Deported grandmother : what is the government trying to prove

[alwaysprepare]

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 She had indefinite leave to remain which has been revoked and was apparently taken on a Sunday by authorities and sent to a detention centre before being put on a flight with £12 and the clothes on her back.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.

So basically she has been in the uk for a total of 7 years. Not all of those years have been recent. She has been flagrantly ignoring the conditions of her right to be here.

Being prevented by your state is very different from not taking out a UK one.

Haven't RTFT but here's my two cents.
I'm a USA citizen here on indefinite leave to remain. We were married here nearly ten years ago. My kids born here and go to school here.
If I/we leave the country for more than two years, my husband would have to go through immigration to get me a spousal visa, then I could apply for ILTR again.
I have now been here so long I can apply for citizenship but it is a long, expensive process. I often muse if I should just to have it in my back pocket but sadly we don't have that sort of money laying around.

I don't have huge amounts of sympathy for this woman. The guidelines are pretty clear. Getting her visa back after it lapsed would have been annoying but easily doable.

"Being prevented by your state is very different from not taking out a UK one."

To be clear, she had the right (in 1992) to UK citizenship, but she decided that Singaporean citizenship, which she would have lost in the process, due to Singapore's rules, was more important to her.

She comes back on occasion but can't provide enough proof of a true ongoing relationship with her husband so further permanent visas are declined

This is what's odd. She has children and grandchildren with him. And she wants to be in the UK so she can care for him.

And this isn't enough of a true ongoing relationship?

I suspect that the HO think that the relationship ended in 1998 when he returned to the UK with the children and that 'caring for her parents' is a bit of a cover story. It certainly seems odd that a couple would spend such a long time apart for those reasons if the marriage was still ongoing.

I suspect what they've asked for is evidence that the relationship continued as a marriage during that period. So things like evidence of continued financial support, letters and emails, photographs of them together during visits, evidence that he had visited Singapore (which is what you'd expect if they were still in a relationship and her visits here weren't just to see the children).

It's difficult to judge in these cases as they can give their side of the story but the HO can't comment. But given the reasons they have given I think the HO probably believe the relationship between them has been over for many years and they are just claiming it is now ongoing again for convenience because she wishes to resettle in the UK. She's not been able to provide evidence otherwise so they've not accepted it.

Given that as posters above say, other people can't get their mothers in so it would be really unfair on others if she got to stay with her children on the basis of a deception.

"Given that as posters above say, other people can't get their mothers in so it would be really unfair on others if she got to stay with her children on the basis of a deception."

Particularly as the children are already adults so she can't claim that she needs to raise them.

Which why I have a problem. It shouldnt matter that an act of faux patriotism counts when considering where to live and with whom and why. Both DP and I are already looking at Irish citizenship (way easier and cheaper than UK citizenship) but as a means to an end (EU visa travel post Brexit and of course the utter rejection of who we are as a couple by the Home Office).

As she returned here in 2013 they've probably asked for evidence the relationship continued during that time and not been given it either.

Of course it matters scottishdem.

I love scotland as part of the uk.
I love england as part of the uk
If scotland leaves the uk I will not feel the same belonging to it as I will in effect have accidentally emigrated.

I would not expect to stay in scotland indefinately while keeping a uk passport though. If I wanted to stay in scotland enough I would accept that I had to apply for a scottish one even if that meant giving up my uk one and that would be a difficult decision, but it would be fair enough (i'd probably go back to england instead).

Your commitment to a country and the people who live there matters. If it doesn't matter much to someone then why would they want to stay. I am committed to scotland at the moment as it is part of the uk.

The reverse would also be true in england left (wierd concept....but)

Your commitment to a country and the people who live there matters. If it doesn't matter much to someone then why would they want to stay.

I don't know about you, but I am the sum of my life's experiences, which includes the places I have grown up, lived, worked, played and loved. It is possible to feel part of more than one nation at a time, as it is to love more than one person, and frankly I am proud of my mixed-up patchwork that makes me. Me and my emotions and my commitment to a country or place, cannot be reduced simplistically to a choice of passport.

And I speak as a naturalised British citizen who has done the "right thing" by your measure, in giving up the nationality of my birth to be here.

Your case is very different though scottishdem as your partner appears to have been rejected, which is a different situation all together. I am surprised they did not give more credit to your partner considering your relationshup.

I'm glad you found somewhere nice to settle down :)

There's also the possibility they've asked for evidence but rejected whatever was offered. Frankly, we don't know.

My experience convinced me that this system is both unintentionally and intentionally shambolic. Unintentionally because policy priorities from higher up are always changing, and things get put in willy-nilly in an attempt to prove to voters that the current government is tough on immigration, with no thought to how it's going to complicate the everyday business of immigration.

But it seems to me also to be intentionally shambolic - I think it suits the govt's purposes to have a system that only people with money or legal representation (aka, money) can negotiate successfully in trying to keep those numbers down. The question is whether that's what people want.

Guess I'll have to keep pursuing citizenship so I can vote to change it.

I agree elements. I will still love scotland if it left the uk as it is part of me, in fact it is in my heritage and a big chink of my adult life, but so is the uk. I just never would have considered "emigrating" and in effect that will have happened if we leave. If there was a forced choice I do not know where I would choose, but it is only fair to the people of the country that I would commit myself to it.

What I find bizarre is that for the rulez people it all hinges on the paperwork. What kind of passport she goes makes no difference to her story. She's not less married to him for not having citizenship. Her husband and children are denied the right to family life just as much as she is because of paperwork. She would be no more or less of a burden to public funds if she had citizenship.
As for the earnings threshold I find it offensive that falling in love with someone from another country and being able to live with them should be a privilege for the better off only. But I may be biased. My British husband earned nowhere near that when I first arrived to give our relationship a go. Lucky for us freedom of movement meant I never had to worry about visas and earnings thresholds.

I do agree with that widow. The costs seem to be very prohibitive and the big shambles seems to make it worse.
Who wants to be tied up in a load of legal rubbish!

The only point I disagree with is that she knowingly and it seems deliberately ignored the rules. That is where my sympathy immediately expires. I actively would encourage the government to take this stance in this particular case, because she broke the rules of her right to stay.

" Her husband and children are denied the right to family life just as much as she is because of paperwork."

The children are adults, so it's irrelevant.

Commitment to country via a payment of a very large fee, the passing of a test and a wee ceremony is nativist nonsense though designed to appease the Daily Mail and its readers.

Who we are as humans matters more. How we commit to our friends, families, colleagues and communities matters more. We are not a country whose citizens tout their passports around in patriotic displays of nationhood (even if some people really are bitter that they arent blue). Why should we expect people who move here to do the same. Its asking people to live up to a standard that we dont hold ourselves. Its hypocritical.

No it's about saying I've laid down roots here and have made a big commitment and sacrifices to stay. I will not go off and desert you because my loyalties lie somewhere else. I will continue to pay my taxes and support the causes and the needs of the people in this place. I will not dissappear off to somewhere else and keep coming back whenever it suits me.

Because British people do not emigrate and go and put their roots down somewhere else?? whilst keeping their British citizenship
Does it mean that very single British emigrant has loyalties that lay somewhere else??

Interesting idea that. Maybe we should ask every single British person who has emigrated to go back to the uk because clearly all their loyalty lies with the uk and the Queen....

YER do you think then that British born citizens' right to return should expire after a number of years abroad, if that's what you're worried about?

I will continue to pay my taxes and support the causes and the needs of the people in this place. I will not dissappear off to somewhere else and keep coming back whenever it suits me.

Like, um, expatriate workers? Are they naughty people now?

Possibly red, only they will know where they want to commit to. (Don't know about the queen??? Not everyone British person commits to her) if they stay somewhere and intend to continue to do so it surely is only right that they reconsider their commitment? Purely from the perspective of the community they are living in.

But why do you want that commitment? My DP paid taxes, volunteered in two churches and loved Edinburgh and our lives there. What is it about a passport that you think supercedes all of that. That DP could go somewhere else - do you find that as some kind of betrayal of good old Britishness and the fact the we dont do abroad as a people anymore? My mum lives in Turkey. My Aunt lives in France and my best friends Dad lives in Spain. All have done so now for a decade or more. What is it do you think that they havent given their lives their that a passport and citizenship of those countries does. My Mum fully intends to die there and be cremated.

only right that they reconsider their commitment

Why is this reduced to a passport ?