Talk

Advanced search

Deported grandmother : what is the government trying to prove

(364 Posts)
alwaysprepare Mon 27-Feb-17 11:31:37

There is a story of a woman originally from Singapore who lives here and has been married to a Brit for 27 years, they have 2 kids and a grandchild.
Her parents had been ill and she has spent the last few years going home to take care of them. They have now passed away. She had indefinite leave to remain which has been revoked and was apparently taken on a Sunday by authorities and sent to a detention centre before being put on a flight with £12 and the clothes on her back. Her husband is poorly after a heart bypass, I think it was.
You are not allowed to leave the country for a certain amount of time on the visa she has, but she probably needed to take care of ailing parents. Also Singapore does not Allow dual citizenship which maybe why she did not apply for UK passport as that probably would have been tricky for her parent emergencies etc.

We are no better than Trump.

Sorry cannot paste it right now, but it's on Google.

ArticFox Mon 27-Feb-17 11:40:18

The government is following the rules of the visa to the letter probably. They have no interest in the human side unfortunately.

SootSprite Mon 27-Feb-17 12:37:49

Did she not know of the terms of her visa?

Drawward Mon 27-Feb-17 12:41:50

Sorry no sympathy from me she broke the terms of her visa and had it revoked. She also had 27 years to apply for British citizenship/passport but didn't. Britain doesn't require anyone to revoke previous citizenship so she could have had a British and Singapore passport quite easily.

DJBaggySmalls Mon 27-Feb-17 12:43:34

Drawward Singapore does not permit dual nationality.

Qqnamechange Mon 27-Feb-17 12:44:04

Why would it be tricky if she had a UK passport? She could apply for a visa to travel "home" like every other UK citizen.

She knew the terms of her visa and broke them.

Rhayader Mon 27-Feb-17 12:45:17

DJBaggySmalls She should have applied for permanent residency not citizenship.

Qqnamechange Mon 27-Feb-17 12:45:33

Ok just googled. She must have been out of the UK for longer than 2 years to have broken the terms.

It's not like she left for a month is it?

2014newme Mon 27-Feb-17 12:45:37

Why didn't she apply for British citizenship? Puzzling choices she made.
The lesson here is know the rules and stick to them.
The government don't make decisions based on sob stories never think they will j st be nice and let you off. That's not how it works.

BarbarianMum Mon 27-Feb-17 12:46:20

I believe she's lived most of her life (including her married life) in Singapore (BBC website). I don't think you can do that on a UK passport.

LucilleBluth Mon 27-Feb-17 12:53:37

I'm not for kicking anyone out but you do realise that all countries have visa requirements. We (myself, DH and two DSs) lived in Canada for five years, we had work permits which we had to renew, I had a baby whilst three and she is a citizen and can go back to live when she's older....I can't. It doesn't work like that. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to become a permanent resident in lots of places, not just the UK.

2014newme Mon 27-Feb-17 12:57:46

BBC say she had indefinite leave to remain but voided it by going to Singapore for two years.

2014newme Mon 27-Feb-17 12:58:42

I don't think the government can be expected to do more than say yes you are welcome in UK forever but please follow a few rules

itsawonderfulworld Mon 27-Feb-17 12:59:56

The rules make no sense whatsoever. Anyone who is married to a British citizen and/or has British children should be allowed to live with their family in the UK! Most other (civilized) countries wouldn't dream of splitting up a family like this.

Of course there need to be safeguards in place to prevent marriages of convenience, but there is no question in this case of the marriage being anything but genuine.

And after Brexit, many, many EU citizens who have settled here in good faith could find themselves in exactly this position - but without having known until now that they should have kept all records like pay slips, health insurance cover etc for the past 20 (or however many) years, since the goalposts have suddenly changed.

It's a disgusting way to treat human beings. And it's not just the "illegal immigrant" who is punished, but her British husband and family too.

Rhayader Mon 27-Feb-17 13:00:41

Ah, yes I see. Looks like she was in Singapore from Jan 2005 to 2013. Although she did try to return to the UK in 2007 but was rejected.

Floggingmolly Mon 27-Feb-17 13:03:07

She'd left the country for more than two years, op. You make it sound like a scene from a Kafka novel, with the secret police breaking down her doors in the middle of the night to take her away

Qqnamechange Mon 27-Feb-17 13:03:17

Itsawondeffulworld

Shes spent most of her married life in Singapore without her husband. He lived there for 5 years with her and then came home. You can't ask for indefinite leave to remain in a country you don't even live in!

Would you be ok with her just flying back if she needed the NHS? And then going back to Singapore again?

sonyaya Mon 27-Feb-17 13:05:01

She's an idiot for breaking the terms of her visa but it does seem a little heavy handed. If it's true that she was taken by surprise on a Sunday and had chance to speak to a lawyer, I find that concerning.

AwaywiththePixies27 Mon 27-Feb-17 13:05:41

If she had ILTR and is somehow voided it.

I think there's more to this than we are being told and makes me wonder on what terms the ILTR was granted. It's extremely difficult to get ILTR and you have to jump through some ridiculous hoops to prove it too. For example did she apply to say it isn't safe to go back to her home country? If she did that and then spent two years in the very place she'd said was unsafe, I can see why the HO have come to this decision. However horrible it may appear.

Sad of course, but rules are rules.

FriendlyPolecat Mon 27-Feb-17 13:06:06

Well I have a great deal of empathy for the woman. Also on the news last week was the supreme court case for non-EU spouse visas which the claimants lost minus a few tweaks. This issue used to affect me and so have very strong feelings about it.

IamFriedSpam Mon 27-Feb-17 13:07:56

Some people are so lacking in empathy it's unreal. What on earth is the benefit of deporting her? She was caring for ailing relatives. Nasty nasty people in this world.

Wolpertinger Mon 27-Feb-17 13:09:11

The rules on being married to a British citizen not giving you automatic leave to remain only changed recently.

If she has been married for 27 years, it's highly likely she didn't know and thought she was fine.

Lots of countries don't allow dual citizenship - so even if you are resident in the UK you may feel you don't want to give up your original nationality if you don't have to.

Plus why would you go to the effort and expense of getting PR or UK citizenship if you didn't need to?

alwaysprepare Mon 27-Feb-17 13:09:43

I meant that if her parents get sick, she will want to be on the next flight to Singapore rather than go apply for a visa which may take days or weeks. That is why I guess she did not give up that passport.

Also, immigration rules change all the time and very few people are glued to the Internet / HO website reading daily. I can't imagine she would have been doing that for almost 30 years.

Even a computer would have made some deductions on her situation and asked for more info, it's not a visitor who just overstayed .

Nomoocluck Mon 27-Feb-17 13:10:24

By all accounts she remained in Singapore to care for her frail parents, it's not like she had many choices is it? If she'd applied for British citizenship when would have lost her Singaporean one which means she won't be able to care for her parents. She can't bring them to the UK so her choices where to leave them to die alone in old age or break the terms of her ILR. What would you choose?

BarbarianMum Mon 27-Feb-17 13:10:57

The benefit is that the laws we have in place to control migration are being enforced. If you disagree with the law (or any law) then by all means work to have them amended or repealed. Having laws and ignoring them is always a bad idea imo.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now