A 74-year-old British woman with severe Alzheimer’s has been threatened with deportation from Sweden over Brexit paperwork she was unable to complete because of her incapacitation.
Not really it’s not about Brexit:
Kathleen had permanent residence and a “personal number” evidencing her right to be in Sweden but when Brexit came into force she needed to reapply for a new immigration status known as residence status.
Her family made an application before the deadline in 2021 but it was rejected because of the lack of a passport.
“She cannot leave her bed, so she never had the need to get a new passport and we explained that,” said her daughter-in-law Angelica who expected compassion when she told this to the migration authorities in two appeals.
This is about the Swedish bureaucracy. It’s gone as far as two appeals and no one, as yet, has had the gumption to say “Yes, obviously entirely stupid, case closed”. Because bureaucracy just never does do that. Which is why we don’t want to be ruled by bureaucracy of course. It simply never can deal with edge cases.
Can’t they just say that she’s Somali ?
Brexit apparently has the power to make Swedish policemen behave like the Stasi.
Rather like our own keyboard constable 24/7 social media checkers it’s good to know they have their law-enforcement priorities right.
Meanwhile in other news:-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11731157/Teenager-machineguns-family-home-Stockholm-suburb-gun-crime-spirals-drug-gangs.html
Can’t she just claim asylum from the terrors of BrexitBritain™?
Or claim to be trans and that deportation to Britain would result in discrimination as to her ability to commit crimes and be put in the jail of her choosing?
Incidentally is it possible to claim under trans laws that (as biological man) you were in fact a woman but have now transitioned to a man? I just wondered that if everyone said they were trans would anyone then be able to say they weren’t?
‘Incidentally is it possible to claim under trans laws that (as biological man) you were in fact a woman but have now transitioned to a man?’
Congratulations Jim. You’d make an excellent bureaucrat.
You’d have the same problem here. Or in Portugal, I’d imagine The application requires an identity document. “Permanent residence” & its number is not an ID. The UK does not not have identity documents other than a passport.
Here (& I would presume Portugal) one is obliged to carry ID. If you’re a UK national, that’d have to be the passport. She was actually obliged to have one. That she “never leaves her bed” is irrelevant. How could she be admitted to hospital if she legally can’t leave the house without an ID?
And yes I’ve had this argument with Brits endless times. Your in forrin’, they do it different in forrin’, if you don’t like it fuck off home.
You’re just looking at laziness & that Brit thing “it doesn’t apply to me”. Both well know Brit failings.
@ bis
Kathleen doubtless had a passport when she entered Sweden but British passports expire after ten years.
Clearly she should have visited the British Embassy in Stockholm to get a replacement every ten years to get a replacement but Alzheimer’s …
What I want to know is: why ECHR right to family life doesn’t apply to Brits in Sweden as much as to illegal immigrants in UK?
It does, John. It’s not going to come to deportation because she’d be able to apply to the ECHR to have her “rights” supported in the same way. If the family’s to lazy or incompetent, no doubt one of the “champions of immigrant rights” would step in for good PR.
But if she doesn’t have “right of residence” it’s the fault of the people managing her affairs. Why didn’t they get a POA?
“Congratulations Jim. You’d make an excellent bureaucrat.”
I think thats the worst insult I’ve ever had! 🙂
In Austria, I was surprised when I was asked by the local council to provide citizenship certificates for the missus and her mother after they had died. I even had to produce a marriage certificate. Not sure what difference it made. Would they have to have been deported ?
In Clogland, my brother just applied for citiznship instead, to avoid having to update his residency status regularly after Brexit ( ie in case he and the wife went ga-ga and started forgetting ).
From the Guardian piece:
Milstead said there was no organisation at the European Commission level or in Sweden mirroring that of the Independent Monitoring Authority in the UK which is a statutory body set up after Brexit to protect the rights of EU citizens.
“It’s all a bit like, this can be traced back to the original sin of Brexit and nothing can be done about it,” he said.
So Britain put a system in place to stop administratively noncompliant senile Swedish citizens being booted out but there is no such system in Sweden for British citizens. And it’s all because Brexit?
Twats.
‘Original sin’ is an excellent way to describe how fervent pro-EU politicians on the continent (especially in France) have sought to rationalise the aftermath of the Brexit vote. “It’s their fault for voting to leave, so the blame for anything bad that happens afterwards should be placed at their door even if our actions made things worse.” Not that many would bring themselves to admit the latter, of course.
The truly butt-hurt Rejoiners in the UK – with their endless supplies of sour (bum) grapes – display a similar mindset. This may explain why so few of them expressed reservations about the moronic “People’s Vote” going ahead, as they could always cite the sheer “affront” of Brexit to explain away their bad behaviour and justify any nasty consequences. It’s all Farage and Johnson’s fault, see?
It’s all Farage and Johnson’s fault, see?
… and Putin. Don’t forget the evil Rooskies who ‘bankrolled’ Brexit. It must be true, I read it in The Guardian.
Comments are closed.