British Citizenship are my children entitled?

[NanLaew]

^ The token POM! Good luck on this. A very sensible read about someone making long-range plans for the family versus the drama queens on the visa pages.

[Crossy]

An off topic and incorrect post removed, along with replies.

[Inepto Cracy]

Short answer to this. I have tried this personally. Your British Citizenship was passed down through decendantcy, therefore you cannot pass this onto your kids. End of discussion. I have the reject letter if you want a copy.

[ozsamurai]

So far you are the only one who has said that it can not be done, so yes I would like to see the letter if you would be kind enough to post it here. Perhaps an explanation of your own circumstances as well to clarify the rejection?

Oz

[MANICMINER]

So far you are the only one who has said that it can not be done, so yes I would like to see the letter if you would be kind enough to post it here. Perhaps an explanation of your own circumstances as well to clarify the rejection?

Oz

Even if you cannot register your children as British, as you plan on settling in the U.K, your children can still become naturalised British - your wife will have to go down this route anyway. The process is longer, but maybe better for your children in the distant future, because naturalised citizens do pass their citizenship automatically onto their children. If you register, they do not.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Even if you cannot register your children as British, as you plan on settling in the U.K, your children can still become naturalised British - your wife will have to go down this route anyway. The process is longer, but maybe better for your children in the distant future, because naturalised citizens do pass their citizenship automatically onto their children. If you register, they do not.

please read post 22 then tell me what you didnt understand?

why do you keep posting when you clearly dont have a clue?

[MANICMINER]

Even if you cannot register your children as British, as you plan on settling in the U.K, your children can still become naturalised British - your wife will have to go down this route anyway. The process is longer, but maybe better for your children in the distant future, because naturalised citizens do pass their citizenship automatically onto their children. If you register, they do not.

please read post 22 then tell me what you didnt understand?

why do you keep posting when you clearly dont have a clue?

Maybe you should reread post 22. Whilst your at it, reread posts 2 and 14. You have given incorrect information in 3 posts. Maybe you should stop posting.

[7by7]

So far you are the only one who has said that it can not be done, so yes I would like to see the letter if you would be kind enough to post it here. Perhaps an explanation of your own circumstances as well to clarify the rejection?

Oz

Even if you cannot register your children as British, as you plan on settling in the U.K, your children can still become naturalised British - your wife will have to go down this route anyway. The process is longer, but maybe better for your children in the distant future, because naturalised citizens do pass their citizenship automatically onto their children. If you register, they do not.

One cannot judge one case on the results of previous ones, as each is decided upon it's own merits. That's why it's called Registration at Discretion.

Manicminer;

Children under 18 cannot be naturalised as British; they have to register.

Adults 18 and over cannot register as British, they have to naturalise.

However, once British, naturalised or registered, there is absolutely no difference in status or rights. This includes being classed as British otherwise than by descent and so being able to pass one's British citizenship onto one's children no matter where they are born.

[MANICMINER]

So far you are the only one who has said that it can not be done, so yes I would like to see the letter if you would be kind enough to post it here. Perhaps an explanation of your own circumstances as well to clarify the rejection?

Oz

Even if you cannot register your children as British, as you plan on settling in the U.K, your children can still become naturalised British - your wife will have to go down this route anyway. The process is longer, but maybe better for your children in the distant future, because naturalised citizens do pass their citizenship automatically onto their children. If you register, they do not.

One cannot judge one case on the results of previous ones, as each is decided upon it's own merits. That's why it's called Registration at Discretion.

Manicminer;

Children under 18 cannot be naturalised as British; they have to register.

Adults 18 and over cannot register as British, they have to naturalise.

However, once British, naturalised or registered, there is absolutely no difference in status or rights. This includes being classed as British otherwise than by descent and so being able to pass one's British citizenship onto one's children no matter where they are born.

Thanks for the clarification. As you stated previously that you did not believe registration was simple case of being resident for 3 years, so if the op is unable to get them registered, would they then be able to wait till they are 18 and then get naturalised?

[7by7]

I may be wrong, but as I understand it once they are adults they lose all possibility of using their fathers British nationality to gain the same for themselves.

Instead they would have to apply for naturalisation in their own right and satisfy all the requirements; including being resident in the UK for at least the previous 5 years, having no time restriction on their stay in the UK (ILR or the equivalent) for at least 12 months and KOLL.

[7by7]

Addendum to above.

Their mother, of course, can apply for naturalisation once she is qualified, and there is no reason why the children cannot apply for registration at the same time, assuming they are still under 18.

To follow this route they would all need to have no time limit on their stay in the UK, i.e. ILR, so this would take them at least 5 years.

See British citizenship basics.

Apols for missing that out when I typed the above.

[MANICMINER]

Addendum to above.

Their mother, of course, can apply for naturalisation once she is qualified, and there is no reason why the children cannot apply for registration at the same time, assuming they are still under 18.

To follow this route they would all need to have no time limit on their stay in the UK, i.e. ILR, so this would take them at least 5 years.

See British citizenship basics.

Apols for missing that out when I typed the above.

If you have to be ILR to register, and it takes 5 years, does that not make the 3 year grandfather rule impossible to achieve?

[Richard W]

However, once British, naturalised or registered, there is absolutely no difference in status or rights.

I don't believe this has been true since Section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014 came into force. A person who is only naturalised as British may be deprived of citizenship if while a citizen he or she has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and the Secretary of State reasonably believes he or she is able to acquire the nationality of another country or territory under its laws.

There is no such sanction against those registered as British.

I admit that being caught spying against the UK for Australia seems unlikely.

[ozsamurai]

I will make sure to hide my trench coat and dark sunglasses when/if I apply.

Oz

[7by7]

Addendum to above.

Their mother, of course, can apply for naturalisation once she is qualified, and there is no reason why the children cannot apply for registration at the same time, assuming they are still under 18.

To follow this route they would all need to have no time limit on their stay in the UK, i.e. ILR, so this would take them at least 5 years.

See British citizenship basics.

Apols for missing that out when I typed the above.

If you have to be ILR to register, and it takes 5 years, does that not make the 3 year grandfather rule impossible to achieve?

No, as that would be applying under a different part of the regulations where ILR is not required.

Which is why I said "To follow this route........"

Richard W; are you sure?

If so, my wife, who is naturalised, would lose her British citizenship were she to be convicted of acting in such a manner, but my step daughter who was under 18 at the time and so registered would not.

Seems very strange.

[Richard W]

Richard W; are you sure?

If so, my wife, who is naturalised, would lose her British citizenship were she to be convicted of acting in such a manner, but my step daughter who was under 18 at the time and so registered would not.

Seems very strange.

I double-checked, but I couldn't see any provision for removing British nationality from those properly registered as British who'd managed to get rid of their other nationalities.

This clause will be used against Al Jedda when he wins his second appeal against deprivation, assuming he doesn't (or hasn't) give up in view of this new law. Al Jedda's connection is by naturalisation. Note that Al Jedda has not been convicted of anything relevant - please disabuse yourself of the belief that convictions are required for people to be deprived of British nationality. I think this clause is also worded so that the fact that the new foreign nationality would be denied contrary to law cannot be used as an argument in court.

Registration is primarily used for people who are 'sort of British'. For example, your step-daughter became the daughter of a British citizen, so it makes sense to allow her to be British, just as any child born to your wife after naturalisation would be British regardless of its paternity. Any such hypothetical child would also be immune to Section 66. Until the law was changed to prevent any more David Hickses, unlike the situation for naturalisation, being of good character was required for registration under few if any provisions - home is where they have to take you in.

A cynical back-up to my interpretation is that it prevents the 2nd generation of British Jews born abroad from being deprived of British nationality because of the existence of the Jewish Right of Return. When deprivation of citizenship of dual nationals was being introduced, it was promised that British Jews would not be deprived of British nationality on the basis of the Jewish Right of Return. There are several other cases where people preserving Britishness only by registration could have it threatened by a right to another nationality - many people who have never been Irish have a right to become Irish. Now in the case of potential Irish citizenship, I believe this can be renounced - renouncing it would make one change from Section 66-vulnerable British to British and Irish, and then to permanent British. This would not work with a right to a citizenship that prohibited dual nationality.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Richard W

[7by7]

I sort of see what you're saying; but still can't get my head around the logic of someone naturalised being liable to lose their citizenship while in the same circumstances someone registered wouldn't.

As far as I know, it has always been the case that a British citizen could not have their citizenship removed if doing so would make them stateless.

I have to say that I am very concerned when you say "please disabuse yourself of the belief that convictions are required for people to be deprived of British nationality."

One of the very foundations of British democracy and justice is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I don't want to comment on any individual, but if it is true that a conviction is not required, and I have no reason to doubt your word, and that a person can be deprived of their British nationality on suspicion alone, that is very worrying.

[Richard W]

As far as I know, it has always been the case that a British citizen could not have their citizenship removed if doing so would make them stateless.

I don't believe this is the case - I get the impression that concern over statelessness is a post-war phenomenon. It has long been possible to remove British citizenship obtained by deception even though it make someone stateless, and now the 2014 act allows a British citizen by naturalisation to be made stateless.

One of the very foundations of British democracy and justice is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I don't want to comment on any individual, but if it is true that a conviction is not required, and I have no reason to doubt your word, and that a person can be deprived of their British nationality on suspicion alone, that is very worrying.

The US Court of Appeals has declared David Hicks' charge, let alone conviction, invalid. Besides, he hadn't yet been misconvicted under duress when he was deprived of British citizenship. The ex-Britons killed by US drone strikes hadn't been convicted - if they had, they'd have been safe in prison!

That said, suspicion alone is not enough - the Home Secretary has to believe the 'charges'.

[Richard W]

I sort of see what you're saying; but still can't get my head around the logic of someone naturalised being liable to lose their citizenship while in the same circumstances someone registered wouldn't.

I did worry that my logic might have gone awry. However, the words from the horse's mouth (Lord Taylor of Holbeach, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Criminal Information) on 12 May 2014 are:

It will apply only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who register acquired citizenships under the provisions of the 1981 Act, as those provide for children who acquire British citizenship.