Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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 She had indefinite leave to remain which has been revoked and was apparently taken on a Sunday by authorities and sent to a detention centre before being put on a flight with £12 and the clothes on her back.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:
BarbarianMum · 27/02/2017 13:41

Carrie are you saying that you can't apply for British citizenship because it will stop you inheriting your parents' millions?

RedAndYellowPeppers · 27/02/2017 13:42

And as for not believing they are a couple when they have lived together for 27!! Years .....
What do they think? That after 27 years they have now decided to make it a marriage of convenience just for her to come back to live in the country where she has spent (most??) of her life?

kali110 · 27/02/2017 13:43

I had sympathy at the begining but she's spent years out of the country!
I would have had sympathy if she'd only spent a year away ( maybe even two) and regulary came back as having sick parents is hard. She's spent 8 years away from here though.
I agree with SanityAssassin how do we know when she's spent nearly 10 years away from her husband?

DickToPhone · 27/02/2017 13:45

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

Not true, we went through this 15 years ago.

From what I can see this was first introduced in 1971

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

Uh, no.

"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."

Yes, this is why you need to make a decision as to which country is more important to you. Which she did. Now she has to take the consequences.

RedAndYellowPeppers · 27/02/2017 13:47

best because that woman had the choice of having the IL with all the issues coming with it but being able to go back home and see her ageing parents.
Or take the British citizenship and have issues with go g to see and support her own parents.
That's because she can NOT have dual citizenship.

Depending on the country the person is coming from, it can be easy for them to spend months there at the time or it might not.

Beside, yu also need to ask, is it really that easy to take another country citizenship and give up your own? What happens if you get divorced and you can't go back to your own country for example (seeing that about 50% of marriage end up in divorce that's not too far etched really).
What about the fact yu might not WANT to be British?
Or the fact you might have the piece of paper but never 'feel' British?

It's a dangerous game to play, IMO, to assume people should just get the citizenship of the country they are living in now. Unless you are 100% certain you want to stay there.

itsawonderfulworld · 27/02/2017 13:47

This is also what is likely to happen to EU citizens once the uk will have left the EU, on the grounds that they will be subjected to the same rules (which was one one of the reasons some people voted to leave).

Yes, and to make it worse, EU citizens that have settled in the UK, got married and had children here, were NOT aware of the rules that they are now - retrospectively - being asked to show that they've followed! For example, the need to have health insurance when not working (for example as a SAHP). This is a requirement for non-EU citizens to come here in the first place, but was never required of EU citizens since they have full access to the NHS. Now, many ILR applications by EU citizens are rejected on this basis - even though it's a rule that never existed for EU citizens.

FrenchLavender · 27/02/2017 13:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Mistigri · 27/02/2017 13:49

For all those yammering in about "the rules" it seems likely in this case that the Home Office did not follow its own guidelines concerning people holding ILR who are absent from the country for a good reason, such as caring for ill parents.

RedAndYellowPeppers · 27/02/2017 13:50

French no I would argue that the rules are crap in the first place and show respect for the humans they are ruling for or against.

That's why other countries do NOT have that's ort of rules and being married DOES an HUGE impact on getting IL.

2014newme · 27/02/2017 13:50

Well said french lavender.
We are on dodgy ground when we become a nation that says Singapore granny, forget the rules my love you can stay. Subjective. We have to be objective and that means rules.
I do agree with pp that Singapore gran has had 27 years to get this sorted.

BarbarianMum · 27/02/2017 13:51

Then the Home Office should be challenged Misti That's not the same as saying the rules don't apply.

TheElementsSong · 27/02/2017 13:51

Interesting Qq as I have just been Googling like mad and that is the one source showing her sister-in-law is a liar, all the others (even The Sun!) refer to her living here for 30 years.

EnormousTiger · 27/02/2017 13:52

So she broke the law. She could have taken British citizenship years ago but also chose not to take that route.

Always follow the rules.

Floggingmolly · 27/02/2017 13:52

Maybe calling for ill relatives has a finite time, in the clause? Ten years would seem to be slightly excessive pushing it...

titchy · 27/02/2017 13:52

But they hadn't lived together for 27 years - that's the point....

itsawonderfulworld · 27/02/2017 13:52

Nobody is saying "Singapore granny forget the rules my love"! What we ARE saying is that the fact that she has been married TO A BRITISH MAN for 27 years should be a deciding factor - as it is in most other countries.

Carollocking · 27/02/2017 13:53

She lived in Korea even though married as took care her parents and only had a resident permit ,you cannot live away more than 3 months in 2 years in such a permit i know from dealing with it in the past for someone

Carollocking · 27/02/2017 13:53

Not Korea lol Singapore

Carollocking · 27/02/2017 13:54

She should have got uk citizen in them 27 years not waited till too late

Man10 · 27/02/2017 13:57

He applied for citizenship as soon as possible because he wanted to be secure, particularly as he was the only non-citizen in the family. I don't understand anyone who wouldn't do that.

You don't understand why someone wouldn't want to give up their citizenship of therefore right to return to their country of birth, where their parents and siblings may be, when there's no immediate advantage in doing so?

Particularly if they are an Asian woman who believe it's primarily their job to care for their parents if they are unwell in old age?

TheElementsSong · 27/02/2017 13:57

This is interesting too, and suggests that actually immigration policy was not followed in this case, which no doubt will be deeply distressing to all The Roolz are The Roolz folk:

www.freemovement.org.uk/case-irene-clennell-rules-returning-residents-ilr/

"The policy specifically mentions the possibility of going abroad to care for a sick relative, the length of original residence in the UK, family links to the UK and whether the person has a home in the UK. All of this applies in the Clennell case."

Carollocking · 27/02/2017 13:58

You don't need give up you have dual citizenship

Carollocking · 27/02/2017 13:59

The lady I helped has dual citizenship 2 passports etc etc

FrenchLavender · 27/02/2017 13:59

And I hate the way they are using the term Grandmother to elicit more sympathy for her. I've seen her photo and she looks about the same age as me, she's not some doddery old dear who's confused and vulnerable. I do have sympathy for her situation but it would appear to have been entirely of her own making.

Also Carrie, thanks for the background on how rich and well educated you are, but what does that have to do with anything at all? Really?

I get the impression you think I am one of those Daily Mail types who assumes every foreigner is only here because they are after our benefits, which is both patronising and completely irrelevant.

HoldMeCloserTonyDanza · 27/02/2017 13:59

The point shouldn't be whether or not she followed the rules, the point should be whether or not the rules are just.

If they forbid a wife, mother, and grandmother or British citizens from living here, then they are not.

And in fact, you know, it's not even about what's right or best for "foreigners". It is SHAMEFUL that every British citizen cannot live with their spouse. It's insane. This country is trampling on the rights of its own citizens first and foremost. Theresa May's government is deciding whether or not you deserve to live with the person you love. (After finally getting full gay marriage, it's a slap in the face).