Hacker News Reader

>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.

>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.

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.

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).

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? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status.

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.

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.

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...

> - 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.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

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

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.

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