CrossCountry traincrew member faces deportation

[greatkingrat]

I'm surprised Cross Country didn't pick it up, most firms are now very hot on checking all employees have the appropriate documentation.

 

[ian959]

Sorry, but how does anyone who has made a claim for permanent residency NOT follow up when they don't hear anything about it and know that their visa is/has run out? Something is just not making sense here, as much as he might be a good, hard working man...

 

[AntoniC]

I would hazard a guess that his immigration status has only come to light because his employer has conducted eligibility checks and found that he has no right to be here.

The fact that he has economically contributed to the economy during the last 14 years, does not negate the fact that he is an illegal immigrant.

By law , all the Home Office have to do is prove that they wrote to him at the last address they hold for him, whether he got the letter is irrelevant.

The question has to be asked though , did he think that if he did nothing the Govt would "forget" about him ?.

The debate about the morality of UK Immigration policy is for another time & place.

(I have signed the petition).

 

[Chris M]

It really would not surprise me if he was told something along the lines of "you can stay until we tell you your application has been rejected" to discourage people from wasting the time over the overworked bottom-rung civil servants chasing up applications they don't have any more information on. The same sort of thing happened time and time again with people chasing applications when I worked at Defra.

 

[bb21]

It really would not surprise me if he was told something along the lines of "you can stay until we tell you your application has been rejected" to discourage people from wasting the time over the overworked bottom-rung civil servants chasing up applications they don't have any more information on. The same sort of thing happened time and time again with people chasing applications when I worked at Defra.

Yes, he can stay until then. When his leave ran out and his application for further stay was still being decided, he had what is called "3C leave", automatically extending his legal status until a short time after the decision was made, or the exhaustion of all appeals process, if applicable, through what is technically termed "3D leave".

But even if he were told that, I find it odd that he made no attempt to find out in 15 years.

 

[IanXC]

I'm surprised Cross Country didn't pick it up, most firms are now very hot on checking all employees have the appropriate documentation.

From CrossCountry's point of view, i beleive they have had an obligation to check their employees right to be in the UK since 1 December 1997 when the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 came into force.

 

[Blindtraveler]

If this is the guy I think it is Iv come accross him on my travels a few times and hes a top man. Like many on here I have views etc on immigration and demographics but for now Im placing my not insignifficant buttocks on the rail staff members side of the fence and have signed.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Isn't it rather odd that the immigration authorities seem to have been ok with him remaining here for 15 years and only now decided to do something ? It's not as if he was hiding and since he was working and paying tax then all of the authorities knew exactly where he was and what he was doing.

 

[anthony263]

Signed the petition. This gentleman is the kind of person we should welcome into this country. Truth be told there might be more to this story than we know about however I wouldn't exactly be surprised if this turns out to be a fault on the part of the authorities.

Hope Crossocuntry will also support him especially if he is such a hard working employee for them as I do hope the union and other members of staff will

 

[infobleep]

From CrossCountry's point of view, i beleive they have had an obligation to check their employees right to be in the UK since 1 December 1997 when the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 came into force.

If Cross Country have failed, could they be fined or taken to court for employing an illegal immigrant? It it's so terrible and the person must go, perhaps they could be made an example of. Don't governments like do this to highlight cases.

I'm about to sign the petition.

 

[tony6499]

Some things don't add up, why has this come to light now ? I'm afraid he will end up being a soft target to satisfy the publics urge for immigration to be reduced.

The problem being is he has been living and working here illegally since his ILR was refused and if the government let everyone stay in similar circumstances immigration figures would rocket.

 

[D1009]

Signed. Does anyone know where he's based, or is there a reason for that info to be withheld?

 

[richw]

There was a similar case with a local pub landlady down here, and the local MP got involved and overturned the case (As a person our MP is not likeable personality, but he is a good MP and gets things done).

 

[Pinza-C55]

There was a similar case with a local pub landlady down here, and the local MP got involved and overturned the case (As a person our MP is not likeable personality, but he is a good MP and gets things done).

Link ? Sounds interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-years-British-mother-brought-aged-THREE.html

 

[ThePannier]

Signed it.

 

[aa_10]

I've written a letter to Theresa May arguing why Frank should be allowed to stay in the UK:

Here's what I've written:

Dear Theresa May MP,

Frank Mbutu has lived and worked in the United Kingdom for 16 years. His application for right to remain in the UK was rejected in July 2000 but he wasn't informed of this and has since built his life here in England, United Kingdom.


He is now being detained awaiting deportation. Frank has never broken a law, has paid taxes, never claimed social security and has worked since arriving in the UK.


The reason why I believe Frank should stay in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is because Frank was born in Tanzania which was a former colony of the UK until 1961. Since 1961, Tanzania joined the Commonwealth; under section 2(1) of the 1971 Act, as amended by s.39 (2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), defines the two categories of people who currently have the right of abode:

· British citizens
· Commonwealth citizens who had the right of abode immediately before 1 January 1983 and who have not, since then, ceased to be Commonwealth citizens expect for Pakistan and South Africa, this was because they re-joined the Commonwealth after 1982, the law also includes Gambia and Zimbabwe even though they have left the Commonwealth. This means Frank has the right to abode in the UK.
Furthermore, Frank has the right of abode under section 2(1)(a), (b) or (c) immediately prior to 1 January 1983 because he was a citizen of Tanzania which was a colony of the UK.,

​Moreover, under s.2A of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by s.57 of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, a person who has the right of abode on the basis of Commonwealth citizenship has the right of abode in the UK - that is, under s.2 (1) (b) of the 1971 Act as amended. This shows Frank is eligible for right to abode in the UK as Tanzania is a commonwealth nation.


Also, in favour of Frank's case. Commonwealth citizens who did not become British citizens on 1 January 1983 but had the right of abode immediately before that date and retained their right of abode after that date have the right to live in the UK.


With the laws I have included above, it is very worrying for Frank deportation to go ahead as it would be discriminating against an Commonwealth citizen who has the right to be in the UK as much as British citizens do as stated in the British Nationality Act 1981 section 39(2).


​Yours Faithfully

 

[ainsworth74]

The problem being is he has been living and working here illegally since his ILR was refused and if the government let everyone stay in similar circumstances immigration figures would rocket.

But if those people are contributing to society, have no criminal record and, by this point presumably, have strong ties to wherever they're living does it matter? Aren't those exactly the sort of people we want to come to the UK and make their lives here?

 

[bb21]

I've written a letter to Theresa May arguing why Frank should be allowed to stay in the UK:

Here's what I've written:

How old is Frank?

 

[aa_10]

How old is Frank?

According to the electoral register in 2005-06 from 192.com, he's 37-41

 

[bb21]

According to the electoral register in 2005-06 from 192.com, he's 37-41

How certain are you about the contents stated in your letter? The reason I ask is having done a little more digging, it would appear that it is a bit more complex than what you said in your letter as according to Page 6 of this document, merely having continuously been a commonwealth citizen since the end of 1982 is not by itself enough.

But I agree that it is a path worth exploring.

 

[aa_10]

How certain are you about the contents stated in your letter? The reason I ask is having done a little more digging, it would appear that it is a bit more complex than what you said in your letter as according to Page 6 of this document, merely having continuously been a commonwealth citizen since the end of 1982 is not by itself enough.

But I agree that it is a path worth exploring.

Look at Section 2, at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-of-abode-roa/right-of-abode-roa (Last Updated: 12 August 2015)

Section 2(1) of the 1971 Act, as amended by s.39(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), defines the two categories of people who currently have the right of abode:

British citizens
Commonwealth citizens who had the right of abode immediately before 1 January 1983 and who have not, since then, ceased to be Commonwealth citizens

 

[bb21]

I am aware of Section 2, but that says nothing about merely being a citizen of a commonwealth country being sufficient. It just listed two categories. There may be additional conditions attached to each category.

This page, this document and wikipedia are all top results from a google search on "right of abode commonwealth citizen", and all contain additional conditions on the status of a parent for commonwealth citizens falling into the second category listed in Section 2.

 

[aa_10]

I am aware of Section 2, but that says nothing about merely being a citizen of a commonwealth country being sufficient. It just listed two categories. There may be additional conditions attached to each category.

This page, this document and wikipedia are all top results from a google search on "right of abode commonwealth citizen", and all contain additional conditions on the status of a parent for commonwealth citizens falling into the second category listed in Section 2.

The parents of British origin is something to do with Section 1 of the Act and not Section 39.

A person who was registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 1 of the British Nationality Act on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section (namely that his mother was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time when he was born) shall not become a British citizen under subsection (1) unless—

(a)his mother becomes a British citizen under subsection (1) or would have done so but for her death; or

(b)immediately before commencement he had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971 as then in force (settlement in United Kingdom, combined with five or more years’ ordinary residence there as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies).

Apologies, for my mistake, I meant Section 39 (2) of the act and not Section 2.

 

[bb21]

Sorry I must be going through a senior moment right now, but I still do not understand your arguments.

Looking at the 1971 Act, Section 1 provides no definition of who has the right of abode. Section 2 states that a commonwealth citizen only has the right of abode if Section 2(1)(d) or Section 2(2) was satisfied. Section 2(1)(d) (as it were) places a further condition on the status of at least one parent, and Section 2(2) refers to female subjects.

In the 1981 Act, Section 1 deals with birth in the United Kingdom, and Section 2 also places further conditions on the status of at least one parent.

 

[aa_10]

Sorry I must be going through a senior moment right now, but I still do not understand your arguments.

Looking at the 1971 Act, Section 1 provides no definition of who has the right of abode. Section 2 states that a commonwealth citizen only has the right of abode if Section 2(1)(d) or Section 2(2) was satisfied. Section 2(1)(d) (as it were) places a further condition on the status of at least one parent, and Section 2(2) refers to female subjects.

In the 1981 Act, Section 1 deals with birth in the United Kingdom, and Section 2 also places further conditions on the status of at least one parent.

I meant Section 39 (2) of the 1981 British Nationality Act

A person is under this Act to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom if—

(a)he is a British citizen ; or

(b)he is a Commonwealth citizen who—

(i)immediately before the commencement of the British Nationality Act 1981 was a Commonwealth citizen having the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2(2) of this Act as then in force ; and

(ii)has not ceased to be a Commonwealth citizen in the meanwhile.

 

[bb21]

In which case we need to refer to Section 2(2) of the original 1971 Act, which deals with female subjects only according to Section 4 of this page. I assume the wording was later amended again to include reference to both Section 2(1)(d) and Section 2(2) rather than just Section 2(2).

Whichever way I look at it, there is a condition placed on at least one parent, and right of abode is not automatic to anyone who has been a commonwealth citizen since 1982.

 

[Trainfan344]

I have signed. 2,000 signatures now.

 

[tony6499]

But if those people are contributing to society, have no criminal record and, by this point presumably, have strong ties to wherever they're living does it matter? Aren't those exactly the sort of people we want to come to the UK and make their lives here?

The problem is that UKIP and the Conservatives in particular with the media have demonised immigrants to such an extent 'coming here and taking our jobs etc' the UKBA have to be seen to be doing something hence the soft targets getting picked on.

That is the trouble now, you can't pick and choose who obeys the law and who doesn't.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I've written a letter to Theresa May arguing why Frank should be allowed to stay in the UK:

Here's what I've written:

I hope you haven't sent that letter.
I'd be interested to know if you have been instructed by Frank Mbutu to petition a government minister on his behalf?
Either way, I'm curious to know why you are debating the details which are rehearsed daily in immigration disputes on this forum.
(I don't know much about immigration and settlement law - but I do know that the Courts hear similar arguments, and reject them, every working day).

I have every wish to see this succeed. But I'm far from persuaded that that letter is going be be of benefit.

 

[bb21]

I have every wish to see this succeed. But I'm far from persuaded that that letter is going be be of benefit.

I have to say that I am pretty well-versed in most areas of immigration legislation, although that for commonwealth citizens is not one of the areas I have a particular interest in. I am pretty convinced that the letter presents some fundamental misunderstandings of parts of the 1971 Act. The more I read it, the more convinced I am.

Put it this way, if the route for commonwealth citizens is as simple as merely needing to be one continuously since 1982, then lots of threads on various immigration forums (which I frequently visit) will simply not exist. It would also have likely been the first area the newly-installed ConDem government would have looked at cutting the figures in back when they first came into power. Other categories, such as the 14-year route would have been almost an insignificantly small fry in comparison.

I suspect the government's hands are tied in this matter. I doubt that they deliberately picked on him.