pumpkinstrokemarrow

Moving back to more exalted topics, I continue to ponder about human rights. Consider this DT inspired example, it not mattering much whether it is true or not. It could easily be. Suppose we have a black Nigerian lady in this country, illegally. That is to say that she arrived on a visitor's visa, went to ground and has been working hard as a chambermaid in some otherwise respectable hotel since. Or perhaps as a skivvy for some otherwise respectable cabinet minister. Suppose also that she has a ten year old daughter. The immigration people then catch up with the lady. They do not believe her story that she will be tortured if returned to Nigeria and make plans to do just that. The daughter has to go too. Now here we have a problem. The daughter is a child and got here under her mother's wing. Not her fault that she is here. But she now likes it here and will kick and scream if we try to remove her. She wants to stay whether or not her mother does. We may well inflict various kinds of social worker attention requiring trauma if we persist with removal. Now, on the one hand, despite our colonial guilt and so forth, I do not believe that the UK has a duty to feed and clothe all the poor of the world, even all the poor of Nigeria, a former colony. On the other hand, deportation seems a bit unfair on the child. Not very nice either for those Securicor chaps whom we hire to do our dirty work to have to carry kicking and spitting child onto aeroplane - assuming that they do not enjoy that kind of thing. Separating her from her mother not too hot either. I don't see any good solution to all this. I tried airing the problem in TB where, to be fair, I got a hearing. But all too difficult after a few pints; people would rather talk about ladders and what Mary was up to after closing time last night. I wonder if the Guardian did any better?

One answer might be that once people are in for so many months, they are legal. Rather like the outlaws of Robin Hood's day who got off if they survived as outlaws for a year and a day. They became regular inlaws again. But I think the price of this answer would be that control on entry would become very fierce. Or if that was too difficult in our open sort of country, that control after entry would become very fierce. Much day to day harassment of blacks in the streets who look a bit illegal. So this would not be too hot either.

And then there is the cost-benefit problem. Enforcement in this case probably costs much more than it is worth. Much more than it would cost to provide the extra infrastructure needed to support two more people. And, if we suppose that the lady is paying income tax, she might even be paying her way in that regard. So we are enforcing for the sake of example. Punitive damages to deter others. But I think that this bit is OK. If you are going to have rules, you have to enforce them. Just don't push it too far.

At least as a retired person, I have done my bit. Not up to me to dream up solutions to these problems any more. Let the next lot do their best. I can burble in the boozer with a clear conscience.