Last week there was a whole lotta fuss about a cat and whether owning one was an adequate reason for being allowed to remain in the UK. It turned out, of course, that judges had not prevented the deportation of the individual concerned because of cat ownership, making Theresa May look rather stupid. But not stupid enough; it is still true that she called for the abrogation of the Human Rights Act and that David Cameron supports her in this, as do some journalists and members of the public. Her other two examples of the supposedly outrageous leniency of judges have stood up to scrutiny after her attack Article 8 of the act which details right to a family life. It seems likely, therefore, that should a British guarantee of human rights be introduced to replace the HRA, this particular right would be severely restricted. Scary.

But I would argue that in the case of the man from Trinidad convicted of possession of Class A drugs with intention to deal, his right to a family life ought not to be the most significant consideration, no matter what the legal basis for fighting deportation must be. Because to what exactly would Theresa May propose sending him ‘back’? He has lived in Britain since the age of four; he is, therefore, British, no matter that he is not a citizen, and even if he regards himself as also (or even solely) Trinidadian. We are all products of the society in which we grow up, and growing up in a socialised sense takes place later than the age of four. So it is right that the man in question should not be ‘returned’ to his birthplace, since there is no reason why Trinidad should have to deal with this criminal; he is our problem, and British society has to take at least some responsibility for the fact that this young man got involved in drug dealing. Trinidadian society does not.

The Human Rights Act and the right to family life is not the issue here (although I am supportive of both). This is a matter of accountability. We cannot simply get rid of criminals as we please, and the deportation of this man would have amounted to that, despite being at least a legal possibility. What he lacked was an administrative decision that he is a citizen. But he was educated here, and in that sense he is as British as I am (and my dad coming from Belfast, I understand the complexities of British and multi-national identity). If people want a sense of ‘Britishness’, they are going to have to take what goes with it, and accept that if British society forms part of this identity, it must also be held at least partially responsible for the actions of those growing up within it. So he is not ‘their’ miscreant, he is ‘ours’ and we should have to deal with the consequences of this: had he not been allowed to remain on the basis of Article 8, he would probably have been deported – to a country that is entirely blameless in his actions. When people insist on the need to ‘protect’ the general population from criminals who do not ‘belong’ here they need to consider what this means: in this case, it is the question of a piece of paper set against an education; the latter, though without (as far as I am aware) legal force, is much more potent.

Laura MacDonald blogs for Varsity CommentBlogs @ http://blogs.varsity.co.uk/comment