The Anchor Cat

We are all familiar with the term "anchor baby," but the "anchor cat" is a new concept for me. From the Telegraph with a h/t to Overlawyered:

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.

Lawyers for the Home Secretary were aghast at the decision by James Devittie, an immigration judge, to allow the immigrant to stay in Britain. They lodged an appeal, but their case was again rejected.

The Bolivian's identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.

Delivering her decision on the case, which is thought to have cost the taxpayer several thousand pounds, Judith Gleeson, a senior immigration judge, joked in the official written ruling that the cat "need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice".

There are many reasons for a sovereign nation to legitimately exclude an immigrant from the party. The UK (and to some degree the US) is in the process of creating a system that simply allows Earth residence to trump that of the national interest when it comes to determining who should be allowed to live in the country.

Criminals who fear severe prosecution in their homelands are now legitimate immigrant prospects, as are those who will refuse to culturize, those whose primary intent is to enjoy the windfall of socialism, and those who simply have little to offer by way of education, professional skills, or motivation.

It is interesting to me that the European model is what many Americans are seeking to emulate as they dispense with the whole notion of American exceptionalism; a model that, to this point at least, has placed the nation's best interests above that of Fluffy and Spike anonymous pets.