Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
Sep 16th 2006, 1:27 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:01:24 +0100, "P Pron"
<[email protected]> 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/galleri.../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?
<[email protected]> 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/galleri.../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?
Sep 16th 2006, 2:02 pm
#17
I'm back!
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
Originally Posted by janadeen
Born and raised in England, but not British
Carol Soares, forced to leave her son in Jamaica, is desperate to take him back home
Carol Soares, forced to leave her son in Jamaica, is desperate to take him back home
Deported Man Was Actually U.S. Citizen
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
Sep 16th 2006, 5:07 pm
#18
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
Originally Posted by Jenney & Mark
You think THAT'S weird, look at this one I read the other day:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...990.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.
Sep 16th 2006, 5:21 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
JAJ wrote:
|| On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:01:24 +0100, "P Pron"
[q1]|| <[email protected]> wrote
|| 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/galleri.../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?
I'm sure they would
paul
|| On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:01:24 +0100, "P Pron"
[q1]|| <[email protected]> wrote
|| 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/galleri.../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?
I'm sure they would
paul
Last edited by Rete; Oct 2nd 2006 at 12:53 am.
Oct 1st 2006, 3:35 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
Last edited by Rete; Oct 2nd 2006 at 12:53 am.
Oct 1st 2006, 11:30 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:35:45 +0100, "P Pron" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just to tie it up -
>http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...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?
>Just to tie it up -
>http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...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?
Oct 2nd 2006, 1:14 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Good Grief - Are You KIDDING ME?
JAJ wrote:
||| On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:35:45 +0100, "P Pron"
||| <[email protected]> wrote: Just to tie it up -
|||
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...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?
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
||| On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:35:45 +0100, "P Pron"
||| <[email protected]> wrote: Just to tie it up -
|||
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...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?
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
