11 ms·

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

69 points by azuajef 10y ago

neaden 10y ago
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-deported-from-uk-despite-being-married-to-briton-for-27-years https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-...
- hackuser 10y ago
  > It seems excessively cruel ... And does not benefit the public in any way, but in fact harms it.
blibble 10y ago
the BBC article lists the facts, which the Guardian chose to omit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 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
- johansch 10y ago
  It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists are prepared to pay for (and nothing else). I guess I can sort of understand them from a financial point of view, but I don't really respect them. All of this is btw a consequence of mindless adherence to conversion analysis (A/B testing). I'm pretty sure the Guardian does this, just as well as I am sure that Fox News does it. (Yeah, I don't like mindless adherence to A/B-testing results. I still think there is a place for human and singular thought in design.)
  - nvarsj 10y ago
    I'm not sure what's happened at the Guardian the last couple years. I guess my view of them was positive after the Snowden revelations. But esp since brexit they have been producing a huge amount of rubbish, with link bait titles and outright lies or vastly exaggerated claims (so many of these - for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-theresa-may-royal-seal-of-disapproval-over-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-...). You really can't believe anything written on the Guardian anymore.
    - johansch 10y ago
      I'm sure their core subscribers are really satisfied about their reporting. ;( News really is a hard nut to crack; how do you get people to pay for news reporting that "offend" them?
      - johansch 10y ago
        Before anyone says public service: I would point to Sweden as a counter example. Swedish public radio/TV (modelled after the BBC - there's a license fee for owning a TV receiver) used to be relatively benign, although leftist-leaning. Still, they had solid, smart and honest people who did good reporting. It used to be a very prestigeous place to work for anyone, regardless of political leaning. And there really wasn't much more money to be made elsewhere unless you started your own company. The past decade has been depressing. As the Internet has killed the newspapers and quality reporting has ceased to pay well, our public TV has become a propaganda organ for low-paid activists. Somehow 99% of these people are leftist. Pretty much all of the younger journalists at our public TV and radio (SVT and SR) are going into their jobs out of a (again, 99% of the time leftist) political conviction. (Smarter and/or less idealistic people get a job in the private sector.) In recent years this created a dangerous scenario: a) You have real humans, living in an actual society. They observe their environment. They do notice the crimes their friends and neighbors are victims of. b) You have the public service media constantly stating/arguing for how everything is fine. Obviously this dissonance creates a massive (and justifiably deserved) mistrust in "media".
amalag 10y ago
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.
- vilmosi 10y ago
  I think she was the one not making enough money, not the husband. I think, these laws can get very complicated.
  - amalag 10y ago
    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.
- thrill 10y ago
  "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/laurens-man-pleads-guilty-sham-marriage-money/98692284/ http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2017/03/03/lauren...
  - pm90 10y ago
    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.
- BeetleB 10y ago
coldcode 10y ago
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.
tobltobs 10y ago
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.
losvedir 10y ago
> 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.

69 points by azuajef 10y ago

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-deported-from-uk-despite-being-married-to-briton-for-27-years https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-...

hackuser 10y ago
> It seems excessively cruel ... And does not benefit the public in any way, but in fact harms it.

blibble 10y ago

the BBC article lists the facts, which the Guardian chose to omit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 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

johansch 10y ago
It's sad how deep the Guardian has gone down the rabbithole in terms of writing exactly what lifestyle leftists are prepared to pay for (and nothing else). I guess I can sort of understand them from a financial point of view, but I don't really respect them. All of this is btw a consequence of mindless adherence to conversion analysis (A/B testing). I'm pretty sure the Guardian does this, just as well as I am sure that Fox News does it. (Yeah, I don't like mindless adherence to A/B-testing results. I still think there is a place for human and singular thought in design.)
- nvarsj 10y ago
  I'm not sure what's happened at the Guardian the last couple years. I guess my view of them was positive after the Snowden revelations. But esp since brexit they have been producing a huge amount of rubbish, with link bait titles and outright lies or vastly exaggerated claims (so many of these - for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-theresa-may-royal-seal-of-disapproval-over-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/23/queen-gives-...). You really can't believe anything written on the Guardian anymore.
  - johansch 10y ago
    I'm sure their core subscribers are really satisfied about their reporting. ;( News really is a hard nut to crack; how do you get people to pay for news reporting that "offend" them?
    - johansch 10y ago
      Before anyone says public service: I would point to Sweden as a counter example. Swedish public radio/TV (modelled after the BBC - there's a license fee for owning a TV receiver) used to be relatively benign, although leftist-leaning. Still, they had solid, smart and honest people who did good reporting. It used to be a very prestigeous place to work for anyone, regardless of political leaning. And there really wasn't much more money to be made elsewhere unless you started your own company. The past decade has been depressing. As the Internet has killed the newspapers and quality reporting has ceased to pay well, our public TV has become a propaganda organ for low-paid activists. Somehow 99% of these people are leftist. Pretty much all of the younger journalists at our public TV and radio (SVT and SR) are going into their jobs out of a (again, 99% of the time leftist) political conviction. (Smarter and/or less idealistic people get a job in the private sector.) In recent years this created a dangerous scenario: a) You have real humans, living in an actual society. They observe their environment. They do notice the crimes their friends and neighbors are victims of. b) You have the public service media constantly stating/arguing for how everything is fine. Obviously this dissonance creates a massive (and justifiably deserved) mistrust in "media".

amalag 10y ago

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.

vilmosi 10y ago
I think she was the one not making enough money, not the husband. I think, these laws can get very complicated.
- amalag 10y ago
  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.
thrill 10y ago
"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/laurens-man-pleads-guilty-sham-marriage-money/98692284/ http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2017/03/03/lauren...
- pm90 10y ago
  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.
BeetleB 10y ago

coldcode 10y ago

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.

tobltobs 10y ago

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.

losvedir 10y ago

> 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.