Times: Loophole leaves England fan stateless
pfeiff...@yahoo.fr
July 28, 2006
Loophole leaves England fan stateless
By Michael Horsnell
WILLIAM CATTRALL dreams of following his father and grandfather into
the Royal Navy - once he has swum for Britain in the 2012 Olympics.
But he will fulfil neither ambition if the Home Office has its way,
according to his parents.
William, 10, who was born in Britain of a British father, is officially
stateless because of a legal anomaly and unable to acquire a British
passport.
His aspirations are being thwarted because his father and Dutch mother
were unmarried when he was born in June 1996. Under the 1981 British
Nationality Act, his father's nationality is irrelevant.
Under Section 9 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
which came into force on July 1, children born to unmarried parents can
now take their nationality from their father. But not retrospectively.
Nick Cattrall, his father, who lives with William and the boy's
mother, Joyce Watrin, but remains unmarried, said: "He swims for
Leander Swimming Club in Plymouth. His dream is to be in the Olympics.
He's fanatical about the England football team. He supports Plymouth
Argyle. Then he's told 'Sorry, you're not British'."
A Home Office spokesman said the law could not be applied
retrospectively because many of those concerned had since applied for
citizenship in other countries, which could be compromised if they
suddenly became British citizens.
P Pron
What a sloppy and partial bit of journalism
- no mention of the fact that a non-British child born in UK is *legally
entitled* to be registered as a British citizen after living in UK for 10
years
- no mention of the fact that the Home Office also have a policy of
registering as British citizens illegitimate children who would have been
British if they had been legitimate - whether they have other UK ties or not
- and can Dutch women *really* not transmit their citizenship to their
children - or does "stateless" mean "not having the citizenship you want" in
Times-English?
Is Michael Horsnell a reporter or a short-hand writer, taking dictation from
the boy's father, who doesn't want to pay the registration fee???
paul
JAJ
In fact as the child was born before 2 October 2000 to a Dutch mother
(EEA national) then he is automatically a British citizen at birth
with no need for s1(3) or s3(1) registration.
The Nationality Instructions make this clear.
But why doesn't the Home Office ask the questions before making a
statement as meaningless as the one quoted?
P Pron
Or, why don't reporters ask the right questions - if he asked a closed
question, he'd get the specific answer to it....
I can't access the staff instructions at the moment - was mere presence in
the UK sufficient? Didn't it have to be for "a settled purpose"? What if the
mother wasn't ordinarily resident in UK, but only went across for the birth?
paul
pfeiff...@yahoo.fr
JAJ
>
>I can't access the staff instructions at the moment - was mere presence in
>the UK sufficient? Didn't it have to be for "a settled purpose"? What if the
>mother wasn't ordinarily resident in UK, but only went across for the birth?
>
>paul
>
Where the parent is "settled" in the UK there is a requirement for
"ordinary residence". So clearly this does assume the family were
living in the UK at the time of birth, but I would have thought this
would apply in the vast majority of instances (how many EEA nationals
come to the UK deliberately to give birth?)
Home Office instructions on EEA/Swiss nationals (pdf format):
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/nisec2gensec/eeaandswissnats?view=Binary
(extract)
------
8.6 The following examples may help to illustrate the position:
a. Child born legitimately in UK in 1992 to a German father employed
at the BBC in London, and his Indian wife. At the time of the birth
the couple both had residence permits/documents, but not
permission to remain indefinitely. First passport applied for in 1993:
child to be treated as a British citizen, s.1(1)(b) BNA 1981. Second
passport applied for in 2003: child to be treated as a British
citizen, s.1(1)(b) BNA 1981.
b. Second child born to the couple in Example a, again in the UK, in
September 2000. The parents' circumstances continue as
previously, i.e. father in employment but no permission to remain
indefinitely. First passport applied for in November 2000: child to be
treated as a British citizen, s.1(1)(b), BNA 1981.
c. Third child born to the couple in Example a, again in the UK, in
2002. Again, the parents' circumstances are as in Example A.
Pursuant to the Regulations, neither parent can be considered to
have been settled at the time of this child's birth. The child is not,
therefore, a British citizen and, as such, is ineligible for a UK
passport.
---------
So prima facie, a child born in 1996 to a Dutch mother living in the
UK is automatically a British citizen without even needing to look at
the father's status.
And if for some reason, the family were living in Holland and just
visited the UK for the birth (and moved to the UK later), the simplest
solution would be for the mother to apply for ILR on the basis of 5
years residence and then register the child as British under s1(3) of
the Act. Again, no need to worry about the father's status.
There seems to be a lot of cases like this though, it would probably
help if the Home Office and Passport Office got together to produce
more detailed factsheets. We have to wonder whether this family has
already encountered un-cooperative or poorly trained front-line staff.
JAJ
>- and can Dutch women *really* not transmit their citizenship to their
>children
Apparently since 1 January 1985 they can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_nationality_law
So far from being "stateless", the facts of this case suggest that the
child is legally a dual British/Dutch citizen since birth.
tamsu...@yahoo.ca
JAJ a écrit :
> >On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:28:57 +0100, "P Pron" <paulatspam...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >- and can Dutch women *really* not transmit their citizenship to their
> >children
Since 1999 all 47 (or so) European states with the sole exception of
the Vatican (which obviously does not pass its nationality by descent)
treat the offspring born in wedlock of citizen men and citizen women
equally. San Marino was the last country to eliminate the
discrimination.
However many European countries, including the Netherlands, conditiion
the grant of nationality on registration or declaration and some (again
including the Netherlands) include conditions relating to cases of
multiple nationality although these do not apply in all cases.
An interesting situation arises when one country considers that a
particular person holds the nationality of another, but that other
country does not concede the point. This probably couldn't happen
within the EU (thinking of Chen and earlier cases) but it happens often
when the UK wants to deport someone to Vietnam, Cambodia and many
African and other Asian countries. It happened with the UK/Mauritius
with Mahaboob Bibi ([1987] Imm. A.R. 340, not a deportation case
though). And there are some cases where a person who claimed to be
stateless was not treated as such (and thus not granted citizenship
under the statelessness treaty) because the relevant country decided
s/he could have obtained another nationality if it had been sought.