HKG3

I think the point is that dual Canadian and Lebanese citizens should not have been offer consular assistance by the Canadian government in Lebanon. The British government offers the follow advice to dual nationals -


https://www.gov.uk/dual-citizenship

Editha

That wasn't what Carol&John wrote. They said they were not abiding by the law. And I think they should explain what they mean.

In what sense should the Canadian/Lebanese citizen not have been given help? Why not?

HKG3

Please read what other people wrote before coming up with criticisms.

I am not saying Canadian / Lebanese dual nationals should not be be given help. What I am saying is that dual Canadian / Lebanese citizens are not entitle to the protection of the Canadian government in Lebanon.

I think what Carol&John meant was that dual nationals should respect the laws of the country in which you are a citizen while you are in that country. Thus, a dual Canadian / Lebanese citizen should abide by Lebanese law while in Lebanon as the Canadian government cannot offer any consular assistant to those dual Canadian / Lebanese citizens in Lebanon.

Pulaski

I think you and Editha are talking at cross purposes - the evacuation was a humanitarian issue, not a "respect of laws" issue.

It's a fair question, whether one country should be evacuating dual nationals from the other country of which the evacuees hold nationality? I am inclined to think that Canada made a mistake, as while they are, in this case, evacuees from the respect of Canada, they are also refugees fleeing one of their, supposedly, home countries.

As such this sets a potentially awkward precedent - what happens if there is a break down in law and order, in say, Pakistan, or Nigeria? Is Canada going to evacuate all the dual nationals from there too?

Editha

Which point is completely irrelevant to the situation in 2006 when Canadian citizens in Lebanon were evacuated, not because they had broken the laws of Lebanon, but because the country had been invaded.

Editha

The USA, Australia, the UK and Sweden also evacuated their nationals (dual or not) from the Lebanon in 2006.

Carol&John

Firstly, I apologise for my comment having taken this thread off topic.

Secondly, (and finally as it is off topic to this thread) Editha your following comments ring true, and I mistakenly had referred to Canadian citizenship law which did not exist at the time of the 2006 invasion.

Englishmum

There are a lot of holes in Irene Clemmell's version(s) of her situation. I reckon she wanted to have her cake and eat it. It seems to me that she wanted to keep her government subsidized Singapore HDB (Housing Development Board) flat which are allocated to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents only....to then cash in for a big profit a few years later, even if it meant being seperated from her spouse and two (at the time) very young sons.

My guess is that her spouse didn't become a PR in Singapore and took their sons back to the UK to avoid being conscripted for National Service. Sons of Singaporeans and sons of Permanent Residents *must* register for National Service. They're conscripted at the age of 16 unless they apply for a deferment whilst continuing in full time education. Basically unless the male children leave Singapore by the time they are approx 11 or 12 years old, the parents have to place a huge bond with the govt. which is forfeited if the son doesn't return to Singapore for his NS. Btw. National Service is for 2 years and afterwards can be called up at any time until the age of 40 for NS duties; my dentist wasn't available once when I tried to make an appointment.....he was called up for a fortnight of NS and he was in his late thirties!

I do find it rather odd that Irene Clennell was quite happy to leave her spouse to basically raise their sons on his own when they were very young; they are now in their mid-20s and she has a grandchild, but now wants to be a loving mother...?

LIFT: Limpeh Is Foreign Talent

- interesting perspective from a Singaporean in the UK (Feb 27th Q&A 'The Irene Clennell deportation case'

BritInParis

The BBC article has an enlightening timeline.

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

In short she was legally resident in the UK for a maximum of four years, achieved ILR before immediately returning to Singapore for 11 years.

The six odd years spent in the UK subsequently were achieved by overstaying her Leave to Enter as a visitor.

Having been turned back from the UK in 2007 she waited another five years before lodging an application from Singapore. Why wait so long? Were she and her husband estranged during this period (or even earlier when her husband and children returned to the UK alone)? The rejection in 2012 "on the basis that Mrs Clennell did not provide proof of contact with her family" would suggest so.

Since you can't switch from being a visitor to LTR unless seeking asylum so any applications she made whilst in the UK were never going to succeed.

Mrs Clennell has had 23 years to put her situation right and chose not to.

michali

VERY interesting! And yet, because of the dramatic media coverage, there is now £52,000 in her gofundme account!

HKG3

Moving closer to the £62,500 needed to satisfy the spouse visa financial requirement (cash savings route).

michali

Indeed! However, it will have to remain in her account for six months and will the HO accept the source of the savings?

HKG3

In the news article, Mrs Clennell said that she came back to the UK 'several times for short visits'. Does these short visits reset the two year clock for ILR holders?

BritInParis

No. They need to reside in order to reset the clock. If they enter a visitor after two years' deadline then their ILR is automatically cancelled. Looks like Mrs Clennell has made repeated attempts to apply for a Returning Resident visa when she's not eligible.

HKG3

According to the BBC article in BiP's post, she has been trying to move back to the UK since 2003, I would think another six months is not that long if she can see the light at the end of the tunnel.