Moving to the UK with HK wife

[hullexile]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...o-remain-in-uk

They don't look "over the moon" but then they are probably freezing to death.

Unfortunately for every good news story like this there are many horrific stories of lives being ruined.

[chuckster007]

Unfortunately for every good news story like this there are many horrific stories of lives being ruined.

Home Office reply "These Aussies want to live where?? Dingwall, who the feck wants to live there its bloody freezing and out in no mans land. Ah let them freeze their arses off. Application APPROVED. LOL

https://goo.gl/maps/EqmkHeAGJir

[kimwy66]

It appears the Irene Clennell case wasn't all it was made out to be. She originally got ILR in 1992, and then left the country to return to Singapore the same year. She did not return until 11 years later in 2003, and her ILR was already invalid. She attempted to have it reinstated, but was declined because she couldn't prove she had any contact with her husband and 2 children.

She left again in 2005, and was turned back at a UK airport in 2007. She made another application to return in 2012, which was refused again on the grounds she couldn't prove contact with her husband and children. How she got back in in 2013 is not explained, but her 2 applications made after returning were also refused.

I don't agree with everything in this post, but it does outline the issues around the story as it was presented.

LIFT: Limpeh Is Foreign Talent: Q&A: the Irene Clennell deportation case

The key claim that Irene had been in the UK for 30 years was clearly a lie. Irene spent a total of 10 years over various periods, 6 of which were without a valid visa to reside.

The BBC did report this correctly so the facts were known and available, but most MSM went for the tug-on-the-heart-strings approach and completely ignored the facts. Cases like this make genuine examples of hardship caused by the current rules easier to dismiss.

Woman sent back to Singapore despite 27-year marriage - BBC News

She has managed to get £50,000 from the Go Fund Me campaign run by her sister-in-law. The campaign falsely states:

For 30 years, my sister-in-law Irene has lived in Britain after arriving here from Singapore. She has a British husband, two wonderful British children and a granddaughter she dotes upon.

She has worked hard for those 30 years raising her family and being an important and beloved member of the local community.


Now, because of insensitive and unfair government rules, she has been taken away to a detention centre and has been told she will be deported.

[HK_Katherine]

The gofundme campaign indicates the more detailed dates in one of the updates. I doubt the family have a great deal.of influence about how the media portrays the story. And if you suggest that there is no hardship even under the more accurate facts... well. That just says more about you than Irene.

[kimwy66]

The gofundme campaign indicates the more detailed dates in one of the updates. I doubt the family have a great deal.of influence about how the media portrays the story. And if you suggest that there is no hardship even under the more accurate facts... well. That just says more about you than Irene.

Please do point out where in my post I indicated there was no hardship. That you immediately take my reporting on the facts, that are not being shown on the front page of the Go Fund me page, as an indication of some abhorrent moral position on my part says far more about you than it does about me

[shri]

I'd bet there is still more to her story than portrayed by her family or media. Bottom line on my end is that I am confident that the British authorities have been more sensitive than the Americans would have been.

[vmlinuz]

It is an explicit goal of the current UK government to get net migration down from the 300,000+ where it is today to under 100k. The important and operative word in that previous sentence is net - the goal is not to get less than 100k per year to move to the UK, it's to get enough people to leave - voluntarily or otherwise - that it offsets the number of arrivals...

[HowardCoombs]

It appears the Irene Clennell case wasn't all it was made out to be.....

Thank you for this. I knew, when I first read the story there had to be more as it sounded just too stupid to be all true but I was travelling and didnt get a chance to dig...The Q&A is illuminating....

BTW: I didnt spot anything to explain this bit ""Under flight escort by four officers with the British authorities"" which was highlighted in the original reports.
Was that debunked anywhere? If not, what would explain the waste of money in sending 4 ppl as escort ?

[R.O.]

Some people on this thread have written that the minimum income requirement was introduced in order to bring down net immigration.

But the judges of the Supreme Court do not believe that that was the purpose (Post 89). They say: " It has the legitimate aim of ensuring that the couple do not have recourse to welfare benefits and have sufficient resources to play a full part in British life. The income threshold chosen was rationally connected to this aim."

I don't know whether that is a better justification of the policy? Even people who do not want a harsh immigration policy might still wish to limit benefit claims and demands on doctors and hospitals.


- - - - - -


The Supreme Court judges seem to have been cautious and tactful. They definitely do not say that the income threshold policy is wrong, but they say it should be enforced more leniently when there are children. There are apparently no precise guidelines; the immigration authorities still have the right to decide.

[kimwy66]

Some people on this thread have written that the minimum income requirement was introduced in order to bring down net immigration.

But the judges of the Supreme Court do not believe that that was the purpose (Post 89). They say: " It has the legitimate aim of ensuring that the couple do not have recourse to welfare benefits and have sufficient resources to play a full part in British life. The income threshold chosen was rationally connected to this aim."

I don't know whether that is a better justification of the policy? Even people who do not want a harsh immigration policy might still wish to limit benefit claims and demands on doctors and hospitals.


- - - - - -


The Supreme Court judges seem to have been cautious and tactful. They definitely do not say that the income threshold policy is wrong, but they say it should be enforced more leniently when there are children. There are apparently no precise guidelines; the immigration authorities still have the right to decide.

Personally, I don't have an issue with having a reasonable minimum income set. It is the rather harsh way this has been implemented that is at issue, with an adherence to the letter of the law rather than the spirit in cases that fall between the cracks. Especially the discrimination that is created when only the UK citizen's income may be taken into account.