to think there's nothing to be gained by deporting Harley Miller?

[WidowWadman]

...and leaving her in limbo for yet another month just seems cruel?

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/lauded-therapist-harley-miller-still-in-limbo-as-battle-to-stay-in-britain-drags-on-9679464.html

That's what a "tough approach on immigration" does. Doesn't make any sense to me.

clicky link

What is "gained" is the upholding of our immigration laws.
She was here on a spousal visa and was given leave to remain for an extended time after her marriage ended. That time has now ended so she needs to leave. I don't see the problem.

Agree with Adsy. Why should she be treated differently to anyone else.

She's built her life here, has continuously been contributing. She'd be sent "back" to a place she hasn't lived in for decades, where she hasn't paid taxes nor has a social network. UK patients lost a by all accounts great, highly experienced and qualified doctor.

Not saying she should be treated different, but that her case is one of many showing the system is flawed.

I think this case shows the system IS working in this case. Her right to remain has ended, so she is being told to go.
Cases where people overstay for years without being deported are the cass which are the flaws in the system

Lets be honest here, if she was of different skin colour or spoke with certain accents she would have been sent back months ago and furthermore there would be no public outcry.

But as always people want the rules bending when it is someone they know, especially if it is a nice middle class lady who works for the NHS and is therefore automatically saintly.

I seem to be in the minority on here, but imo YANBU. I don't think she should be treated differently, people who contribute to society should be given leave to remain.

It does seem strange that the system can get itself together to deport someone who is apparently law abiding and employed yet when it comes to the numerous criminals we have here who are not UK nationals it all seems a bit too difficult to get rid of them.
eyebags I would make no apologies for only wanting "nice" people to remain in the UK. I couldn't care less about their nationality/colour/accent. I wouldn't be so naive as to suppose that everyone thinks as I do but fear of offending a perceived ethnic minority should not stop UKBA doing its job.

Its a shame but if she were a Brit in Australia under these circumstances, she would have been deported ages ago....so its interesting that she finds this so unfair!

ChickenMe
I understand what you are saying and I agree we should only want good people to stay. However I just wonder if there would be as much fuss if this were a black African bin man or a car salesman or whatever really.

The rules have to be applied equally regardless of whether or not someone is perceived to be 'nice'. Therefore I think she has overstayed her visa and should leave, just like other illegal immigrants should be deported too.

I also completely agree it does seem odd how the system can always mange to punish the apparently decent ones but somehow we can't deport foreign sex offenders and so on because of their "human rights".

I kind of agree with you. I don't really know enough about immigration laws, but it does seem as the the UKBA is cutting off its nose to spite its face here.

I've met many other non-EU immigrants who contribute nothing a lot less to the country who seem to have indefinite leave to stay.

To me her skin colour or where she was born is irrelevant, I also don't care much whether the country of her birth does it any different. It's not as if she has any responsibility for that. - I just find it strange that someone who's well integrated, contributing and self-sufficient should not be welcome anymore just because an arbitrary time limit has expired.

It's unfair as she is being penalised for UKBA's mistake She approached them in 2008 about her change in circumstances and got it in writing that her visa was valid. Years later UKBA say that advice was wrong, which appears to have nixed her discretionary leave to remain application.

She's not a cheeky overstayer, she being punished for following the instructions of the people who run UK immigration who she assumed knew what they were doing!

We need many more skilled professionals and business people, of all ethinicities, to help us compete globally and afford decent services.

There should be a formal process to allow those who can prove they bring a clear economic benefit to remain.
Convicted foreign nationals should be deported promptly, regardless of wealth.

Sadly, we can't take all the billions of poor people living in wretched conditions, however sorry we feel for them. Additional low / no-skilled are just a burden on our already stretched services.
Skin colour is irrelevant, but what someone can bring to our country is not.

Yanbu and I hope she's able to stay on, no less because of her economic contributions and skills that she's used to benefit her patients.

That was primarily the reason why I applied and received my indefinite leave to remain in my own right, through my employers. I have always been fearful of the minuscule chance that if my marriage breaks up (and he's British) and if I had my right to remain linked to the marriage, that I would have to leave, and worse, leave my kids (or create a situation where we would be bouncing across 2 countries half way across the world every holiday!!!).

And I think it fascinating that somehow the ukba cannot find the numerous illegal overstayers and yet because this woman has held her hand up and informed the authorities, that she gets picked on.

I feel quite strongly about the question on what grounds somebody should be allowed to settle in a place of their choice and be able to contribute, because it feels kind of personal.

I had it incredibly easy myself - as a EU citizen there were no real barriers to me coming over and build a life here when I happened to fall in love with an Englishman. I simply packed my bags and boxes, looked for a job and started working. Initially, since I didn't have much in the way of qualifications in a low earning job, but worked my way up to a reasonable qualified job.

It sends shivers down my spine to think that if I hadn't been an EU citizen and the current restrictions and rules had been in place at the time I would have not had the chance to give my relationship a go ( had no qualifications or special talent to offer, nor did he earn anywhere near the spousal visa threshold), there would not be the happy long relationship, marriage, 2 kids, career I've enjoyed.

Yes, I understand that the state needs to put protection in place by placing restrictions on recourse to public funds, and that you can't home every person in the world, but ultimately I believe everybody and anybody who has the drive to want to go somewhere and build their life should be given the chance to have a go at it.

And -going back to HM- it's beyond cruel to remove someone who has integrated, contributed and put down roots for almost a decade.

This is exactly what happened to my sister in law in Australia.
She was working and paying into a pension fund. The kids were settled in school and college. For reasons similar she was deported but in no time. No messing about. I think she had months notice to sort out personal affairs and get o a plane. She had no where to live in the UK or places for the kids at school.

Is she bitter? According to her she knew where she stood when she left to go to Oz. it hurt her and caused her disruption but those were/ are the rules.

Same with Harley Miller.

she knew where she stood

Trouble is Harley Miller knew where she stood - UKBA told her. Then turned round later and told her something different. And by following their initial advice she apparently damaged her ILR claim. She's played by the rules and UKBA really ought to 'own' their mistake. Particularly if she could have gained ILR if she'd been given the correct information at right time.

And while she probably doesn't earn a huge salary in the NHS and pay vast amounts of tax, judging by the comments of her patients she's done vital life-changing work for a huge number of people.

I don't really get the "them's the rules, you gotta live with them" approach if it means that rules that turn out to be flawed and/or unjust should never be challenged.

10 years in the UK? How on earth did she not manage to qualify to stay here?!

I was here under spousal visa, I made sure I knew the rules, and applied for permanent right of abode as soon as I was eligible. You have to make sure you reduce your travel abroad for awhile though. You have to spend a certain amount of time in the country to become eligible.

Sounds like she didn't take the necessary precautions to me.

OK UKBA might have cocked it up but she had 3 years from 2008 to 2011 when she knew she would have to apply for discretionary leave to try and put something more permanent in place.

And criminals are deported daily or at least when they have enough to fill a plane to any particular destination.

YABU.

It's not unjust or flawed. You can't let someone remain in the UK just because they do a good job and they happen to be quite a nice, law abiding person. Otherwise, what is the point of having immigration laws? Why should she be permitted to remain over other, very nice, law abiding people who are also very good at their jobs and do equally important work?

Don't quite understand what you mean by that?

While I see some of the arguments regarding her case, in answer to the op,there's a hell of a lot to be lost by bending the rules. If it happens for one there'll be a constant queue for it to happen for them, whether you or I perceive them as 'deserving' or not. The man hours, chaos and sheer amount of money that would cost is detrimental to the running of our government, legal services and border agency.