Compassionate Britain

olafgarten

The issue is that she spent too long outside the UK without her partner. She had been married for 27 years and I'm not sure of her specific circumstances, but if she came here in 1990 she could have applied for nationality at least 25 years ago, yet she didn't. 

The rules state that if you are outside the UK for more than 2 years you need to apply for a returning resident visa. 

starwarsnosebleed

Sounds fair enough. She must have been aware of the laws concerning this, but chose to ignore it.
Bye, Bye.

robgilmo

Nice, or perhaps because she has been here so long she didn't think to ask a solicitor about the laws governing her? Don't get me started on news papers.

Ravenous

Well from what I read earlier she was in a detention for a month or so before she was deported. Makes me wonder what legal efforts were made to keep her here in that time.

starwarsnosebleed

Its still illegal wether she knew it or not, is irrelevant. 

TheBigDipper

On the surface this looks harsh, but I've no idea how many appointments she may have missed or what steps she chose not to take along the way. Perhaps she brought it on herself by not doing something she should or could have done. It will all come out at some point. 

For those that were wondering about dual nationality, I heard on the radio that Singapore does not allow its citizens to hold dual nationality status.

MrBump

You guys keep spelling Guardian wrong. It's "Guardian".

Sambostar

To be fair a lot of older people face this problem when emigrating, they often choose not to because they wouldn't be allowed out of the country for two or five years, at least not for more than a few weeks.  So it sounds after all that this case is perfectly reasonable.

robgilmo

starwarsnosebleed said:

Its still illegal wether she knew it or not, is irrelevant. 

Its very relevant, obviously. Do you know immigration law inside out? I don't and I doubt she did either.
If she had a chance to avoid this of course she is going to try, she would be an utter spoon not to.

LoFi

robgilmo said:

starwarsnosebleed said:

Its still illegal wether she knew it or not, is irrelevant. 

Its very relevant, obviously. Do you know immigration law inside out? I don't and I doubt she did either.

No, but if I moved to a foreign country with the intention of staying there permanently, I'd damned well learn.

I'm not saying I don't have sympathy in this case, but ignorance is absolutely not a defence here.

robgilmo

LoFi said:

robgilmo said:

starwarsnosebleed said:

Its still illegal wether she knew it or not, is irrelevant. 

Its very relevant, obviously. Do you know immigration law inside out? I don't and I doubt she did either.

No, but if I moved to a foreign country with the intention of staying there permanently, I'd damned well learn.

I'm not saying I don't have sympathy in this case, but ignorance is absolutely not a defence here.

But she lived here for how many years? Its easy to get complacent, I've lived in foreign countries for years at a time and it really is easy to just settle in and think you have nothing to worry about. Laws really shouldn't be rigid.

starwarsnosebleed

robgilmo said:

Do you know immigration law inside out?

No, but if i emigrated, i would make sure i knew the law inside out, and do everything i could to get citizenship, to avoid a sitiuation like this happening in the future.

robgilmo

starwarsnosebleed said:

robgilmo said:

Do you know immigration law inside out?

No, but if i emigrated, i would make sure i knew the law inside out, and do everything i could to get citizenship, to avoid a sitiuation like this happening in the future.

Most times its not as easy as that.

starwarsnosebleed

Oh, well in that case, we should probably bend rules for the ignorant.

robgilmo

Or we should just make rules that can bend. Have you ever had to deal with any immigration issues before? It can be a mine field usually with little or no information available.

Fretwired

Apparently she has to go back to Singapore and reapply from there - she didn't want to give up her right to live in Singapore so never became a British national. She has to reapply and stands a good chance of being readmitted again.

quarky

robgilmo said:
Laws really shouldn't be rigid.

Course they should! If they were not rigid, you are at the mercy of whether the judge woke up in a bad mood or not. If he decides to apply it or not.

starwarsnosebleed

Maybe the judge could play rock, paper, scissors with her to decide the outcome.

Ravenous

quarky said:

robgilmo said:
Laws really shouldn't be rigid.

Course they should! If they were not rigid, you are at the mercy of whether the judge woke up in a bad mood or not. If he decides to apply it or not.

Precisely. Sloppy laws lead to tax "avoidance" and all sorts of lawyer crap.

Look I know this is a sad story, but don't get all hysterical. If the law is rubbish change it, but not for just one case.

Winny_Pooh

She probably has reapplied but if her husband is ill he probably will not be earning over the minimum £18,000 (thanks Tis-May) which means they're screwed.
Having indefinite leave to remain that can be revoked just due to abscence is IMO inherently unfair outside of extreme criminal cases. 

Remember that laws are made by and interpreted by humans and if there if no flexibility not compassion for her position as a parent (or that of her children), that reflects on a sick society where laws are made to ultimately protect the wealthy from the poor.