I'm not a lawyer, far less an immigration lawyer, and I can't believe anyone wants a long discussion on immigration law, but consider this. The family is at risk of being deported to India because, presumably, they are Indian citizens. If, during the period of residence in the UK, Shreyas had had a sibling who was a British citizen (which, for obvious reasons, I assume is not the case) then the immigration situation would have been quite different. One cannot deport a British citizen (and, if one tried, the destination country would have every right to refuse entry) and human rights issues militate against splitting families so the family would, in my clear view, then be allowed to stay. So much for the question of whether someone contributes intrinsic value or not, or who is "the right sort of immigrant", because these considerations are trumped by a new birth.J T Melsom wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:06 amNot a logical extension at all. The earnings test is not the only one because value can be measured in many ways. Having a prodigious chess player in the family just doesn't in my view mean that you should stay. There are other reasons based on human decency perhaps, but going back to my point abput the right sort of immigrant, would the ECF or members of the board be remotely bothered if it a non chess player faced with deportation? The chess ability is an excuse and thats why i can't support it. And in case anybody is thinking the worse I have helped two juniors from Asian backgrounds into the junior squad, so I'm not being prejudiced in these views.
Eleven years ago, then home secretary John Reid asserted that the immigration directorate was "not fit for purpose" and that's probably still the case. Recent media reports of abusive husbands being given status in the UK suggest that things are seriously going wrong there and, frankly, it should be a case for concern when unqualified and violent individuals are being ushered into the country when useful and law-abiding individuals such as the Royals are being shown the door. So sorry, JT, while I respect your right to differ, I can't agree with you.