Could this be the start of a nasty period in Britain as Brexit starts to hit?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/lords-brexit-expos-govenrmen-protect-eu-citizens

Excellent article by Polly Toynbee.

A lot of the time when she was in Singapore it was because she had applied for residency and been refused. This is not the first time she has been sent back there, just the first time she has had nowhere to stay when sent back.

This just proves that the government cannot be trusted with EU citizens living here. They will do what is expedient at the time, whoever it harms.
Oh, and believe it or not, I admit to my opinions being subjective. Aren't we all supposed to care for our families wherever they were born, not just if they were all born in Britain?

Even 50% of those who say they voted UKIP do not support her deportation and only 31% supported it.

So surely that shows the Government are getting it badly wrong?

Here is a link to a YouGov poll about Irene Clennell:

yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/deporting-irene-clennell-was-wrong-say-nearly-two-/

Now, I know that polls have not proved to be that reliable of late but according to this one, two-thirds of Britons think that deporting Irene Clennell was wrong.
That is a much bigger majority than voted Brexit which means that somehow the Government is misreading what the public means when they say that immigration should be limited.

The facts are stated clearly and rationally (unlike that other link which made me quite angry) and give the reasons why she has not spent the whole 30 years of marriage in the UK.

Is Amber Rudd listening?

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/185283

A petition to allow what you think happens already, petra.

It isn't legal. There are lots of people who have been sent back home because they have been brought over here to live with children, mainly pensioners.
It's not legal to bring people over here and use the NHS.

MaizieD I'm not in favour of that practice, but if it's legal, so be it.

Well, that's what I mean !!

That wouldn't have been right either!
I thought the link was quite nasty, he may have stated the facts (or not) but he sounds as if he is very biased against Irene.

Perhaps the sis-il was wrong to set up the crowdfunding page instead of just a petition but she is obviously very upset and thought they would need cash to employ solicitors to fight their case.
They may have made money from a property sale but may need that to fund their living expenses if the husband is ill and she is his carer. Solicitors would soon empty that pot of cash.

I don't generally donate to any crowdfunding but I would support her appeal to return to the UK.

I think Irene might have a problem convincing the home office that she has a 'right to family life' when she stayed in Singapore from 1992- 2003 on her own without her children or husband.

She could have brought them over to the UK to live, of course, and they could have benefited from the NHS.

I thought Gnetters didn't in general approve of things like that?

Her children and grandchild are British too.
How are they feeling?

The criticism is that she has not spent 30 years here as her sister-in-law stated; however, being Singaporean she probably felt that she had a great duty towards her parents and wanted to care for them in their sickness and old age.
She could have brought them over to the UK to live, of course, and they could have benefited from the NHS.
Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative
You must be dependent on a parent, grandchild, brother, sister, son or daughter who is living permanently in the UK.

I wouldn't like to be in the husbands, or the sister in laws shoes when it becomes obvious that she isn't going to be let in. The chap who wrote the link seemed to know a lot about the legalities Re crowdfunding. It appears that she allegedly didn't tell the whole truth about the amount of time Irene had spent outside the uk when applying to crowdfunding.

How do we come to an opinion regarding this lady?

Put yourself in her shoes. There is now doubt how I would feel.

I would not donate cash but I signed the petition.

I thought the link stated the facts but was rather nasty in tone.

I signed the petition to allow Irene Clennell to stay here and I am not gullible or a bleeding heart.

I am, however, sympathetic and pragmatic. If Irene has made a tidy sum from property then she is not likely to need to rely on the benefit system. If Irene is allowed back to the UK to be with her husband she will be able to care for him instead of the State having to pick up the responsibility for his care.
She is married to a British man and has lived her for at least 10 years which surely should qualify her to be able to remain here.

Presumably the fact that she left with only £12 in her pocket means that the officials in charge did not allow her to withdraw enough Singapore dollars of her own money for her immediate needs.

No, I am sure most of us are perfectly aware that Singapore is not some 3rd world backwater - we're not as stupid as you may think we are Grannyannie. Some of us have visited Singapore and some of us have even lived there. Well, who'd have thought it!

As someone has pointed out, the Government wants to be seen to be doing something about immigration and deporting defenceless women who have been here for years seems to be the easy option rather than deporting criminals who stay here to the detriment of our society.

theconversation.com/people-have-been-used-as-bargaining-chips-before-by-romanias-nicolae-ceau-escu-73141

Indeed petra and I agree that this particular case has more to it than initial reports suggest, but, there are other cases of people being refused leave to stay after many years of living in UK, paying taxes, raising a family etc, and we should not let this case close our minds to what is happening to many people. It is not, I think, quite as simple as that buffoon Peter Bone suggested on Newsnight last night; he said that all people had to do was pop along and see their constituency MP and it would all be sorted! If that is the case, which is obviously isn't, then the entire Home Office/Border Control system is nonsense. I would love to hear the feedback from his fellow MPs as they find their offices overwhelmed with people seeking advice on their imminent deportation. Fool.

Why is it patronising? Isn't that why they came to the UK in the first place?

" We will still need to allow some people to come from the EU and elsewhere to do essential jobs."

How patronising to Europeans. Not surprising they are going back home.

I think gullible is a good word to use, because I'm guilty of it in this case. Yesterday I was ready to get the debit card out then my daughter told me something that she had read. It doesn't stack up.

Grannyannie please don't patronise and I am not gullible ( how rude), I reported from The Huffington Post and put on a link and asked people's opinions, which was what we now have. I agree that this case is not as cut and dried as it initially seemed, but it has certainly started a discussion on what I consider to be a very important subject. Yes, Brexit is relevant to the discussion, and whatever anyone's reasons were for voting to leave Europe, if one of the reasons was to cut immigration then they have made a big mistake. The only area of immigration that leaving the EU will change, as far as I am aware, is the free movement of EU citizens. It will not have any impact on giving refugee status to those seeking it and will have no impact on those people who are non EU, such as USA, Australia, Asia etc. I think this is the way it is and will stand corrected if wrong. The bonkers proposed net migration figures of less than 100k people will never be achieved, unless of course thousands of people like DH and I decide to leave because we don't like what the country has become

The point is, that once we are free of the EU, we can then have the number of immigrants that we want and need now.....this may be much the same as now, or slightly less or a lot less ( or even, gasp! More) but we would be taking what suits us, and from the countries that suit us, and the type of worker that suits us.

daphnedil

"So what's wrong with what I wrote? Apart from being factual! hmm"

Nothing, I agree with you when you say:-

" We will still need to allow some people to come from the EU and elsewhere to do essential jobs."

I broadened the reason why I agree with you but I went further and made the point that it is not 'immigration' at all cost.

The only question I asked of you was can you name any Political Party besides the BNP who does not agree with your statement.

The rest of my post was a 'generalised' comment of how ' I ' see the subject of immigration and ' generalised' comments that most definitely HAVE called Brexiteers Racist/Xenophobic and clearly has been noted by any poster that follows/dips in to GN Politics Threads or the media etc. I was putting forward reasons why I think such comments are misguided to say the least .

So what's wrong with what I wrote? Apart from being factual!

POGS

I have not claimed that any party has denied that essential workers will be needed.

I haven't accused anybody on this thread of being racist or xenophobic. In fact, I haven't written much on any thread about my opinions on immigration.

These are straw man arguments and I'm a tad annoyed with them.

I'm frustrated that some people really seem to have believed the promise that immigration would be brought down to below 100,000. It was quite obvious from the beginning that wouldn't happen and people have been confused by the status of EU and non-EU immigrants anyway. This was all dismissed as "Project Fear". It wasn't, but it doesn't have anything to do with this case anyway.