Anchor Pets?

Let’s hope this mentality doesn’t migrate to the U.S.:

A Bolivian immigrant in Britain is allowed to stay in country because he was a cat owner.

From the

It may have been one of the least plausible attempts to avoid deportation – but it worked.

A Bolivian immigrant has won his fight to remain in Britain because he and his girlfriend have a pet cat.

Immigration judges ruled that sending the unnamed man home would breach his human rights by interfering with his family life.

The decision by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal caused ‘ disappointment’ at the Home Office and amazement among anti-immigration campaigners, who questioned why a cat could be considered relevant to an immigration case.

Court papers have kept secret the name of the animal as well as that of the immigrant as part of its privacy procedures.

The solicitor who represented the Bolivian, Barry O’Leary, said the cat was one detail among many in the case. He said: ‘When giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple’s cat.’

Immigration judge, Judith Gleeson, joked in the official ruling that the cat ‘need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice’.

The Home Office has asked for the decision to be reconsidered, saying the decision was wrong in law, and too much consideration was given to the cat.

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: ‘If pet ownership is going to be used as a reason for deciding immigration cases then the law really is an ass.

‘This is clearly not a sensible use of human rights legislation which is designed to protect people’s basic needs.’

It is not known why officials want to deport the man.

Please DO NOT let Janet Napolitano find out about this.

They are already giving Sheriff Arpaio a hard enough time……

White House escalates war with FOX News
Obama ready to compromise on government-run health care?