formula

Or perhaps we should just answer with "post number x" as the same things keep getting asked in this thread

Again the surgery staff are not immigration experts and are not required to be. Why should they be expected to know that a Brit born abroad may or may not have British citizenship?

It's much easier (and cheaper for the UK taxpayer as it saves on extra training and extra staff) to say;

• if you want it something for nothing, then bring the proof;

OR

• you pay.
• Get aggressive, then we are going to throw you out.

It really is that simple.

Perhaps someone could draw up a flowchart? It would only be a little flowchart Then they could see why it was a good idea to get a UK passport for their child before they travel back to the UK, if they want free NHS as soon as they arrive. Passports are used as ID and easy proof of UK citizenship, plus they won't then enter as a visitor.

Bluegrass Lass

Where does the need for this rant come from? No one mentioned anything about getting rude or aggressive with NHS staff.

For the example Holly gave, applying for child benefit, I imagine that only parents physically residing in the UK would qualify for this benefit (as why would HMRC give a child benefit to a parent with kids living outside the UK). So an approved application for child benefit would seem (to me) to be valid proof of residency for the kids.

Bluegrass Lass

Uhmmm, I'm not so sure about that. You, as the UK citizen, have the right to apply for certain benefits. I believe child benefit is one of them (as essentially its a tax break for you having kids, IIRC). To double check this, you can ask this question over on the www.talk.uk-yankee.com forum, as they get these types of questions all the time.

SanDiegogirl

The mother could have been born in the US and be British by descent thereby being eligible for a British passport. [B]HER children however, if born in the US , are not automatically British citizens because being British by descent means that you cannot automatically pass your British citizenship onto your children.

This particular OP we presume was born in the UK, is British other than by descent, so her children are British citizens by descent - however they don't have the passports to prove the point.

Englishmum

Unbelievably - they do if they are from the EU.

It really, really annoys me! I wouldn't be surprised if they carry on claiming child benefits even if the parent(s) have returned to their home country:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majo...ng-abroad.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ft-behind.html

I'm not sure why the O/P isn't claiming CHB (Child Benefit) as it's a Universal Benefit and as she is a British Citizen ie. not subject to immigration control, then she does appear to be able to qualify for it....I would be very surprised indeed if it has any effect whatsoever on sponsoring her spouse to reside in the UK:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...fies/DG_073771

Ozzidoc

I agree with most of what you say Pom_Chch.

As a side note, children in England must be in full-time education.....which is different to "must be at school or nursery".

formula

Did you read the quote of Holly's that I replied to?

Then you imagine wrong.

Again, did you read the quote of Holly's that I was replying to? She said "application". An application proves nothing; other than that someone has applied for something.

Plus it is not uncommon for HMRC to give child benefit to people that are not allowed it. Look on the immigationboards benefits section for people trying to repay their CB (public funds) to avoid being denied ILR.

If both parents are legally on the UK and have residency, then the children will have it too but.....they entered as visitors on US passports (I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day) and US visitors do not get free NHS. After all this, I have a lot more respect for teachers.

Ozzidoc

Right. It's a valid point. Such kids (not those in the OP's case) may become eligible for one depending on their age and length of residency in the UK.

formula

So your husband isn't living in the UK with you now? I assume you will need to prove that he has agreed that his children are allowed to live in the UK as residents and they aren't just here to visit and use the NHS while they are here?

I can see why the surgery are asking for all this. You have entered as a Brit and stated you intend to stay in the UK, but you brought the children in as US citizens visitors, while their father still resides in the US.

BTW, you can claim benefits, but you can't use them as part of your £18,600 or less than that and the required savings. You might have the same problem claiming for the children though and they might want proof that their father is not going to demand the UK send his children back as he never gave his permission for them to live in the UK. You might want to ask about that required proof on immigrationboards.com or UK-yankee.com

Pom_Chch

I'm not sure how benefits work but I thought that if you have enough savings then you are not entitled to them. So if the OP is sponsoring her husband she will have a certain amount saved up as this is a requirement for sponsoring.

Could be wrong, not sure how the benefits work...

robin1234

Child Benefit was mentioned I believe - there is no means test for Child Benefit. If you have a child under 16, you are entitled. (Obviously there is small print but that is the gist.)

Bluegrass Lass

We obviously disagree on the whole passport, and proving of citizenship, formula. I'm not getting further dragged into a conversation about it.

As far as what I read in Holly's post (the one you quoted), I saw nothing that said the OP should be aggressive or rude toward the surgery staff, hence why I commented to you. She only called the surgery staff incompetent; she didn't tell the OP to barge into the office and get rude and belligerent.

Thanks for the correction regarding child benefit. I thought only people in Britain could obtain it.

formula

That changes on 7 January 2013
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/cb-income-tax.htm

Then when Universal Credit comes in in October 2013, child benefit gets included in the welfare cap.

I think Child Benefit will be phased out in the not too distanct future and be replaced by Universal Credit and all the conditions that imposes on welfare claimants. There is still another 10 billion pounds to be cut from the welfare bill, according to leaks!

Plus you can claim for child benefit up to age 20, if the "child" is still in fulltime education (not advanced).

formula

You only have to raise your voice or call them names, to be called aggressive and banned. I know one 70 year old woman who couldn't get a GP; she didn't shout but she always had a rude manner about her with her condescending tone. You could only take her somewhere twice; once to go and once to apologise. Polite and calm is the order of the day with the NHS.

That's why I think it will be phased out: to stop that. Univeral Credit means they have to live in the UK and will have to comply with conditions to receive any benefits. UC is also designed to help stop welfare fraud.

holly_1948

Applied for benefits is sufficient. It is not necessary that the application outcome has been made according to the NHS own guidelines.
Please see http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1087.asp...CategoryID=162
The above is the hard fact, the NHS accepts benefit application papers as evidence of residency according to their own published policy guidance.

Now my unsupported opinion - this is because, when you apply for child benefits, you are swearing, on oath, that the child is UK resident. Such a formal oath, punishable under penalty of perjury is sufficient for the NHS according to their own guidelines. If the mother swears on oath that the children are resident then the NHS accepts that until there is a contrary proof - such as the application being denied for insufficiency of residency.

Before making statement like "An application proves nothing; other than that someone has applied for something" it would be well to check the facts and cite a reference where possible. Your comment came across as quite hostile and needlessly confrontational.