J T Melsom wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:06 am
Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:54 pm
I too see JT's point but the logical extension of his argument seems to be that, if this country happened to have a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who earned only (say) £75,000 a year, then he or she would also be at risk of deportation notwithstanding the clear loss to the country. That's a perfectly tenable viewpoint although most people would probably disagree, particularly if his or her work was in a field where lives were at risk. Otherwise, it's simply a question of where one draws the line - who is worthy of being an exception and who, unfortunately, isn't.
Not 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.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with the question of whether the ECF should make representations on Shreyas' behalf. The ECF is not a campaigner on immigration law, nor is it the one making the decision. Perhaps the argument is a misrepresentation of what input the ECF can usefully add to the process. If the ECF is in a position of arguing that the Home Office should make exceptions for this 'special case' then i doubt it would have much impact whatsoever, if the Home Office has no inclination to make exceptions for special cases in general. On the other hand if the Home Office/Home Secretary
is open to making such exceptions on a case by case basis then the ECF can offer a lot to help in providing specialist input to validate the potential arising Shreyas' talent. And such as case would obviously need to be made because i can imagine that his age would work against him to a great extent as everything is based on largely subjective potential rather than concrete achievement (and i'm not denying he has had some achievement). It is obvious that the Home Office couldn't accept every case based on the claims of a parent's assertions as to the sporting talents of their children without any serious external validation of that. The case (if the possibility of making a case exists) would clearly be a lot easier to make if he were a 15 year old Grandmaster than a 9 year old talent. But i don't see why the ECF shouldn't assist in attempting to make that case.
Whether the father has made bad decisions in hindsight, or whether he is wrong to seek the making of an exception would could put unreasonable pressure on Shreyas in future (one can reasonably strongly argue against potentially linking a 9 year olds future prospects/life specifically on whether he can demonstrate rapid fulfilment of a talent in a minority sport with uncertain future career value) is a completely different debate. Depends on whether an exception once made was to permanently change his residency status, i suppose.