6 ms·

I don’t think the government did anything wrong; The rules aren’t meant to be bent, and if Lucas made a mistake in filing the wrong paperwork, it absolutely mak

I don’t think the government did anything wrong; The rules aren’t meant to be bent, and if Lucas made a mistake in filing the wrong paperwork, it absolutely makes sense for the consequences to follow. In these serious legal matters, you need to seek counsel. This article attempts to paint a picture of the poor child, but the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Well, I don't know the details of British law on this, but the German constitution has as its first article "Human dignity is unviolable. To respect it and to protect it is the duty of all institutions of the state." So, not bending the rules in such cases would actually potentially be illegal. If there is no such rule in place in the UK, then that is where the government did something wrong.
smikhanov 8y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if in addition to your “the complex and opaque rules are there for everyone to follow without any leeway for a mistake, period” philosophy you also practice cannibalism.
- gpvos 8y ago
  That's ad hominem.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Ad hominem is "you're an asshole and that's why you're wrong", not "you're wrong and that makes you an asshole".
    - andybak 8y ago
      That's a nice and pithy definition. Mind if I use it?
    - waxwander 8y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised that in addition to your ad hominem philosophy, you were also an uneducated toad.
      - danharaj 8y ago
        I'll have you know that I earned my degree at the finest toad university.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't react to a bad comment by posting another bad one. That just makes this place worse. Moreover, it breaks the site rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
hprotagonist 8y ago
I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions. Jean-Luc Picard
- jacknews 8y ago
  Actually laws can be absolute, if they're detailed enough. Obviously almost impossible in practice, but maybe ... But the problem with allowing "discretion" in laws, is whose discretion. And there seems to be a recent govt enthusiasm for the meta issue of which laws to enforce, and how vigorously, which is certainly a concern.
damnyou 8y ago
How has putting him through the ordeal benefited society? Laws shouldn't punish honest, harmless mistakes.
ashelmire 8y ago
>The rules aren’t meant to be bent This is not only obviously untrue because they were quite explicitly bent by the judge, but also untrue in the face of the entire history of law. This is why these appeals exist, for exceptional circumstances. And there's a general attitude towards forgiveness for administrative mistakes. If there was to be no interpretation or exception to law, we wouldn't need judges or allow appeals to settle these matters. Law is written by man. Law is interpreted by man. Your ridiculous, strict perspective on the absolute power and immutability of law is that shared by the worst of dictators in history. Reflect on that.
aluren 8y ago
The point isn't that Lucas should break the law; the point is that the laws are stupid and should be changed, as illustrated by the egregious situation one can be found in when making a simple mistake. 'Appeal to emotion' here is just basic compassion for someone who does not deserve what happened to them, and hope that similar situations won't happen again.
psergeant 8y ago
> The rules aren’t meant to be bent British law is full of opportunities for rules to be bent in the pursuit of justice and common sense. > if Lucas made a mistake in filing the wrong paperwork, it absolutely makes sense for the consequences to follow Do you pay British tax? I think you’d be hard-pushed to find even the most ardent anti-immigration Britisher saying they thought this was a good use of their tax pounds and the Home Office’s time. > the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid Said no jurisprudence scholar, ever. There’s a reason that strict liability crimes are so limited in number, why judges in the UK have considerable leeway in sentencing, and so on.
bograt 8y ago
> I don’t think the government did anything wrong. I think that rather depends on whether you regard the role of government here to assist its (future) citizens, or censure them (narrowly avoiding arrest and detention in this case) for what appear to be minor violations of immigration law.
heavenlyblue 8y ago
Try calling the Home Office support line and ask them a simple question: "If I had been a student for the past 5 years and had fully supported myself by working for the same period of time, do I need to present you with the health insurance papers that are required if you are a student?". I'm betting that for every 5 calls you make over there, you'll get a different answer. That is also true for the applications made, which sometimes require re-submission in such edge cases (with obviously an incredibly short notice period). I am not appealing to any sentiment over here, but frankly it's a system that is inherently hostile even towards those who try hard to make sure the application is done right.
- gambiting 8y ago
  Yep, I'm on the same boat. I've lived here for 8 years but I can't apply for permanent resident status(and hence for citizenship) because I didn't have private health insurance while I was a student. I have also played this game with home office - you ring them up and ask "can you remain in the UK as an EU citizen if you are not exercising your EU free movement rights" - the answer will be no, you cannot. Then you can ask if you can be an EU student in the UK without private health insurance - the answer will be "yes, but you are simply not exercising your free movement rights". Then you can follow with "so is an EU student without private health insurance here illegally?" And the answer will be "no". I've spoken to several immigration lawyers and they all said that what the Home office is doing is strictly illegal - they cannot require presenting proof of private health insurance for the years of studying in order for those years to count towards permanent residence rights. But good luck taking them to court and winning. I'm simply waiting 5 years from the moment when I started working, but it's an incredibly frustrating process. To add to this, I know from my friends that for my particular nationality(Polish) the process for applying for citizenship looks like this - send the application, wait nearly a year to find out it's been rejected, appeal, have the appeal date set 6-8 months in the future, no one from the home office turns up at court, the application is re-reviewed and approved. It's absolute nonsense, and like you said, it only exists to make the entire process as hostile as physically possible.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
zaroth 8y ago
Thankfully while the beaurocracy might like it better dishing out cold refusals based on a misfiled form, the law doesn’t work that way. You don’t actually get to throw away someone’s station in life because of a paperwork mistake. And we see once a judge was involved in fact the law made the right call. Of course Lucas fucked up by filling out the wrong form and should have had a lawyer review it. And his immigration status was at stake and he blew it. It doesn’t mean these things can’t be fixed by humans making the right decision.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  If you need a lawyer to decide what form to fill out, that might be an indication that the form is bad. Do we really want a world where you need to consult a lawyer for every communication with the government, so as to be sure that the government doesn't try to screw you over?
foxhill 8y ago
so, to confirm, you believe that destitution, embarrassment, shame, depression, and eventual arrest - not to mention having to come to terms with being forced into a place you have never lived before - are reasonable consequences of being slightly cavalier about paperwork? if so, 8 months to respond to an application should elicit a much harsher punishment. edit: to all that are down voting this comment, please don’t. this is our opportunity to explain why we feel this is a bad view to have, and “silencing” this person’s opinion, if anything, can only have the effect of reenforcing this belief. this is not a spam comment, this is discussion.
vidarh 8y ago
The judge disagreed with you, and because the Home Office chose to treat it this way instead of treating it more reasonable it wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money and reduced its tax revenues. > This article attempts to paint a picture of the poor child, but the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid. If the law is so clear, one would think the Home Office wouldn't have treated him this way only for a judge to find he should have another chance, nor presumably, would the Home Office have wrongly claimed a rule that does exist doesn't exist. When the Home Office itself fails to get this right, it is completely unreasonable to assume that applicants will.
atemerev 8y ago
Not everything that is legal is right, and illegal is wrong. In many countries, being gay is illegal. In some countries, being a woman and walking alone in the street is illegal. “Oh, but they have to respect the law” is a poor defense.
shripadk 8y ago
If rules aren't meant to be bent can you explain why the Home Office is trying it's best to stop the extradition of economic fugitives like Vijay Mallya and Lalit Modi? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/india-asks-britain-to-deport-vijay-mallya/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/india-asks-brita... https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-rejects-india-s-request-to-extradite-vijay-mallya-twice-117110500157_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-r... It's been 2 years since India sent a formal extradition request. It has been rejected twice. I can understand UK Home Office's affinity for following rules to a tee when it comes to Lucas' case but why not extend the same for economic fugitives?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

Well, I don't know the details of British law on this, but the German constitution has as its first article "Human dignity is unviolable. To respect it and to protect it is the duty of all institutions of the state." So, not bending the rules in such cases would actually potentially be illegal. If there is no such rule in place in the UK, then that is where the government did something wrong.

smikhanov 8y ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if in addition to your “the complex and opaque rules are there for everyone to follow without any leeway for a mistake, period” philosophy you also practice cannibalism.

gpvos 8y ago
That's ad hominem.
- danharaj 8y ago
  Ad hominem is "you're an asshole and that's why you're wrong", not "you're wrong and that makes you an asshole".
  - andybak 8y ago
    That's a nice and pithy definition. Mind if I use it?
  - waxwander 8y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised that in addition to your ad hominem philosophy, you were also an uneducated toad.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      I'll have you know that I earned my degree at the finest toad university.
dang 8y ago
Please don't react to a bad comment by posting another bad one. That just makes this place worse. Moreover, it breaks the site rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

hprotagonist 8y ago

I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions. Jean-Luc Picard

jacknews 8y ago
Actually laws can be absolute, if they're detailed enough. Obviously almost impossible in practice, but maybe ... But the problem with allowing "discretion" in laws, is whose discretion. And there seems to be a recent govt enthusiasm for the meta issue of which laws to enforce, and how vigorously, which is certainly a concern.

damnyou 8y ago

How has putting him through the ordeal benefited society? Laws shouldn't punish honest, harmless mistakes.

ashelmire 8y ago

>The rules aren’t meant to be bent This is not only obviously untrue because they were quite explicitly bent by the judge, but also untrue in the face of the entire history of law. This is why these appeals exist, for exceptional circumstances. And there's a general attitude towards forgiveness for administrative mistakes. If there was to be no interpretation or exception to law, we wouldn't need judges or allow appeals to settle these matters. Law is written by man. Law is interpreted by man. Your ridiculous, strict perspective on the absolute power and immutability of law is that shared by the worst of dictators in history. Reflect on that.

aluren 8y ago

The point isn't that Lucas should break the law; the point is that the laws are stupid and should be changed, as illustrated by the egregious situation one can be found in when making a simple mistake. 'Appeal to emotion' here is just basic compassion for someone who does not deserve what happened to them, and hope that similar situations won't happen again.

psergeant 8y ago

> The rules aren’t meant to be bent British law is full of opportunities for rules to be bent in the pursuit of justice and common sense. > if Lucas made a mistake in filing the wrong paperwork, it absolutely makes sense for the consequences to follow Do you pay British tax? I think you’d be hard-pushed to find even the most ardent anti-immigration Britisher saying they thought this was a good use of their tax pounds and the Home Office’s time. > the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid Said no jurisprudence scholar, ever. There’s a reason that strict liability crimes are so limited in number, why judges in the UK have considerable leeway in sentencing, and so on.

bograt 8y ago

> I don’t think the government did anything wrong. I think that rather depends on whether you regard the role of government here to assist its (future) citizens, or censure them (narrowly avoiding arrest and detention in this case) for what appear to be minor violations of immigration law.

heavenlyblue 8y ago

Try calling the Home Office support line and ask them a simple question: "If I had been a student for the past 5 years and had fully supported myself by working for the same period of time, do I need to present you with the health insurance papers that are required if you are a student?". I'm betting that for every 5 calls you make over there, you'll get a different answer. That is also true for the applications made, which sometimes require re-submission in such edge cases (with obviously an incredibly short notice period). I am not appealing to any sentiment over here, but frankly it's a system that is inherently hostile even towards those who try hard to make sure the application is done right.

gambiting 8y ago
Yep, I'm on the same boat. I've lived here for 8 years but I can't apply for permanent resident status(and hence for citizenship) because I didn't have private health insurance while I was a student. I have also played this game with home office - you ring them up and ask "can you remain in the UK as an EU citizen if you are not exercising your EU free movement rights" - the answer will be no, you cannot. Then you can ask if you can be an EU student in the UK without private health insurance - the answer will be "yes, but you are simply not exercising your free movement rights". Then you can follow with "so is an EU student without private health insurance here illegally?" And the answer will be "no". I've spoken to several immigration lawyers and they all said that what the Home office is doing is strictly illegal - they cannot require presenting proof of private health insurance for the years of studying in order for those years to count towards permanent residence rights. But good luck taking them to court and winning. I'm simply waiting 5 years from the moment when I started working, but it's an incredibly frustrating process. To add to this, I know from my friends that for my particular nationality(Polish) the process for applying for citizenship looks like this - send the application, wait nearly a year to find out it's been rejected, appeal, have the appeal date set 6-8 months in the future, no one from the home office turns up at court, the application is re-reviewed and approved. It's absolute nonsense, and like you said, it only exists to make the entire process as hostile as physically possible.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago

Thankfully while the beaurocracy might like it better dishing out cold refusals based on a misfiled form, the law doesn’t work that way. You don’t actually get to throw away someone’s station in life because of a paperwork mistake. And we see once a judge was involved in fact the law made the right call. Of course Lucas fucked up by filling out the wrong form and should have had a lawyer review it. And his immigration status was at stake and he blew it. It doesn’t mean these things can’t be fixed by humans making the right decision.

jimnotgym 8y ago
If you need a lawyer to decide what form to fill out, that might be an indication that the form is bad. Do we really want a world where you need to consult a lawyer for every communication with the government, so as to be sure that the government doesn't try to screw you over?

foxhill 8y ago

so, to confirm, you believe that destitution, embarrassment, shame, depression, and eventual arrest - not to mention having to come to terms with being forced into a place you have never lived before - are reasonable consequences of being slightly cavalier about paperwork? if so, 8 months to respond to an application should elicit a much harsher punishment. edit: to all that are down voting this comment, please don’t. this is our opportunity to explain why we feel this is a bad view to have, and “silencing” this person’s opinion, if anything, can only have the effect of reenforcing this belief. this is not a spam comment, this is discussion.

vidarh 8y ago

The judge disagreed with you, and because the Home Office chose to treat it this way instead of treating it more reasonable it wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money and reduced its tax revenues. > This article attempts to paint a picture of the poor child, but the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid. If the law is so clear, one would think the Home Office wouldn't have treated him this way only for a judge to find he should have another chance, nor presumably, would the Home Office have wrongly claimed a rule that does exist doesn't exist. When the Home Office itself fails to get this right, it is completely unreasonable to assume that applicants will.

atemerev 8y ago

Not everything that is legal is right, and illegal is wrong. In many countries, being gay is illegal. In some countries, being a woman and walking alone in the street is illegal. “Oh, but they have to respect the law” is a poor defense.

shripadk 8y ago

If rules aren't meant to be bent can you explain why the Home Office is trying it's best to stop the extradition of economic fugitives like Vijay Mallya and Lalit Modi? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/india-asks-britain-to-deport-vijay-mallya/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/india-asks-brita... https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-rejects-india-s-request-to-extradite-vijay-mallya-twice-117110500157_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-r... It's been 2 years since India sent a formal extradition request. It has been rejected twice. I can understand UK Home Office's affinity for following rules to a tee when it comes to Lucas' case but why not extend the same for economic fugitives?