• Replies 37 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 8632 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

"HR said I was illegal because I didn't have a biometric card..."

Steve Bridger

I was following the story of Michael Braithwaite today - the man living in the UK for 56 years who lost his school job over immigration papers.

He is one of an emerging group of people who were born in Commonwealth countries and arrived in the UK as children who have discovered half a century later that they have serious and hard to fix immigration problems.

Amelia Gentleman has been doing a fine job shining a light on these stories at the Guardian. 

I can't help but think this is putting a strain on those who work in HR at schools and local authorities. It reminds me a little of the testing our integrity discussion we've had here in the past.

The relevant bits from the Guardian piece:

"The personnel department got in touch to tell him that without a biometric card he could not continue to be employed. The 66-year-old lost his full-time job in 2017 after the local authority ruled he needed to submit documentary proof that he had the right to live in the UK. He has been trying for two years without success to get the Home Office to acknowledge that he is in Britain legally.

"Braithwaite was distraught at losing his job. “I had a good rapport with the children. The head said I was an asset to the school, but the HR department said I was illegal because I didn’t have a biometric card."

I hope he manages to to put his life back together again.

Parents Reply Children
  • in reply to Elizabeth Divver
    I completely agree. As Authorising Officer for my organisation, which employs around 120 people with a "restricted" right to work, I have had to dismiss more than once when we have no evidence ofor that right. I do not take this lightly but do everything possible to find some way of obtaining the evidence, including asking the Business help desk for advice (nearly always a waste of time as they simply quote the regulations which I am already aware of) or carrying out an ECS check. Unfortunately if the response comes back indicating no evidence or no right to work, ignoring that simply puts our licence in jeopardy and therefore the ongoing right to live and work of our sponsored workers. We cannot suspend,as that is still employment. We can reengage (but not reinstate) when the right to work is verified.

    The biggest problem and most unfortunate scenario is where an individual like this case has lived here a long time, has no means of demonstrating right to work but was not subject to the check in previous years so was legally employed up to the point that he was legally required to demonstrate right to work and couldn't.

    It's distasteful and makes me ashamed of my country.
  • in reply to Helen

    The biggest problem and most unfortunate scenario is where an individual like this case has lived here a long time, has no means of demonstrating right to work but was not subject to the check in previous years so was legally employed up to the point that he was legally required to demonstrate right to work and couldn't.

    Thank you, Helen. I do think that this is the scenario that is so disturbing me. I am hopeful that the Govt will see that this is 'catching out' people never intended to be the 'targets' (excuse the messy choice of words)... but I won't hold my breath.

    I would hope that Home Office staff are questioning certain decisions with their superiors, too... but they most likely have quotas and targets to fulfil. Grrr...

    ps Your post was your 100th! Thank you, Helen :)

  • in reply to Steve Bridger
    Yes, I have been following with interest - I hope some common sense prevails but given this falls close on the heels of the debacle of threatening to deport EEA nationals who currently have full rights, due to over-enthusiastic adherence to rules, I remain cynical.

    One of the problems is the massively under-resourced staff and the complexities of immigration rules, the many different circumstances people find themselves in and the rigidity of applying rules (and indeed understanding them). Temps are being taken on and given 4 days training before being let loose to make decisions that will affect people's entire lives. I am right now dealing with a refused asylum application where the individual, spouse and child must leave the country and can't even appeal the decision until they have left. And the individual has received 2 different letters in the same envelope, to 2 different addresses (previous and current) with contradictory advice advising of the need to attend, in person, in an entirely different town, on date and time "TBC"....