No, it is THEIR problem to explain. And YOURS since you are defending them. Conveniently, the guardian article does NOT explain.

It DOES say her husband was in the U.S. on a work visa and decided to "retire and go back to England."

HE was NOT on a tourist visa. AT all.

That implies that he overstayed his work visa, probably because he quit his job or was fired, and stayed longer than allowed after that event.

SHE came on a tourist visa. He was already here on a work visa, which had expired.

Sounds like they were separated. Maybe they weren't even legally married or were common law. Article doesn't tell us.

They tried to cross into Canada illegally with a vehicle and didn't have authorization. They were turned back at the border and re-entered the U.S. illegally. She aided and abetted him and that's what the authorities told her, despite her scoffing at American immigration law (typical leftist).

If you don't think this woman is a total loser, she actually admits that when detained she told the authorities basically, "Just because my husband has to stay here why do I have to stay here? I have a valid visa!" So she was prepared to abandon her "husband."

Nice lady.

Also, if her intention in entering the U.S. in the first place was to help her husband evade immigration authorities by crossing the U.S. Candada border and then flying from Canada to England, then her visa was fraudulent from the get go.

She got a sweetheart deal.

Stop defending felonious immigration law violators.

It's a bad look.