I was forcibly deported from the UK like a terrorist, restrained and under guard | Hacker News Reader

I was forcibly deported from the UK like a terrorist, restrained and under guard

theguardian.com

69 pointsazuajef86 comments

Some more backstory from another article: "The government’s spousal visa system requires the British partner to prove earnings of at least £18,600 and the couple being able to show long stretches of uninterrupted time living in the UK.

Clennell lost her leave to remain as the time she spent out of the country when her parents were dying was too long. She has made repeated attempts – in Singapore and back in the UK – to reapply for permission to live with her husband."[0]

Has this been a big story over there? It seems excessively cruel to deport a woman who recently lost her parents and has a sick husband.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-...

> It seems excessively cruel ...

And does not benefit the public in any way, but in fact harms it.

the BBC article lists the facts, which the Guardian chose to omit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574

- given indefinite leave in 1992 to remain in the UK after her marriage - but this lapsed because she lived outside the UK for more than two years

- came back to the UK several times for short visits. She lived in the UK in 2003 until January 2005 and says that during this time she made numerous applications for leave to remain, which were all rejected [overstay]

- Mrs Clennell eventually entered the UK in 2013 and made two applications for leave to remain - both were rejected, as was her final application in 2016 [overstay]

- "... speaking to the BBC's Fiona Walker from the Scottish detention centre, she said: "I knew that when I got indefinite leave to remain I can't stay outside of the country for more than two years. "But then my husband was with me, he came to live with me for five years in Singapore."

this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times

> - given indefinite leave in 1992 to remain in the UK after her marriage - but this lapsed because she lived outside the UK for more than two years

> this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times

You feel trying to take care of dying parents is "gaming the system"?

> Clennell was given indefinite leave to remain in the UK after marrying John in 1990 but spent periods back in Singapore caring for her parents before they died.

Don't get me wrong, it's terrible and unnecessary that this happened to her, but it's not like she didn't know beforehand this would happen or be able to avoid it.

That sounds a little bit like: "It's not like my wife doesn't know how to behave so that I won't punch her."

1. Analogies don't contribute to a debate since they're not based in reason, but in confirmation bias. You're trying to transpose the emotional connotations from one situation to a completely unrelated one.

2. She admits herself that she knew she couldn't stay out of the country for 2 years. There was a law, which she was aware of, and chose not to follow.

In the US if you overstay that's a big black mark against you when you try to get a new visa. I have to believe the UK is similar.

>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times

Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status.

A number of civilized nations have encountered what they deemed to be problems stemming from automatic family visas. This is one way to respond.

>Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place?

The US?

Reminds me of the Syrian American guy I met. He was a US citizen who moved to Syria in the early 2000's. Got married there and had kids. Then when the civil war occurred, he returned to the US, but could not bring his family.

His kids were US citizens, but he had never done the paperwork. So he set about doing it. Before too long they could enter the US.

But his wife? That's not "automatic". Even though her husband and kids were US citizens, she had to go through the whole motions of applying, etc. Not allowed to come visit the US in the interim. As a result, his kids did not come to the US - they couldn't leave her alone.

but he had never done the paperwork

Sounds like he dropped the ball.

A bit of compassion for someone fleeing the war would be appropriate.

>Sounds like he dropped the ball.

You're actually making my point for me: The US requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa to come and live with them.

If it didn't, there would be no ball to drop.

(Never mind that you also quote the part that is irrelevant to his spouse).

I knew a pakistani-american who was working in the US but the visa for his girlfriend-wife had not been aprooved.

So he brought her to Mexico were they lived and he crossed the border to work on the US side.

No reason to leave your kids in the middle of a civil war.

Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place?

Most, no?

What would stop me from claiming I married someone in a foreign country and bring them back to live with me? Seems like a major loophole without some verification of the marriage.

> without some verification of the marriage.

Nobody is talking about skipping this part.

The Netherlands? It was a long time ago, but after you get married to a foreign spouse outside of the Netherlands, you have to come home, she has to wait in her country of origin for 6 months minimum until she can come and join you. This was like 15 years ago, I'm sure it is even more ridiculous now.

What baffles me is that in the new Brexit UK it seems not to be enough to be married for 27 years to a British citizen to get a permanent visa or even the citizenship.

UK citizenship is granted by residence, not marriage.

she had indefinite leave to remain (permanent residency), the only condition to keep it is you have to visit the UK at least once every 2 years, she then spent 8 years outside the UK without visiting, so she lost it.

she had the option of taking UK citizenship after five years residence, but chose not to as Singapore doesn't allow dual citizenship. she wouldn't have been granted government accommodation in Singapore as she would be a foreign national

the UK border force is literally blameless here, if anything they were over-compassionate in granting her another visa after she overstayed previously, which lead to the eventual detention and deportation

Except she "knew that when I got indefinite leave to remain I can't stay outside of the country for more than two years". This is what she, herself, said.

The title seems almost cynical when she could have avoided this whole ordeal had she followed procedure, which she admits she was familiar with.

Also, blaming this on "Brexit UK" is transparently inflammatory since the requests for leave were made, and rejected, a decade before Brexit was even a question.

Question: in what way is the public interest being served by ejecting this person from the country?

Respect for the rule of law and the observance of due process, maybe.

And what is the purpose of the law if not to benefit the people?

Must we really defend the arbitrary malice of a system which inflicts harm for no benefit?

If you don't like the law, change the law.

The first step of which should include asking questions about the law. Why does it exist? What prompted its creation in the first place? Does it meet its original goals? What does it inadvertantly do? How does it fail? etc.

Horrible bureaucracy. How can we create a world where citizens can move about the globe freely?

Citizens are members of countries, not the planet. It would be more accurate to say "people" instead of citizens - the word itself implies nationality

After we agree on a universal set of principles and how/who/when to enforce them. So never.

Never say never. We have birds that migrate from Canada to Chile without papers. One day people will be able to travel freely as well.

It's not really a textbook case though is it? She's not some student over here to study "English" at some dodgy language course while working in a bar. She's married 20 odd years with British born children...

This seems to be the problem:

""Initially when I applied for indefinite leave to remain I got it no problem at all. So I thought when you're married down here, you're entitled to be here. "The kids are born here, my husband is from this country, so I don't see what the issue is, but they keep rejecting all the applications.""

Why she never got a citizenship is something I don't understand. I used to think marrying a citizen puts you on the path towards that but may not be the case in the UK. She definitely assumed things here that were not right and that came back to haunt her.

>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times

Do you view this type of situation as one where it is appropriate to use restraints?

Deporting someone does not have to involve sadism. But clearly the immigration people in both the US and UK seem to be sadists. You can treat people like human beings no matter who they are.

The USA rules are interesting for this. If you marry a non-US spouse you will not have these problems. You cannot BRING a spouse or fiancé to the US without the minimum financial requirements. But once they are in the country one (like if you married a tourist), you would not have these problems nor are they being proposed. It is relatively easy to bring your spouse or fiance to the USA.

I know someone whose spousal visa was under processing and the spouse was out of the country. He suffered a stroke and her visa was expedited with the doctor's note to help him in his healing. I think the US system is quite reasonable. The UK system does not seem like that.

In the UK they wanted to deport a spouse because the husband did not make enough money.

I think she was the one not making enough money, not the husband. I think, these laws can get very complicated.

The article says the husband did not make enough to sponsor her visa. We have similar in the USA but that is to bring the spouse to the country, those rules don't apply once they are here.

"It is relatively easy to bring your spouse or fiance to the USA."

Maybe too easy. http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2017/03/03/lauren...

Actually, it seems pretty great that such scamsters are being caught. The system ought to be as simple as it is for family reunions. There will always be scamsters trying to game the system.

>The USA rules are interesting for this. If you marry a non-US spouse you will not have these problems. You cannot BRING a spouse or fiancé to the US without the minimum financial requirements. But once they are in the country one (like if you married a tourist), you would not have these problems nor are they being proposed. It is relatively easy to bring your spouse or fiance to the USA.

I think there are more nuances. If you marry outside the US and want to bring your spouse in on a tourist visa and then apply for a US marriage license, that is visa fraud (even if you never got officially married in the country where you got "married"). Happened to a friend of mine.

If you meet a great person online and you decide to marry him/her, and if that person tries to enter the US on a tourist visa but really with the intention to meet and marry you - that's visa fraud. I know most people get away with it, but occasionally the immigration officials figure it out and deport you immediately without letting you in.

If your fiance manages to get in on a tourist visa and you two get married, it is likely still fraud as long as the fiance had the intent of marrying you when applying for the tourist visa. They likely will not bother hunting you down, but it is probably illegal as far as the rules go.

Because of these kinds of things, I know several friends who do not take these risks. They marry the person officially in the person's home country, and then go to the consulate/embassy to formally get a PR visa for them to come over. Can take 1-2 years.

> The authorities have shown their willingness to treat foreign-born people as second-class citizens, no matter how integrated we are

To be clear, since I didn't get this from the article: is she a citizen?

Treating a non-citizen like a "second class citizen" seems to me to be the prerogative of the state. Treating foreign born citizens differently from natives is a travesty.

The way it's phrased makes it seem like the latter but I have a suspicion it's the former.

I throw up when I read the arguments used by some of the commenters here how it is ok to deport a mother from her British kids and her husband after a 27 years marriage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com