Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Deported grandmother : what is the government trying to prove

363 replies

alwaysprepare · 27/02/2017 11:31

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 She had indefinite leave to remain which has been revoked and was apparently taken on a Sunday by authorities and sent to a detention centre before being put on a flight with £12 and the clothes on her back.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

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 28/02/2017 09:56

Red If someone goes away with HM Forces, it's because HMG has sent them, so that one is a non starter. Sometimes the spouse goes, but in my case, when he was at sea, it wasn't possible. A submarine doesn't come with a compartment for wives! An oil rig worker would have his shifts detailed in his contract, so it could be shown that the spouse was unable to accompany them.

I think the issue is how long he was back in UK, whilst she stayed in Singapore.

lljkk · 28/02/2017 10:05

In about 1996 you could get full citizenship for about £236. Which wasn't a huge amount of money even then.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 10:14

Her Tory conference speech was Shock much more Shock than anything I have ever heard from TM.

I think she may have got a bit carried away Hmm

If you are in the forces and have a child abroad with a partner who is a british citizen your child should automatically have uk citizenship. If that is not the case then I am Sad and think it should be changed.

rubybleu · 28/02/2017 10:22

Yeresal I'm being naturalised next month and I will take the affirmation rather than the oath. Why on earth would I pretend to believe in God when I'll be becoming one of the 48.5% of Brits that describe themselves as having "no religion"?

No worries about the Queen, I'm from the Commonwealth so she's always been our head of state. I think she's great.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 10:38

That is great!!! Glad that there is a solution that suits you. I hope things will be fairer for immigration accross the world when we leave the EU.

I am included in that statistic. The existence/absence of god does not matter to me so if it were essential to say it to get citizenship I would say it. Same for the queen.

At the end if the day I feel like if people want to whine about our processes and think what we do here is rubbish then why be a citizen? If a person is not born here then it is not a birthright and so processes need to be followed as defined by our country, I feel like whinging about it is a sense of entitlement that I would not feel I had when asking for citizenship of another country.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 10:54

Everything in this country is about rules and processes and I hope it stays that way.
There is a proper process for most things.
If you move to the UK and do not like processes and rules and pomp and ceremony then you will probably not like it here. That is all I am saying Grin

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 11:24

It has been accepted that not everyone beleives in god and so it has been adapted to change that (I wouldn't have changed it). They have not removed the bit about the queen and I do not think they should.

That does not mean to say I wouldn't be a bit Confused about it. I probably would, but would do it because it was what was required of me by the state granting it.

I am quite sure that it is popular to paint this view as xenophobic or anti immigration

I think it is simply an expressing of:

Anti the disrespect of our traditions and culture, processes and procedures.

anti people thinking that the rules do not apply to them,

anti knowing the rules and thinking why should I follow them

and

anti I can get citizenship, but haven't because I don't see why I should and will complain if I am not treated as a citizen by the state.

In your case ruby you have followed the rules required by the uk ho. You have followed all the correct processes and as such you are now a citizen. It is great that you are from a commonwealth country with shared values. The case in this story above is very different IMHO.

BillSykesDog · 28/02/2017 11:38

Jesus Christ people are hysterical. I know some people are so absolutely desperate to find evidence we're turning into Nazi Germany that they're gleefully grabbing at any story which they think shows everybody is being deported to justify their hysteria.

The reality is probably much more prosaic. They've been married for a long time and share children. The burden of evidence they asked for would have been pretty low and very easy to provide for a genuine 27 year marriage. So evidence of financial links and support, administrative links like remaining in each other's will, evidence of communication like emails and phone records, Skype chats, texts, etc, photos of them together attending family events or on holiday, evidence of family holidays and events. They'll also have asked for evidence of their life here in the UK, so evidence they share finances, he's the one supporting her if she can't work, they live at the same property and share a life. This sort of thing would be a doddle to provide for those in a genuine 27 year marriage and they've not been able to do it. That really does raise red flags.

The press love these stories because they are able to sensationalise them so much. It's the same as the 'social services took my baby for no reason' stories. They know that because of confidentiality and data protection they can't counter the stories with anything other than the baldest official statement. So the press get to create a sensational story because it only shows one side of the story in the best possible light with no counter argument which lets them create a moral panic about the way migration is being handled.

As she's being deported it's likely that if the home office was able to expand on what 'no evidence of an ongoing relationship' means we would find out none of the above exists and quite possibly that there were indications otherwise like evidence they lived at separate addresses or had other partners.

But people who want to extrapolate that this case shows that the UK is indulging in unjustified mass deportations are always going to make excuses like the evidence being too tough to meet or just being disregarded. But if spouses are being deported willy nilly unjustly where are the other cases backing this up?

I don't see the statement about phoning and Skyping as any more than a recognition they claim to be in a relationship rather acknowledging that they are.

Really, if you're claiming you've had a 27 year relationship and you can't evidence it there is something really wrong in your story.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 12:19

I like reading your posts bill. They are always really interesting CakeBrew

kali110 · 28/02/2017 12:33

I still want to know why she stayed in singapore after 1998.
Why not return home to her husband and family?

SaudadeObama · 28/02/2017 12:33

My husband was deported. He broke the terms of his ILR because the nature of his job means he works three month contracts and those contracts can be anywhere in the world. He then usually stayed home until a new contract came up. I was working part time and we were both paying tax in the UK plus tax in the countries he worked in. When he was deported I was 3 months pregnant and we had two children. He was told he could re-apply for ILR and keep all his contracts in the UK from now on. Which demonsrrared the HO's complete ignorance about the nature of his work. Very few contracts were coming up in the UK at that time and he struggled to find a longer term contract anywhere. So rather than coming home every three months or staying home until he found a new contract he couldn't come at all. If he applied again it would mean he would more than likely break the terms again. He eventually found a longer contract in the USA so we all moved. Finally a long term contract came up in the UK so we re-applied for his ILR visa but we were told that the new rules meant that it now needed to be me that sponsored him rather than my parents (who did it under the old rules). Despite the fact that we're married and have been for 15 years, have a joint bank account and savings, I am not individually rich enough to officially support him. He couldn't apply for a work visa because he's married to me! We moved to his country instead and he has since changed career. We have no option to go to the UK. We're happy where we are now so it's not a concern. But it would be nice if the option were a possiblity. We lived in two other countries where neither of us are citizens but we can't live in mine. We could if I wasn't British because ironically the long term contract in the UK was taken by his Indian colleague, who was able to secure a work visa. DH has a masters degree in an area where there is a massive shortage in the UK. When he was home from contracts he helped at the DC's school with engineering/science/maths projects. He was a high earner, earning in three months enough to comfortably stay off for the rest of the year, so paying a big tax contribution. Still he's clearly in a sham marriage and a threat to UK security so he had to go. The USA were glad to have him.

When DH was deported we were told that clearly our marriage did not require us to live together and therefore we could continue our "relationship" without the need for him to live in the UK (yes the HO did say that in their letter). I suffered a lot of stress, he was detained at the airport and missed the birth of his son. Our son has SEN, I am in doubt that the stress during my pregnancy was a massive contributing factor.

You don't see my story or others in the papers because I don't want my personal life splashed about in the newspaper for people to discuss. I'm sure others don't either, there are plenty of stories out there. Plenty of British people living abroad because while they are welcome to live a normal life in their partners country the same courtesy is not extended to their partner.

hefzi · 28/02/2017 12:40

Saudade how traumatic for you and your family Sad

If you wanted to live in your husband's native country, would you be able to? (I appreciate you're happy in the US, but was wondering what requirements were like elsewhere)

BillSykesDog · 28/02/2017 12:40

That's because of the income rule Saudade? That's crazy, it seems like sexual discrimination if they won't take into account that a female partner is the primary caregiver for children and take into account the partner's income as well.

That's a very sad story, the income limit is a badly constructed law which seems to lead to these unfair situations.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 13:06

I agree Bill ( again) that is a shocking story and a great diservice to the uk.
You have tried to do the right thing, but were let down by the system. I hope the policy areas concerned will be re examined an whenever you find that you are both able to apply for citizenship of the same country I would do it straight away to avoid some of these issues. Sad

SaudadeObama · 28/02/2017 13:18

hefzi we don't live in the USA anymore. We came to his home country as being near either my family or his was important (but mine isn't an option anymore). So we're here now. Yes I was welcome, we didn't have to jump hoops or perform miracles and my qualifications and personal history were taken into consideration. We were treated with respect and treated as a family. Something that didn't happen in the UK. We were once held in customs in another European country because DH didn't have a visa for the UK. I was told that I and my three tired and hungry children could not continue the journey to the UK until they had fully investigated us. DH had a valid work visa for the country we were in at the time and was on a contract there. We finally got to my mother's house at 2 am without DH, he was refused entry.

And no according to the British government my husband's income is his alone, I would have to move to the UK first and secure a job to support him and our children first and then he could apply for his visa to join me. I have qualifications, but they are from abroad and my work is with vulnerable people so I would have to go through a lot of clearance first. If we ever do it again we could go through the savings route. But DH is understandably not keen on living in UK anymore, he was very upset and felt like he was treated like a criminal, where he's always been treated with respect from other countries. It didn't warm him to the idea of ever going back.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 13:48

That is really sad Saudade Sad and it is understandable that your husband feels that way. I think that various situations have led to a tough stance on immigration, which a lot of people support. Sometimes situations will occur I suppose as a result of badly designed policy.

I hope that your husband does not just think we are a bunch of arseholes now Grin

I hope that if he ever does consider it again the rules will take his own earnings in to account.

TheElementsSong · 28/02/2017 13:53

Saudade Flowers I am so sorry, but not in the slightest bit surprised, to hear how your family was treated. I am glad that you're happy where you are now.

I wonder if all the Roolz Iz Roolz posters will have their explanations for how your family deserved it, or it was a sham marriage.

HelenaDove · 28/02/2017 13:56

windy No i cant help my mother financially. Im also in a state pension household.

Its not just that though.............she just wants a peaceful retirement with no hassle.

No form filling or hoop jumping. they did try decades ago Why should they have kept on trying on the off chance that someone might have changed their mind.

SaudadeObama · 28/02/2017 13:58

And just to clarify it was the UK customs officers that held me and the children in the other country, not the customs officers of the country we were in. If I was from that country then I could have excersised my human right to family life and he could have stayed with me. He has a collegue from the UK, who now lives (is based) in France. He did this by excersising his right to family life with his non-European wife and child. He could meet the UK income requirements so I don't know why they are not able to live in the UK with him. Probably something to do with his need to travel around the world to work and therefore not living a normal family life or some other loop hole. Now with Brexit that option is being removed, so who knows if they'll be able to stay!

SaudadeObama · 28/02/2017 13:59

I hope that your husband does not just think we are a bunch of arseholes now

Nope just the government, so he's not wrong Grin

HelenaDove · 28/02/2017 14:01

Saudade how bloody ridiculous. Im not bloody surprised he is reluctant to come back.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 14:12

I'm not opposed to them tightening things up to be honest or leaving the EU. I just think what they are doing needs to be straightforward and make sense..... In your situation it made no sense.

In the case of the other woman in that news article I think the rules were applied correctly.

Helena. I do understand that it is annoying having to apply for a passport, but such is life. It is an important thing to do for her future, but it is up to her. She probably would get one.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 28/02/2017 14:27

I'm not saying it to be generally unpleasant Helena. I just really think that when she has the opportunity to have one she should take it 100%. Not doing so puts her in a vulnerable position.

Being annoyed about being denied one in the 1960's is inderstandable, but it will not help her in the future. Please take the opportunity while it is there.

HelenaDove · 28/02/2017 14:55

Shes EIGHTY ONE She is not well enough anymore to travel to go and see relatives so doesnt even really need a passport. I think she still has her Italian passport but that hasnt even been used since 2001.

I was born here and dont have a passport. I dont go abroad so dont need one.

I dont appreciate your scaremongering.

HelenaDove · 28/02/2017 14:58

windy she was told she could not have dual nationality. She felt it would be sticking two fingers up to the country she came from.

Swipe left for the next trending thread