Sano,

Again READ. THE. ARTICLE.

Her husband was in the U.S. ILLEGALLY, on an expired visa.

As his travel partner, and it's not really clear what her own visa status actually was from the article--there was at least reasonable suspicion if not probable cause to believe that she aided and abetted her illegal husband in 1) trying to evade U.S. immigration authorities by trying to illegally enter Canada and then fly home to England from Canada; 2) she tried to enter Canada ILLEGALLY and/or aided and abetted her husband in trying to enter CANADA ILLEGALLY--but the Canadian authorities turned them back to the U.S.; 3) aided and abetted her husband in attempting to re-enter the U.S. ILLEGALLY on an expired visa which they both clearly had actual knowledge of. Her OWN right to re-enter the U.S. would have been dependent on the terms of her own visa. We don't know that, she doesn't say in the article. However, it is very very VERY clear that illegally being in the U.S. on an expired visa like her husband was; illegally attempting to then re-enter after being refused entry into Canada is if not a 10 year ban, possibly event a PERMANENT ban on re-entry for her husband. And if she aided and abetted him--which she did--she admits that in the article although doesn't call it aiding and abetting--SHE may be chargeable with immigration fraud or other immigration felonies.

The Guardian is dumb.

Don't be the Guardian.