

No, he should not be deported.

Sorted.

The right to freely travel across the face of the earth is an unalienable right of all people born everywhere throughout all time. Any person, group, organization or governmental unit which interferes with this is violating the fundamental rights of humanity and should be restrained through the right efforts of all reasonable humans.

Chownah

You missed an option. rules are rules and he is the father of a British citizen. he should not be deported. (I am assuming the UK is the same as the US in that a baby born in the country automatically obtains citizenship???)

You missed an option. rules are rules and he is the father of a British citizen. he should not be deported. (I am assuming the UK is the same as the US in that a baby born in the country automatically obtains citizenship???)

Correct assumption to make sbk!

You missed an option. rules are rules and he is the father of a British citizen. he should not be deported. (I am assuming the UK is the same as the US in that a baby born in the country automatically obtains citizenship???)

Correct assumption to make sbk!

The big challenge here is that the child does not live in the UK, according to the article the child is currently resident in the Phillipines, and has been for . Not sure how that will affect the compassionate grounds. It would seem he is not currently working, unfortunately another negative in the eyes of the system.

On the other hand if he wins the case against the NHS he'll have enough funds for the rich bugger's visa.

Mrs Cabrera's job as a nurse at the hospital where she died, and where her husband also worked, was the reason the couple had been granted leave to stay until 2009.

Her husband's immigration status has changed since Mayra's death and his visa had been extended only until the end of February.

Seamus Edney, Mr Cabrera's solicitor, added: "For all the setbacks he has had to put up with - his wife is killed by a blunder, then the Crown Prosecution Service decide not to prosecute anyone, and now he faces deportation - if we can get Arnel permanent leave to stay, then at least that will be one positive outcome."

The coroner also backed the call for Mr Cabrera to stay in the UK.

A spokesman for the Home Office said: "An individual who does not meet the requirements under the immigration rules can in exceptional circumstances - for instance compassionate reasons - apply for discretionary leave to remain in the UK.

"When we receive an application such as this, we would obviously consider all circumstances surrounding the application."

The couple's son Zac has been looked after in the Philippines over the past few years as his father prepares to pursue a civil claim against the NHS trust.

Edit: Quote from article linked in PO

Sorry and you call me an heartless SOB if you like. But with the hoops i have had to jump through for my Mrs (and i was born and bred here, served in the forces and paid taxes all my working life). Of course my heart goes out to him for his loss but if he doesn't fit the criteria needed. he should leave.

I haven't read the article but saw it on the news. I presume she qualified as a nurse and they came over on her visa conditions. I also presume that he was just doing a cleaning job in the Hospital, so hasn't got a skill that meets requirements.

Scouse could probably list you scores of cases, where people settled in this country cannot bring family over. Take away the emotions of the circumstances of her death, why should his case be any different to say, someone with a similar visa status, who's wife died accidentality?

He can apply to stay on compassionate grounds - so he should stay!

Yes he can, but not a given, I would suggest he may swing it on these grounds, but the real reason will be trying to make two wrongs into a right.

The poor man was a " worker ", he gets my vote.

Unfortunately, being a worker, does not constitute being a criterion for a visa in his case and only rarely in others.

It should read: Yes, he should go, Rules are Rules.

No, he should not be deported.

Sorted.

Thank you for that JD, but how anout giving us the benefit of, ' wisdom of solomon'.

The right to freely travel across the face of the earth is an unalienable right of all people born everywhere throughout all time.

Chownah

Ah Chownah, you old Romantic.

Thanks for the replies

Moss

You missed an option. rules are rules and he is the father of a British citizen.

No I didn't, I deliberately kept it short

(I am assuming the UK is the same as the US in that a baby born in the country automatically obtains citizenship???)

Well, I believe that the rules are different, being born in the UK and that is your only criterion, is not enough to gain Citizenship, I am fairly sure on that, but I will check, a natural assumption to make, but I believe it changed somewhere around 1985.

You missed an option. rules are rules and he is the father of a British citizen. he should not be deported. (I am assuming the UK is the same as the US in that a baby born in the country automatically obtains citizenship???)

Correct assumption to make sbk!

Again, I will chek this, but I do not believe it to be correct.

Sorry and you call me an heartless SOB if you like. But with the hoops i have had to jump through for my Mrs (and i was born and bred here, served in the forces and paid taxes all my working life). Of course my heart goes out to him for his loss but if he doesn't fit the criteria needed. he should leave.

I thought about the vagaries of the British Embassy and the hoops some of us had to jump through and the blatantly wrong and obvious incorrect decisions that were made against some applications, I have a particular instance that was so incomprehensible, inadequate and obviously incompetent in its refusal, it is hard to contemplate.

However, I still believe that each case should be taken on its merits and no matter the wrongs that have been perpetuated in the past, this man had his wife wrongfully killed by the establishment, their methods of work and practices were inadequate despite previous warnings.

He should be allowed to stay under the, 'compassionate criteria', which is part of the Immigration Rules and not just a patsy to Romanticism.

Moss

You missed an option. rules are rules and he is the father of a British citizen. he should not be deported. (I am assuming the UK is the same as the US in that a baby born in the country automatically obtains citizenship???)

Correct assumption to make sbk!

I'm not 100% sure but i don't think that is a correct assumption. I think there are certain criteria for children of foreign parents. It changed in 1983 i think and the parents have to be married and one of the parentss has to be either a British citizen or holding indefinite leave to enter/remain at the time the child was born.

This couple may have qualified under their status, i'm just pointing out it's not as cut and dried, as simply just being born here.

Maybe Scouse can confirm.

However, I still believe that each case should be taken on its merits and no matter the wrongs that have been perpetuated in the past, this man had his wife wrongfully killed by the establishment, their methods of work and practices were inadequate despite previous warnings.

He should be allowed to stay under the, 'compassionate criteria', which is part of the Immigration Rules and not just a patsy to Romanticism.

Moss

I gave my opinion from the limited knowledge we know of the case and i stand by it. I too agree that each case should be looked in it's own right and if he is granted to stay because he meets the compassionate criteria set out, i will accept that decision as being the right one.

"Correct assumption to make sbk!"

I made this comment on the 'assumption' that the child was born and living in the UK. Sorry!

"Correct assumption to make sbk!"

I made this comment on the 'assumption' that the child was born and living in the UK. Sorry!

The child was born in the UK Suegha but i don't think that automatically gives it the right to citizenship.

"Correct assumption to make sbk!"

I made this comment on the 'assumption' that the child was born and living in the UK. Sorry!

The child was born in the UK Suegha but i don't think that automatically gives it the right to citizenship.

Really? I thought born and living here was automatic citizenship.

I gave my opinion from the limited knowledge we know of the case and i stand by it. I too agree that each case should be looked in it's own right and if he is granted to stay because he meets the compassionate criteria set out, i will accept that decision as being the right one.

We're allowed to have differing opinions Jangles, that is what makes debates interesting, I wasn't having a bash at you, which is why I was making the case for the Hoops and Hurdle guys and I know how that feels.

Really? I thought born and living here was automatic citizenship.

I am not sure of the law itself Suegha, but myself and Scouse had a short and ugly battle before ( needless to say I was soundly beaten ) regarding a certain Chinese Lady and Irish Immigration, she had her child in the Republic, used the All Ireland Constitution law, ( at that time ) and then moved to the EEA National and Family route, to the UK.

Although this is Irish law, she went this way because of English Immigration law, I believe, I can't actually find the law after a search, but am still trying.

She duly gave birth and the child was awarded its Irish passport, whereupon the woman asserted her child's right as an EEA national to live in the UK.

Moss

I seem to remember that a child born in the UK, with no other form of qualification, will need to be resident here for 7 years before being able to apply for Citizenship, however, if someone was to live in the black market for 13 years he could then legitimately apply himself for Citizenship. However if Mr Cabreros was to appeal and appeal and get his son here for 7 years and he himself had gone underground and his son was successful in his appeal, perhaps he could then legitimately apply himself as a dependent of his son.

Who said the law is an Ass

Moss

Perhaps Scouse will make an unusual, but timely visit to Bedders to help me out here.

This is certainly an interesting debate - and a lesson in the law.

'Twas 1 January 1983 that the law changed, when the British Nationality Act 1981 came in to force. For the first time ever (give or take a couple of rare exceptions), being born in the UK was insufficient by itself to automatically acquire British citizenship. Since this date, one parent has to be either British him/herself or settled in the UK (i.e. have indefinite leave to enter/remain).

If Mrs. C. and her husband were on time-limited conditions, then their baby is not British. That they are trying to remove Mr. C. is indicative that he does not have indefinite leave. Should either Mr. or Mrs. C. have subsequently obtained indefinite leave, they could have applied for their child to be registered as a British citizen.

Although this is a very sad occurrence, there was never a guarantee that Mrs. C. would ultimately have had her WP extended, so no expectation that she or her family would have been allowed to settle in the UK. If she'd lived, she could have been on the same plane as her husband and child.

Scouse.

I am not sure of the law itself Suegha, but myself and Scouse had a short and ugly battle before ( needless to say I was soundly beaten ) regarding a certain Chinese Lady and Irish Immigration, she had her child in the Republic, used the All Ireland Constitution law, ( at that time ) and then moved to the EEA National and Family route, to the UK.

Chen.

The child's mother was illegally in the UK and chose to give birth in N. Ireland in the knowledge that although her status was unlawful, her child would be entitled to Irish citizenship. Once her child was born, she then moved to mainland UK and claimed to be the dependant of her newly born child. She won her case, but the Irish government subsequently amended their nationality laws to state that although anyone born in the island of Ireland may have an Irish passport, one of their parents has to be either British, Irish, or settled in either the Republic or Northern Ireland.

27th Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

Scouse.

a patsy to Romanticism.

Moss

Ooh, you get me all aquiver...

But on the seriousness of this, I think that he should be able to stay in Britain. But, it states that his son is in the Phillipines (with family i suppose). So I hope that this man gets just cause and some good cash to either bring his child back to UK for his education or to make a good life for him back home. I also presume that his wife was better educated and able to communicate in English better than he.

It's a sad story, but let's hope it ends well for all concerned and may she RIP

she had her child in the Republic, .

[chose to give birth in N. Ireland

Crikey, I even got the place of birth wrong I can't even say, the principle remains the same!!

Moss

Let them all stay. They are all welcome to it.

But what if you need to come back one day and all the houses are full and no room to build new one's?

And all the jobs and all the schools... and the transport and all the profit and all the... and the bloody weather.

Well if I do have to come back, it means I've fuc_ked right up and I'll be up Shit Creek like the rest of them.