I'm finally back, But what a headache!
Jun 17th 2012, 6:18 pm
#16
The Kwisatz Haderach
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: North Wales
Posts: 8,080
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
No flames from me. If you want to enter a country to live, do it legally. My boys are citizen by descent and I wouldn't expect them to be able to move their children to UK (if they had any) without proper visas in place. I needed mine to move to US even though my Dh was already a USC.
Jun 17th 2012, 6:36 pm
#17
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
She seems pretty hot on her 'rights' so will probably get away with it.
Jun 17th 2012, 6:40 pm
#18
SUPER MODERATOR
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 88,040
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
Perhaps the OP should look into this.
Jun 17th 2012, 6:45 pm
#19
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
The OP may get away with it but her children have no rights to British citizenship or residency. I wonder what happens if you overstay in the UK when you are not a citizen or have a visa? Deportation...banned for entering the UK?? Perhaps the OP should look into this.
Perhaps the OP should look into this.
Jun 17th 2012, 10:33 pm
#20
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2010
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 9,673
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
In order to justify this complaint she appears to be saying that her son has the right to live with her because he is her dependent and that having to pay this fee is unfair.
I just thought that she was incorrect in her assumptions.
Jun 18th 2012, 4:39 am
#21
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,378
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
In the meantime however, I guess it is comforting to know that they could come with my son (citizen by descent) for under £1k - I call that a really good deal! Now to persuade him and his wife that living in UK beats Aus hands down!
Jun 18th 2012, 5:11 am
#22
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 335
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
I am probably going to be shotdown in flames with this post, but I don't see what the OP is complaining about.
The OP is British by descent (her mother a British citizen was living in Canada when she gave birth to the OP). The OP has lived her whole life in Canada. She is not able to pass her British citizenship to her son. Her son is Canadian.
Contrary to what the OP says, the only place where her son has the 'right'to live with her, have access to schooling and health care is Canada.
So OP needed a visa for son to move with her to the UK. She was advised on this earlier, but chose not to do so. At UK immigration she says she was given a hard time by the POE but, really, he was just doing his job. The OP did not have the relevant visa in order to allow her son to live in the UK. The POE provided a visitor's visa and advised her to obtain the relevant resident visa for her son.
She says than an immigration official told her that the UK is the only place that does not allow spouses and dependents of its citizens into the country. Not true. The US for example does not allow the spouses and dependent of its citizens into the US without visas if the said spouses and dependents are not US citizens - and the process takes a whole lot longer than entering the UK.
This has nothing to do with human rights, this is immigration law.
Her son is now in school (free) and has access to the NHS (free)- 'technically' since the son is on a visitor's visa he does not have access to the NHS apart from emergency treatment, another little technicality the OP has forgotten, but lets not get into that).
In other countries the son would undoubtedly not have free access to both of those benefits.
I suggest the OP pay up for the necessary visa.
With respect to what would have happened had she returned to the UK with no money and then been expected to pay for the visa, had she applied for the visa in the first place she would have been asked for supporting evidence that she could support her son (s) without recourse to public funds. If she had shown that she did not have the monetary funds to support her family, she would have been refused the visa for her son until such time as co-sponsors came along to do so.
The fact that she by-passed the visa application stage, meant that she also bypassed proving the monetary requirements.
See below:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...tled/children/
Ready to be flamed .....
The OP is British by descent (her mother a British citizen was living in Canada when she gave birth to the OP). The OP has lived her whole life in Canada. She is not able to pass her British citizenship to her son. Her son is Canadian.
Contrary to what the OP says, the only place where her son has the 'right'to live with her, have access to schooling and health care is Canada.
So OP needed a visa for son to move with her to the UK. She was advised on this earlier, but chose not to do so. At UK immigration she says she was given a hard time by the POE but, really, he was just doing his job. The OP did not have the relevant visa in order to allow her son to live in the UK. The POE provided a visitor's visa and advised her to obtain the relevant resident visa for her son.
She says than an immigration official told her that the UK is the only place that does not allow spouses and dependents of its citizens into the country. Not true. The US for example does not allow the spouses and dependent of its citizens into the US without visas if the said spouses and dependents are not US citizens - and the process takes a whole lot longer than entering the UK.
This has nothing to do with human rights, this is immigration law.
Her son is now in school (free) and has access to the NHS (free)- 'technically' since the son is on a visitor's visa he does not have access to the NHS apart from emergency treatment, another little technicality the OP has forgotten, but lets not get into that).
In other countries the son would undoubtedly not have free access to both of those benefits.
I suggest the OP pay up for the necessary visa.
With respect to what would have happened had she returned to the UK with no money and then been expected to pay for the visa, had she applied for the visa in the first place she would have been asked for supporting evidence that she could support her son (s) without recourse to public funds. If she had shown that she did not have the monetary funds to support her family, she would have been refused the visa for her son until such time as co-sponsors came along to do so.
The fact that she by-passed the visa application stage, meant that she also bypassed proving the monetary requirements.
See below:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...tled/children/
Ready to be flamed .....
Last edited by calliope; Jun 18th 2012 at 5:17 am.
Jun 18th 2012, 8:21 pm
#23
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2009
Location: Cannock, Staffordshire.
Posts: 304
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
I am probably going to be shotdown in flames with this post, but I don't see what the OP is complaining about.
The OP is British by descent (her mother a British citizen was living in Canada when she gave birth to the OP). The OP has lived her whole life in Canada. She is not able to pass her British citizenship to her son. Her son is Canadian.
Contrary to what the OP says, the only place where her son has the 'right'to live with her, have access to schooling and health care is Canada.
So OP needed a visa for son to move with her to the UK. She was advised on this earlier, but chose not to do so. At UK immigration she says she was given a hard time by the POE but, really, he was just doing his job. The OP did not have the relevant visa in order to allow her son to live in the UK. The POE provided a visitor's visa and advised her to obtain the relevant resident visa for her son.
She says than an immigration official told her that the UK is the only place that does not allow spouses and dependents of its citizens into the country. Not true. The US for example does not allow the spouses and dependent of its citizens into the US without visas if the said spouses and dependents are not US citizens - and the process takes a whole lot longer than entering the UK.
This has nothing to do with human rights, this is immigration law.
Her son is now in school (free) and has access to the NHS (free)- 'technically' since the son is on a visitor's visa he does not have access to the NHS apart from emergency treatment, another little technicality the OP has forgotten, but lets not get into that).
In other countries the son would undoubtedly not have free access to both of those benefits.
I suggest the OP pay up for the necessary visa.
With respect to what would have happened had she returned to the UK with no money and then been expected to pay for the visa, had she applied for the visa in the first place she would have been asked for supporting evidence that she could support her son (s) without recourse to public funds. If she had shown that she did not have the monetary funds to support her family, she would have been refused the visa for her son until such time as co-sponsors came along to do so.
The fact that she by-passed the visa application stage, meant that she also bypassed proving the monetary requirements.
See below:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...tled/children/
Ready to be flamed .....
The OP is British by descent (her mother a British citizen was living in Canada when she gave birth to the OP). The OP has lived her whole life in Canada. She is not able to pass her British citizenship to her son. Her son is Canadian.
Contrary to what the OP says, the only place where her son has the 'right'to live with her, have access to schooling and health care is Canada.
So OP needed a visa for son to move with her to the UK. She was advised on this earlier, but chose not to do so. At UK immigration she says she was given a hard time by the POE but, really, he was just doing his job. The OP did not have the relevant visa in order to allow her son to live in the UK. The POE provided a visitor's visa and advised her to obtain the relevant resident visa for her son.
She says than an immigration official told her that the UK is the only place that does not allow spouses and dependents of its citizens into the country. Not true. The US for example does not allow the spouses and dependent of its citizens into the US without visas if the said spouses and dependents are not US citizens - and the process takes a whole lot longer than entering the UK.
This has nothing to do with human rights, this is immigration law.
Her son is now in school (free) and has access to the NHS (free)- 'technically' since the son is on a visitor's visa he does not have access to the NHS apart from emergency treatment, another little technicality the OP has forgotten, but lets not get into that).
In other countries the son would undoubtedly not have free access to both of those benefits.
I suggest the OP pay up for the necessary visa.
With respect to what would have happened had she returned to the UK with no money and then been expected to pay for the visa, had she applied for the visa in the first place she would have been asked for supporting evidence that she could support her son (s) without recourse to public funds. If she had shown that she did not have the monetary funds to support her family, she would have been refused the visa for her son until such time as co-sponsors came along to do so.
The fact that she by-passed the visa application stage, meant that she also bypassed proving the monetary requirements.
See below:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...tled/children/
Ready to be flamed .....
Jun 21st 2012, 3:56 pm
#24
After 10 years of trying
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Posts: 102
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
I'm not going to bother to flame you, SanDiegogirl. You don't know anything about me, nor do you have your facts on me straight, so it's just a waste of my time, really.
Immigration law does infringe on Human rights. End of story.
Immigration law does infringe on Human rights. End of story.
Jun 21st 2012, 4:33 pm
#25
SUPER MODERATOR
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 88,040
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
How?
Jun 21st 2012, 5:52 pm
#26
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Tunbridge Wells KENT
Posts: 2,914
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
I can just imagine what could befall any number of other individuals, British passport holders or otherwise, who flaunted what they knew to be the normal processes to expect at Immigration in the UK or worse in the hope that infringement of their human rights could be in some way be later thrown up as a defense - such as strip-searches, denial of entry and even locking up.
Even though abuse can exist, immigration and border control are there to protect the nation's interests and we should be glad that they are there to do just that in spite of the perceived bureaucracy - 9/11 and illegals and all that.
We are British Expats. I'm sure split families and split citizenships due to divorce and other traumatic circumstances are a dime a dozen for those on here, but we have to live with it as laws are laws in spite of the fact that we can somehow credit ourselves with having rights. Rights which in many cases would make life more dangerous or put us above those offered to the local population.
End of
Jun 21st 2012, 6:10 pm
#27
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2009
Location: Cannock, Staffordshire.
Posts: 304
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
I'm a little unsure how immigration law infringes human rights - especially in your situation which from what you are saying appears to just require a visa to be applied for. Can you eloborate so I can ensure I am understanding your situation correctly?
Jun 23rd 2012, 6:50 am
#28
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,378
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
TBH I'd be more concerned for those UK citizens who want to live in UK but have a "foreign" spouse and under new regulations are going to be required to find more than 20 times the cost of a child visa (plus spousal visa cost) but, even then, the avenue is still going to be open for them (at a huge price) and they arent consigned to a life in a foreign country if they are desperate.
Jul 1st 2012, 9:33 am
#29
Not actually a squirrel
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,446
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
It might have been an infringement of "Human Rights" had you not had any avenue for getting your child into the country but it seems that there was a perfectly simple way of getting them in so in no way were you barred from living in a country where you are a citizen. The fact that it costs a bit is neither here nor there, it's a small price to pay for the privilege.
TBH I'd be more concerned for those UK citizens who want to live in UK but have a "foreign" spouse and under new regulations are going to be required to find more than 20 times the cost of a child visa (plus spousal visa cost) but, even then, the avenue is still going to be open for them (at a huge price) and they arent consigned to a life in a foreign country if they are desperate.
TBH I'd be more concerned for those UK citizens who want to live in UK but have a "foreign" spouse and under new regulations are going to be required to find more than 20 times the cost of a child visa (plus spousal visa cost) but, even then, the avenue is still going to be open for them (at a huge price) and they arent consigned to a life in a foreign country if they are desperate.
(Now if I can just win the lotto...)
Jul 3rd 2012, 2:46 am
#30
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,827
Re: I'm finally back, But what a headache!
She says than an immigration official told her that the UK is the only place that does not allow spouses and dependents of its citizens into the country. Not true. The US for example does not allow the spouses and dependent of its citizens into the US without visas if the said spouses and dependents are not US citizens - and the process takes a whole lot longer than entering the UK.
This has nothing to do with human rights, this is immigration law.
.....