leedsbird

My intention is to fly home 1 month prior and stay for at least 2 months after.

i am 29 and only moved to the states 3 years ago. i think i paid enough taxes and national insurance to cover any cost labor may impose on the NHS. the sole purpose to going to England is to spend this special occasion with my family as opposed to recieving free healthcare. it truly makes no difference since i pay healthcare here anyway, therefore it is not as if i am saving money.

My only concern is that i assume my baby would be British Citizen and therefore would i have problems coming back to the states?

Manc

what you think means nothing though.

seriously.


as much as I agree with what you wanna do, and I know you're doing it for the right reasons, it could come back to bite you in the ass.

Jerseygirl

Strictly it is not legitimate because you are intentionally going back to the UK to have your baby. You are entitled to emergency healthcare whilst in the UK. So if you were visiting family and you went into labour you would get free healthcare. How far you can stretch this is anyone's guess...I do know people who have got away with it.

You will probably find that you do have to pay something towards US healthcare and meds if applicable.

Manc is correct...what you think means nothing.

Manc

also no offence mods........

but if this were a 10 foot bargepole thread it would be closed for fear of giving out advice that some would deem illegal in nature.

this thread is no different I feel.

Jerseygirl

IMO it's all down to intention and yes what the OP intends to do is 'illegal'. If she was just visiting the UK without the intention of having her baby there it wouldn't be.

Manc

I'd hazard as guess that her spouting it on a messageboard is intention enough.
especially as we know the consulate reads this.

I feel bad though, as I said, I think if you're British and want your kid to be British it should be allowed.
but it isn't.

leedsbird

Jersey girl, i'm not quite sure what you mean about us healthcare and meds? i pay my health cost every week here and intend on doing this until i leave.

if i have to pay in England so be it, this is not my concern.

will my child be British or american? the father is american, therefore does it get the right to have both?

Manc

no matter where the child is born it will be a dual citizen.

Manc

EOM

Ray

Will airlines take 8 month pregnant women ...

Jerseygirl

Fully agree with you (that's a laugh you and I agreeing ) Not only do they read the forums they have software to monitor them.

It is normal for you to have a co-pay in the US...depending on your policy it could run into a considerable about especially if there are complications. You may have meds insurance you may not. Meds in the US are costly.

Jerseygirl

Approx 34 weeks...but the thought of making a long haul flight at 34 weeks brings tears to my eyes.

fatbrit

Both. See post #3.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

First of all, I noted you did not ask about the cost. Although on that score, I wonder if your US insurance would cover you or that NHS would even ask.

I was recently in Canada and I was curious, I was informed by lay hotel staff that I would be covered for emergency health care. Inasmuch as I was carrying my Kaiser-Permanente card, I inquired if Canada NHS would bill Kaiser and no one knew. I just might take time to ask Kaiser

Second -- Immigration Answers

Based upon YOUR descriptions, your child will either be a US citizen at birth OR will be entitled to a very summary immigrant process which will result in her becoming a US Citizen at time of admission.

One -- you were already told the conditions under which your child would be a US citizen at birth -- if so, put in the passport application at London Embassy.

Two -- if the child is NOT a US citizen at birth, the child can return with YOU on your FIRST trip back to the US provided you return before the child turns two years of age. Although it is not notionally required, it is best to obtain a "transportation letter" from the Embassy in London.

Upon landing in the US, the child will be admitted to permanent residence. However, from your fact pattern it seems that at the time of landing and admission to lawful permanent residence, he will also be in the legal custody of your US citizen husband and will still be under 18 years of age. According to section 320 of the Immigration & Nationality Act, he will then lose his permanent residence status due her instant naturalization by "operation of law."

The difference between these two paths may likely have effect on your child's eventual right to elected President of the United States. [BTW, I recently saw an editorial which stated that Arnold Schwarzennegger does not qualify to become Vice-President. Maybe not true -- the "natural born" clause only effects the ability to be "elected" president. Also, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone -- he was a citizen at birth -- but is he a "natural born" citizen?].

General caveat -- I may be a lawyer, but I am not YOUR lawyer. This is not intended as specific advice but is a discussion based upon YOUR statement of facts.

Good luck.

janette

Maybe I'just too cynical but if cost wasn't an issue, surely you would book into a private hospital here and pay for your care? Going into labour with a full term baby is NOT an emergency, so coming to England with the intention of having your child here and not paying for treatment, is NOT legal. Whether we agree or not, you are no longer a resident, you have not paid national insurance contributions since you left, so are not eligible for non emergency treatment on the NHS. When my children were born, it was normal practise for your mother to come to your home to help, not for you to go to her's. If your real motive is to be with your mother, why can she not visit you instead?When my niece was born, in Atlanta, my sister in law had her mother come to stay with them. That way, there was no doubt about her being a US citizen as well as British.