American woman w/o visa to be deported...

It's not even six months...you're admitted "by a period stated by you."

People have gotten away with shenaginans like changing plane tickets, but what matters is what you tell the IO how long you're staying. And when you enter and leave is all recorded.

I'm pretty sure it's not....seem to recall something about how the UK does not check on who leaves. One of the flaws in our system.

I'm trying to think if immigration status came up as part of getting married. It certainly would come up as part of prenatal care and childbirth. Wouldn't you discover the problem the moment you used the services of the NHS?

Anyway, per the article, she's not being deported with prejudice. She's being sent back to apply for a proper visa, like every single one of us had to do. Or, as she put it, "They are most likely going to let me back in, so why do I have to leave him at all?"

Eh.

It's not ideal, but depending on the situation you're in (for a lot of examples, spouses), it's extremely easy.

But the longer I've lived I've found people find so many ways to complicate things....

I don't know what people are surprised about.  If there wasn't more ignorance than people having even a passing knowledge about the British immigration system, articles like this wouldn't have an audience.

Sure, it's someone's responsibility to know what the immigration rules are before trying to use them, but to be fair, it's a lot of people's responsibility to know immigration rules before they do things.  For instance, before moaning and whinging about immigrants.  Before calling for the legislation to be changed.  Before voting for a party based on their stance on immigration (and to even assume you understand the parties' stances on immigration...or to assume that most of the MPs understand the laws).  Before asking the Prime Minister of the UK where all the Eastern Europeans are flocking from.  And so on.

I don't think that it's unfair that she might have to leave any more than it's unfair that people spend years trying to make sure they are with their husbands and wives the right way.  I do feel for them, as I do anyone else caught up in immigration bureaucracy, ignorant and partially victims of their own ignorance or not.

Anyway, per the article, she's not being deported with prejudice. She's being sent back to apply for a proper visa, like every single one of us had to do. Or, as she put it, "They are most likely going to let me back in, so why do I have to leave him at all?"

Eh.

Summary: "Why do the rules have to apply to meeee?"

Sure, it's someone's responsibility to know what the immigration rules are before trying to use them, but to be fair, it's a lot of people's responsibility to know immigration rules before they do things.  For instance, before moaning and whinging about immigrants.  Before calling for the legislation to be changed.  Before voting for a party based on their stance on immigration (and to even assume you understand the parties' stances on immigration...or to assume that most of the MPs understand the laws).  Before asking the Prime Minister of the UK where all the Eastern Europeans are flocking from.  And so on.

I agree to this with some extent, however those people are whining but living here legally.  They are under no legal obligation to know.  

I agree to this with some extent, however those people are whining but living here legally.  They are under no legal obligation to know.  

I don't think it's the same thing, but the ignorance of how something like immigration works is pretty much universal outside of a handful of people who have had regular exposure to it.  However, at least in this case, the only people the people in the story are making problems for are themselves.  Other people ignorantly complicate others' lives (or rely on others' ignorance to complicate peoples' lives).  One is a legal obligation, but the other is no less of a moral one.

I don't think it's the same thing, but the ignorance of how something like immigration works is pretty much universal outside of a handful of people who have had regular exposure to it.  However, at least in this case, the only people the people in the story are making problems for are themselves.  Other people ignorantly complicate others' lives (or rely on others' ignorance to complicate peoples' lives).  One is a legal obligation, but the other is no less of a moral one.

I agree with this, but I do feel the only way to not be ignorant or oblivious is to prepare yourself accordingly and do your research. I have a trip planned out there in 6 weeks time and BELIEVE ME I'm going through the proper channels to visit. It's not difficult to familiarize yourself with a country not your own. In this day and age with all the technology we have it's really quite simple. I do stand by original post though and feel sending her back to the US to apply when she has nowhere to go is quite sad

Of course that's the way to educate yourself, but no one does it unless they absolutely have to, immigrant or not.  

I don't know if I am coming off as saying that this is an unjust decision.  I am not saying that at all.  And it's only fair to send her back to apply if that is what the rules call for (and it is).  Letting her stay here to apply because of her national origin, her ignorance, or the fact she suffered a still birth would be unfair to all the other people who've had to return to their home countries to apply, some with just as few ties to their home country as this woman.

It's just that this level ignorance isn't shocking to me, and I don't think just immigrants should be obligated to understand the law especially if they want to have a voice in how immigration is run in a country.

Of course that's the way to educate yourself, but no one does it unless they absolutely have to, immigrant or not.

Sad commentary in and of itself, but unfortunately true!

It's just that this level ignorance isn't shocking to me, and I don't think just immigrants should be obligated to understand the law especially if they want to have a voice in how immigration is run in a country.

An important factor, surely, for democracy to work is that people make an effort to  understand what laws are being enacted in their name and how they are enforced? Otherwise you might arrive at a situation where the country is being run by a cabal of media barons, politicians on the take and bent coppers. Oh, er, wait...

An important factor, surely, for democracy to work is that people make an effort to  understand what laws are being enacted in their name and how they are enforced? Otherwise you might a situation where the country is being run by a cabal of media barons, politicians on the take and bent coppers. Oh, er, wait...

Sad story to read but the one thing that sticks out is the legality of it. Did they get married here in the UK? If so, how was she able to comply with the listing of intent with out being on the proper visa? Aren't they supposed to report you if you dont have that visa?

I suppose the wedding people don't know, just like people who work for the NHS don't.

As someone who has given birth to a stillborn child to a British father, I do have sympathy with her, I really do.  She can go back and apply for a spouse visa though without them being apart too long though.

I was in the situation where I couldn't even do that seeing as I'm not yet 21 and I have still followed the rules, if she got "let off" and was able to stay without following the right procedure, it wouldn't be fair on us who follow the rules.

I know how awful she must be feeling though and I really do have sympathy.