Conservative British Cabinet Minister: Britain Cannot Deport an Illegal Alien Because He Has a Cat – Not True but She Told It Anyway

Disrespect for Truth Travels the Atlantic

Writing in the Financial Times, Michael Skapinker talks about court cases that politicians of all stripes use to support their causes. Britain, like other developed nations has a problem with illegal immigrants.  The immediate cause of his ire is a comment made by British Home  Secretary Theresa May

Ms May laid into the provision of the Human Rights Act that protects family life. She told the Conservative conference that the law resulted in “the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat”.

Now this is certainly a damning accusation of some pointy headed, bleeding heart, liberal law making that puts the rights of a cat over that of society.  Except the way Ms. May tells things is at variant with what really happened.



We cannot keep you from being deported if you are
here illegally, but adopt us anyway



The Bolivian ex-student who convulsed the Conservatives had overstayed his visa, as police discovered when they arrested him for shoplifting. He was not charged. When the authorities tried to deport him, he applied to stay on the grounds that he was in a settled relationship with a British man.

The immigration tribunal found this was true. There were photographs. The couple had a joint bank account. Friends and family provided evidence. One witness had given them a cat. . . . The judge, though, talked quite a bit about cats and referred to Ontario’s approach to pets. But that wasn’t why the Bolivian won. He won because he had a long-standing relationship that the law recognised.

In the U. S. opponents of tort liability litigation often point to the woman who sued McDonalds and won millions for being served coffee that was too hot.  Except that story too is not quite the case.

What really happened? Ms Liebeck, then 79, bought the coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in New Mexico. Her grandson, who was driving, stopped so that she could add sugar and cream. She spilt the coffee. He wasn’t initially worried, but his grandmother seemed to be in shock. He drove her to a hospital, where doctors found third-degree burns to 6 per cent of her body that left permanent scars.

Ms Liebeck was a reluctant litigant. She asked McDonald’s to cover her medical costs. When the company offered $800, she found a lawyer. The court heard that McDonald’s coffee was far hotter than other restaurants’. It had received over 700 complaints, which its safety consultant dismissed in court as “basically trivially different from zero”. The jury decided that Ms Liebeck was partly to blame and awarded her $160,000. But, angered by what they saw as the company’s cavalier attitude, they added $2.7m in punitive damages – two days’ coffee revenues. The judge reduced this to $480,000. The two sides eventually reach a confidential settlement. We don’t know for how much, but that doesn’t stop people saying it was millions or how ridiculous it all was.

So why the distortions and outright fabrications?  Mr. Skapinker has an explanation in the infamous cat case

But, once again, the distorted version of the case resonates because it supports beliefs people already hold – in this case that immigration is out of control, a view that is creating problems for UK companies’ attempts to recruit the best.

The message here is to persons of all political persuasions.  If you argument is so good, why do you have to make things up?