Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
janadeen
Next they'll say that if you cant trace your line back thru the Queen,
you're not British!
Born and raised in England, but not British
Carol Soares, forced to leave her son in Jamaica, is desperate to take
him back home
BY VAUGHN DAVIS Sunday Observer staff reporter
Sunday, September 10, 2006
At the tender age of two months, Carol Lee Soares was among the hundreds
of Jamaicans who left Jamaica during the early 1960s for the seemingly
greener pastures of Great Britain.
In June 1962, she and her mother became legal residents of the United
Kingdom, hoping to grab hold of opportunities they thought would
otherwise be out of reach in Jamaica.
Today, Soares has a 16-year-old son named Stefan Omar Nicholas Lee, and
like her mother, Soares has every hope of seeing him grow up, go to
school, and enjoy all the successes that developed countries promise.
But Soares and her son have a big problem. According to her, British
authorities have told her that Stefan, although born and raised in
England and holding a British birth certificate, is not really British.
Soares says that she was advised that under the British Nationality Law,
passed in 1983, children born in the UK to non-British citizens cannot
acquire British citizenship unless they can satisfy the requirements of
a bureaucratic principle termed 'patriality'.
(link to the balance of article)
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060909T150000-
0500_112710_OBS_BORN_AND_RAISED_IN_ENGLAND__BUT_NOT_BRITISH_.asp
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Noorah101
Hi janadeen,
Please edit your post to include only a short paragraph from the
article, and a link to the article itself, to comply with BE regulations
on copywrite material.
Thanks,
Rene
Moderator
Boiler
> Hi janadeen,
>
> Please edit your post to include only a short paragraph from the
> article, and a link to the article itself, to comply with BE
> regulations on copywrite material.
>
> Thanks,
> Rene
> Moderator
Not sure what the surprise is, from what I can gather his mother was
Jamaican when he was born, she subsequently naturalised, he appears not
to have done so, why is not mentioned.
Elvira
> Not sure what the surprise is, from what I can gather his mother was
> Jamaican when he was born, she subsequently naturalised, he appears
> not to have done so, why is not mentioned.
You are not sure what the surprise is???
This story doesn't make any sense. If the mother had indefinite leave
to remain at the time the child was born (which certainly should have
been the case after all those years in Britain), he would have been a
British citizen.
Even if the mother did not have indefinite leave to remain at the time
of the birth, it should have been possible to register the son as a
British citizen when she did aquire that status, or when she naturlised
(if indeed she did do so).
Seems to me a bunch of Jobs-Worths at the BHC or the Home Office cannot
pull their fingers out of their ...
Boiler
> You are not sure what the surprise is???
>
> This story doesn't make any sense. If the mother had indefinite leave
> to remain at the time the child was born (which certainly should have
> been the case after all those years in Britain), he would have been a
> British citizen.
>
> Even if the mother did not have indefinite leave to remain at the time
> of the birth, it should have been possible to register the son as a
> British citizen when she did aquire that status, or when she
> naturlised (if indeed she did do so).
>
> Seems to me a bunch of Jobs-Worths at the BHC or the Home Office
> cannot pull their fingers out of their ...
I did not think ILR gave your child citizenship, seems illogical
if it does.
No mention of Home Office being at fault, the son may have been able to
apply for Naturalisation, you can hardly blame the Government if he did
not do so.
Elvira
> I did not think ILR gave your child citizenship, seems illogical if
> it does.
>
> No mention of Home Office being at fault, the son may have been able
> to apply for Naturalisation, you can hardly blame the Government if he
> did not do so.
Maybe illogical to you but that's the law! ;)
And the kid is 16 for goodness sake...
Ray
> I did not think ILR gave your child citizenship, seems illogical if
> it does.
>
> No mention of Home Office being at fault, the son may have been able
> to apply for Naturalisation, you can hardly blame the Government if he
> did not do so.
Thats totally correct I had leave to remain in the UK ... for 40 years
.
Certainly never gave me any rights of citizenship ..
JAJ
Something is "not right" with this story. If mother had UK permanent
resident status when child was born, then the child is *automatically*
British. Parent does not need to be a British citizen.
And there's no mention of the entitlement of UK-born children who have
lived in the United Kingdom until age 10 to be registered as British
citizens.
Is this another case of Passport Office staff not understanding how the
British Nationality Act works where a parent has ILR but not British
citizenship?
JAJ
> You are not sure what the surprise is???
>
> This story doesn't make any sense. If the mother had indefinite leave
> to remain at the time the child was born (which certainly should have
> been the case after all those years in Britain), he would have been a
> British citizen.
>
> Even if the mother did not have indefinite leave to remain at the time
> of the birth, it should have been possible to register the son as a
> British citizen when she did aquire that status, or when she
> naturlised (if indeed she did do so).
>
> Seems to me a bunch of Jobs-Worths at the BHC or the Home Office
> cannot pull their fingers out of their ...
And on top of that, (non-British) children born in the UK and who live
in the UK until age 10 have an *entitlement* to be registered as British
citizens. Irrespective of child's or parent's immigration status.
--
This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any
jurisdiction
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
P Pron
I'm also sceptical - "patriality" simply isn't a term that would be used
today by a UK official, IMO - apart from the fact that it wouldn't be
relevant in considering whether someone born after 1.1.83 has any claim to
British citizenship, it is basically an obsolete term, and has been for many
years, having been replaced by "the right of abode".
Apart from the registration entitlement you mention (section 1(4) of the BNA
1981), there's also the entitlement to registration under section 1(3) for a
minor UK-born child once one of its parents has become "settled" or acquired
British citizenship - which Ms Soares did, according to the article, on 27
July 2005.
So he has two routes to British citizenship, both absolute entitlements.
For ease of reference here's a condensed link to the full story -
http://tinyurl.com/zfxmg
There's clearly more to this than meets the eye. Is it an official error, or
is it journalistic reluctance to let the facts get in the way of a good
story? I wonder....
paul
P Pron
On re-reading the article, my guess is that the problem isn't that officials
don't know the post-1983 rules for acquisition of British citizenship by
UK-born children - it's that Ms Soares can't prove that she *was* settled at
the time of Stefan's birth, because she doesn't have the necessary
documentary evidence to show that she got to the UK before the barriers went
down with the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I doubt that
they've said that Stefan *isn't* British - more likely they've said that
they can't say that he *is*, without seeing evidence that he had a "settled"
parent at the time of his birth.
Hopefully, the British High Commission in Kingston will sort it out -
although Ms Soares says she's been to them, she doesn't seem to have stuck
around very long, given that Stefan was refused boarding on 27 April, and
she returned to UK on 5 May.
I'm not sure whether to read anything into the fact that Ms Soares took 43
years to get around to reacquiring British nationality!!
paul
JAJ
<paulatspam...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>On re-reading the article, my guess is that the problem isn't that officials
>don't know the post-1983 rules for acquisition of British citizenship by
>UK-born children
Although one wonders about the (alleged) comment to the effect:
"When I went to get a [British] passport for him, they told me he was
Jamaican and so he couldn't get one,"
One has to wonder what the working assumption of Passport Office
officials is when dealing with a UK born person without British
parents. Many of these persons are automatically British and yet
that seems not to be part of the working assumption used.
This isn't the first case of an apparent British citizen (post 1983
birth in the UK to a settled parent) being wrongly refused a passport.
>- it's that Ms Soares can't prove that she *was* settled at
>the time of Stefan's birth, because she doesn't have the necessary
>documentary evidence to show that she got to the UK before the barriers went
>down with the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I doubt that
>they've said that Stefan *isn't* British - more likely they've said that
>they can't say that he *is*, without seeing evidence that he had a "settled"
>parent at the time of his birth.
But there must be sufficient evidence of her ILR status on her
naturalisation file at the Home Office.
>
>I'm not sure whether to read anything into the fact that Ms Soares took 43
>years to get around to reacquiring British nationality!!
Maybe a lot of people from former colonies who migrated to the United
Kingdom before independence (with British passports) don't understand
that they lost their British nationality on independence and have to
apply to regain it.
P Pron
|| On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:08:45 +0100, "P Pron"
|| <paulatspam...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
||| On re-reading the article, my guess is that the problem isn't that
||| officials don't know the post-1983 rules for acquisition of British
||| citizenship by UK-born children
||
||
|| Although one wonders about the (alleged) comment to the effect:
||
|| "When I went to get a [British] passport for him, they told me he was
|| Jamaican and so he couldn't get one,"
||
|| One has to wonder what the working assumption of Passport Office
|| officials is when dealing with a UK born person without British
|| parents. Many of these persons are automatically British and yet
|| that seems not to be part of the working assumption used.
||
|| This isn't the first case of an apparent British citizen (post 1983
|| birth in the UK to a settled parent) being wrongly refused a
|| passport.
You may be right that it's not the first such case, but I doubt very much
that it is a common occurrence.
||
||| - it's that Ms Soares can't prove that she *was* settled at
||| the time of Stefan's birth, because she doesn't have the necessary
||| documentary evidence to show that she got to the UK before the
||| barriers went down with the introduction of the Commonwealth
||| Immigrants Act. I doubt that they've said that Stefan *isn't*
||| British - more likely they've said that they can't say that he
||| *is*, without seeing evidence that he had a "settled" parent at the
||| time of his birth.
||
|| But there must be sufficient evidence of her ILR status on her
|| naturalisation file at the Home Office.
No doubt - but bearing in mind that Ms Soares is claimed to have naturalised
only last year, it is entirely possible that she was granted ILR only in
2004. It's only a possible solution, but what if the earliest date for which
she was able to establish her presence in UK was after the barrier came
down? Seems to me entirely possible - her mother's passport (which should be
conclusive) is said not to be available, and I don't know the precise date
on which the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 came into force, but it must
have been very close to the date she says she arrived in UK. If her earliest
official record happens to be a kindergarten report, that would be too
late - she would already have become subject to control by then.
I don't think you'd catch either the Home Office or the Passport Office
simply "assuming" that a long-term non-British resident must have been
"settled" at some stage, so it could well be that the only option available
within the law was to grant Ms Soares ILR under what was then the 14 year
concession, in 2004, in order that she could apply for naturalisation in
2005...
Doesn't this ring bells? The "British" grandmother who happened to have been
born in the USA, but lived in UK for most of her life, and claimed to have
been threatened with deportation?
||| I'm not sure whether to read anything into the fact that Ms Soares
||| took 43 years to get around to reacquiring British nationality!!
||
|| Maybe a lot of people from former colonies who migrated to the United
|| Kingdom before independence (with British passports) don't understand
|| that they lost their British nationality on independence and have to
|| apply to regain it.
Absolutely! It didn't apply to the last few places to go independent - they
had a built-in provision that anyone who had the right of abode in UK (eg
through residence) could continue to be British as well as becoming citizens
of the new independent country - but there was a lot of confusion - and
injustice, IMHO - over the citizenship provisions of many of the places that
achieved independence from the 1950s - '70s.
paul
JAJ
<paulatspam...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>||| - it's that Ms Soares can't prove that she *was* settled at
>||| the time of Stefan's birth, because she doesn't have the necessary
>||| documentary evidence to show that she got to the UK before the
>||| barriers went down with the introduction of the Commonwealth
>||| Immigrants Act. I doubt that they've said that Stefan *isn't*
>||| British - more likely they've said that they can't say that he
>||| *is*, without seeing evidence that he had a "settled" parent at the
>||| time of his birth.
>||
>|| But there must be sufficient evidence of her ILR status on her
>|| naturalisation file at the Home Office.
>
>No doubt - but bearing in mind that Ms Soares is claimed to have naturalised
>only last year, it is entirely possible that she was granted ILR only in
>2004. It's only a possible solution, but what if the earliest date for which
>she was able to establish her presence in UK was after the barrier came
>down? Seems to me entirely possible - her mother's passport (which should be
>conclusive) is said not to be available, and I don't know the precise date
>on which the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 came into force, but it must
>have been very close to the date she says she arrived in UK. If her earliest
>official record happens to be a kindergarten report, that would be too
>late - she would already have become subject to control by then.
It seems like the key to unlocking this "mystery" is Ms Soares
naturalisation file at the Home Office.
If you're correct - and ILR was only granted recently - then there are
two options for the child:
1. Submit an immediate application for registration as a British
citizen under section 1(3) of the Act (probably simpler than 1(4) and
he's still under 18); or
2. Research through the National Archives to find details of the
parent's migration to the UK in 1962, eg:
http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/roots/caribbean/migration/migration.htm
Would the Home Office accept a section 1(3) registration application
from a person who might *possibly* be a British citizen already but
it's difficult to find evidence to prove it?
Jenney & Mark
> Next they'll say that if you cant trace your line back thru the Queen,
> you're not British!
>
> Born and raised in England, but not British
> Carol Soares, forced to leave her son in Jamaica, is desperate to take
> him back home
> BY VAUGHN DAVIS Sunday Observer staff reporter
> Sunday, September 10, 2006
>
>
> At the tender age of two months, Carol Lee Soares was among the
> hundreds of Jamaicans who left Jamaica during the early 1960s for the
> seemingly greener pastures of Great Britain.
>
> In June 1962, she and her mother became legal residents of the United
>
> (link to the balance of article)
>
> http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060909T150000-
> 0500_112710_OBS_BORN_AND_RAISED_IN_ENGLAND__BUT_NOT_BRITISH_.asp
You think THAT'S weird, look at this one I read the other day:
Deported Man Was Actually U.S. Citizen
(http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060823/D8JM3GBG0.html)
Aug 23, 7:12 AM (ET)
By CARA ANNA
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Duarnis Perez became an American citizen when he was
15, but he didn't find out until after he had been deported and then
jailed for trying to get back into the country.
He was facing his second deportation hearing when he learned he was
already a U.S. citizen. Still, federal prosecutors fought to keep him
in custody.
As crazy as it sounds that someone could not know they were already a
naturalized US citizen, it's the last sentence above that really makes
my hair stand up on end...
~ Jenney
P Pron
I'm sure they would
paul
meauxna
> You think THAT'S weird, look at this one I read the other day:
>
> Deported Man Was Actually U.S. Citizen
> (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060823/D8JM3GBG0.html)
>
> Aug 23, 7:12 AM (ET)
>
> By CARA ANNA
> ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Duarnis Perez became an American citizen when he
> was 15, but he didn't find out until after he had been deported and
> then jailed for trying to get back into the country.
>
> He was facing his second deportation hearing when he learned he was
> already a U.S. citizen. Still, federal prosecutors fought to keep him
> in custody.
>
>
> As crazy as it sounds that someone could not know they were already a
> naturalized US citizen, it's the last sentence above that really makes
> my hair stand up on end...
>
> ~ Jenney
Ooh, me, me! We've got a funny one here locally too...
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/115837351-
6111990.xml&coll=7
Earlier this year, Galvan applied for a passport so he could take a trip
to Germany and drive on the autobahn. But U.S. Passport officials turned
him down, despite a 20-year stint in the Army and a birth certificate
that said he was born in Hebbronville, Texas.
The reason? Galvan didn't obtain the birth certificate until he was
nearly 30.
Passport officials demanded additional records -- baptismal, school --
but Galvan couldn't find anything.
Then his story appeared Sept. 7 in The Oregonian. In response, nearly a
dozen readers found U.S. Census records from 1930 that backed up
Galvan's birth certificate. Galvan's attorney forwarded the evidence to
the Seattle passport office the same day.
The original story was quite outraged---he went to CIS and said 'ok, if
I'm not a USC, what am I?" and CIS said: you're a citizen. State
disagreed.
P Pron
Just to tie it up -
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060917T200000-0500_113002_OBS__SOON_COME_HOME_.asp
paul
JAJ
>Just to tie it up -
>http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060917T200000-0500_113002_OBS__SOON_COME_HOME_.asp
>
>paul
>
Interesting that the British Embassy wasn't able to issue the child a
British passport or sort out an urgent application for British
citizenship under s1(3) or 1(4) of the Act.
Unless the newspaper is confused when it mentions the term "emergency
visa"
The article still contains nonsense like the following: " ... under
the British Nationality Law, passed in 1983, children born in the UK
to non-British citizens cannot acquire British citizenship unless they
can satisfy the requirements of a bureaucratic principle termed
'patriality'"
I wonder if the British Embassy has written to the newspaper concerned
pointing out that this is plain wrong?
P Pron
I marvelled at the idea that, whatever the magic document is, it could be
called an "emergency" anything, given that it seems to have been issued a
month before it's going to be used! To paraphrase Douglas Adams (?) that is
a use of the term with which I was hitherto unfamiliar...
paul