First Calais ‘Jungle’ camp children arrive in UK

[JAG]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Thinking a bit more about it, they may be a technical detail which could make obtaining a UK visa for more difficult than it would be were she your step daughter rather than natural daughter.

 

She is entitled to British citizenship, and it is technically against the immigration rules to issue persons entitled to British citizenship a visa as this places a time restriction on their stay in the UK, British citizens cannot legally have such a restriction placed upon them.

 

However, considering when you intend to visit you have ample time to register her as a British citizen and obtain a British passport for her. If you need more advice I suggest starting a topic in the Visas and migration to other countries forum.

 

 

I will thank you. When I made enquiries about British Citizenship several years ago I was told she didn't qualify.

[Ace of Pop]

Most countries have criteria in place before you can sponsor a relative to arrive as an immigrant, they vary from country to country, but they include:
 
--degree of relationship (immediate family member)
--Legal status of the applicant (someone who is not yet a permanent resident of the country may not apply for family members).
--Ability to financially support the immigrants.
 

Exelent idea.The Thai Way . 800 k in the Bank every year or sod off back home and let them feed You.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[transam]

Many a farang in LOS cannot return to the UK with their legal Thai wife if they wanted too  because they cannot meet the financial criteria demanded by their home country, yet foreigners are being taken in with absolutely sod all.....

 

Someone said here.."But these 'children' have family here and speak English"....Well my answer to that is....Half of India has the same, so is it OK for them too..

[mokwit]

12 hours ago, JAG said:

Perhaps off topic, but what reallyboils my p*ss: I have an 11 year old daughter here. She was born 6 months before the rule change which would have allowed her a British Passport. I married her mother after she was born.  We live as a happy conventional nuclear family here in Thailand.

 

Now I want to take her with me to the UK, for a brief (3 week) visit next year in March/April, to meet my few remaining relatives in the UK.

 

The probability is that she will be denied a visa.

 

Your only hope is to convert to Islam. Should then be no problem getting her into UK/getting citizenship.

 

Not making fun of your difficulties - you have my sincere sympathy - just pointing out the facts as they seem to be.

[transam]

[SgtRock]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Most countries have criteria in place before you can sponsor a relative to arrive as an immigrant, they vary from country to country, but they include:

 

--degree of relationship (immediate family member)

--Legal status of the applicant (someone who is not yet a permanent resident of the country may not apply for family members).

--Ability to financially support the immigrants.

 

 

 

 

Just could not help myself.

 

Forget conventional norms and what the laws are, especially in the hand wringing, pussy-footing UK and EU.

 

As I said in a previous post, what matters is the Army of Human Rights Lawyers throughout the EU and the UK who are rubbing their collective hands in glee at the the taxpayers money that will be zooming straight into their pockets.

 

One photo is all  that is needed to show how <deleted> up the UK / EU is.

 

 

This sadly, is what turns people against any sort of assistance for people that are in genuine need.

 

These, by any definition known to man, are not children. They lost the right to be classed as children at least a decade ago.

[SgtRock]

32 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You have a right to be p****d off and that is sadly why some people in the voted in the referendum to get out of the EU who demand, bully and force the government to take these so called refugees. I think SgtRock was being sarcastic about the veil and Jihab but once again dressing like that seems to get sympathy and priority as the authorities and people are scared of offending which I believe to be ridiculous.

 

If anything it was a little bit tongue in cheek.

 

The fact of the matter is, if Jag's daughter can set foot on British soil, she is in for good.

[SgtRock]

And '' News '' just in.

 

That anyone with more than a single brain cell would already be aware of.

 

Quote

More than two-thirds of refugees arriving in the UK who had their age assessed were in fact over 18, Home Office figures reveal.

Data from the year ending in June reveals that of 933 refugees whose ages were disputed, 68 per cent were deemed to be adults.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-refugees-migrants-two-thirds-home-office-dental-teeth-david-davies-a7369186.html

 

Can we now get some photo's of those 634 lying barstewards being deported.

[JAG]

1 hour ago, SgtRock said:

 

If anything it was a little bit tongue in cheek.

 

The fact of the matter is, if Jag's daughter can set foot on British soil, she is in for good.

I don't want her to "be in for good". I just want her to meet my brother, his family and my aunt and cousins. I want her to get just a little understanding of what made her daddy the silly old fool he is. If she had British citizenship that would be great, in due course she could decide what she wants. Not much to ask, after all I served my country for 32 years!

 

But no, when I asked about a passport ' no, she doesn't qualify."  Doubtless the same will be true of a visa. Bitter? Yes, f'in  furious when I see these "children" being welcomed thus, and my child can't come with me.

[SgtRock]

On 10/20/2016 at 10:31 AM, JAG said:

I don't want her to "be in for good". I just want her to meet my brother, his family and my aunt and cousins. I want her to get just a little understanding of what made her daddy the silly old fool he is. If she had British citizenship that would be great, in due course she could decide what she wants. Not much to ask, after all I served my country for 32 years!

 

But no, when I asked about a passport ' no, she doesn't qualify."  Doubtless the same will be true of a visa. Bitter? Yes, f'in  furious when I see these "children" being welcomed thus, and my child can't come with me.

 

32 Years. Kudos to you.

 

I, a mere 22 years.

 

I understand your mentality. I am in the same boat, albeit for differing reasons.

 

Just one of the reasons that I <deleted>

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

As the only people I have 'protected' or helped 'get into' the UK are members of this forum and their Thai partners, I can only surmise that you do not want those people in the UK either!

LOL. I'm pretty certain that none of them are trafficked illegally across Europe.

Given that most Thai women look much younger than they are, they would probably have more chance of getting into Britain by going to France and claiming refugee status as a child. They would even have a relative ( their husband ) already in the UK.

Edited October 20, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

32 Years. Kudos to you.

 

I, a mere 22 years.

 

I understand your mentality. I am in the same boat, albeit for differing reasons.

 

Just one of the reasons that I PUFO'd

Yes the way the UK treats its ex servicemen is shocking. It is thanks and on your way. I hope JAG that the situation changes and comes favourable to you.

[7by7]

17 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I don't see any reference on the Daily Express site you (7by7) linked to to indicate that the guy in the image is a member of staff. This link clarifies the position quite clearly I think: http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/photos-of-calais-refugee-kids-spark-uproar-but-uk-government-says-war-has-aged-them/news-story/7d8ed9e06a3b61dbeffb1fffad8e3f1f

 

Read what it says underneath the same photograph.

 

 

I did not say the Daily Express said or indicated that the man in the photograph was a member of staff; in fact the opposite!

 

What I did say was that it has since transpired that he is an interpreter; despite what your link and many other papers, including the Express, claim or hint at.

 

Of course, they are not going to correct their misinformation.

[mokwit]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I did not say the Daily Express said or indicated that the man in the photograph was a member of staff; in fact the opposite!

 

What I did say was that it has since transpired that he is an interpreter; despite what your link and many other papers, including the Express, claim or hint at.

 

Of course, they are not going to correct their misinformation.

Home Office, who confirm the man in question is NOT an interpreter. They say they do not comment on minors, all but confirming he is a refugee claiming to be a child. As reported by the Sun.

 

http://order-order.com/2016/10/20/no-man-yesterdays-sun-not-interpreter/#disqus_thread

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

Most countries have criteria in place before you can sponsor a relative to arrive as an immigrant, they vary from country to country, but they include:

 

--degree of relationship (immediate family member)

--Legal status of the applicant (someone who is not yet a permanent resident of the country may not apply for family members).

--Ability to financially support the immigrants.

 

 

Indeed; these are the eligibility requirements for joining family in the UK.

 

These requirements are the same for family of people who have asylum or humanitarian protection in the UK as they are for all other non EEA nationals; unless they meet the family reunion criteria of the refugee or humanitarian protection rules.

 

Despite what some people think, it is not a case of once in a refugee can bring their entire extended family into the UK to live off the state!

 

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Home Office, who confirm the man in question is NOT an interpreter. They say they do not comment on minors, all but confirming he is a refugee claiming to be a child. As reported by the Sun.

 

http://order-order.com/2016/10/20/no-man-yesterdays-sun-not-interpreter/#disqus_thread

 

A blogger claims that the Home Office has confirmed he is not an interpreter, claiming that the fact that the Home Office do not comment on minors as proof that the man is a refugee.

 

In fact, as anyone who has had dealings with the Home Office will confirm, they do not comment at all on individual cases; adults or minors.

 

I wonder why he did not quote the entire Home Office reply.; actually I don't, the answer is obvious.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, JAG said:

I will thank you. When I made enquiries about British Citizenship several years ago I was told she didn't qualify.

 Made enquiries of whom?

 

As you know, whilst British mothers were able to pass on their British citizenship to their children regardless of where the child was born and the mother's marital status;  prior to July 2006 children born outside the UK to British fathers who were not married to their non British mother could not automatically inherit their father's British citizenship.

 

This unfair and discriminatory law was changed w.e.f. 1st July 2006 and now British fathers have the same right in this respect as British mothers.

 

However, unmarried British fathers whose children were born outside the UK before July 2006 were, and still are, able to apply to register the child as British. Such registration would almost certainly be a simple matter had the father subsequently married the mother; as you did.

 

See Register as a British citizen especially 4. Born before 1 July 2006 to a British father and 6. Children born outside the UK

 

The only possible complication would be were you, yourself, British by descent. This means you were born outside the UK or a qualifying territory and so inherited your citizenship from one or both of your parents rather than being British in your own right (British otherwise than by descent) because you were born in the UK and at least one of your parents is British.

 

5 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't want her to "be in for good". I just want her to meet my brother, his family and my aunt and cousins. I want her to get just a little understanding of what made her daddy the silly old fool he is. If she had British citizenship that would be great, in due course she could decide what she wants. Not much to ask, after all I served my country for 32 years!

 

But no, when I asked about a passport ' no, she doesn't qualify."  Doubtless the same will be true of a visa. Bitter? Yes, f'in  furious when I see these "children" being welcomed thus, and my child can't come with me.

 

As you can see, whoever told you she could not register as British was probably mistaken.

 

Even if you are unable to register her as British, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that she would not be able to obtain a UK visit, or even settlement, visa; in fact, even from what little information you have given, the opposite.

 

With respect, if you want further advice on either I suggest that you start a topic in the visa forum rather than doing nothing except moan about it in this topic!

[JAG]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Made enquiries of whom?

 

As you know, whilst British mothers were able to pass on their British citizenship to their children regardless of where the child was born and the mother's marital status;  prior to July 2006 children born outside the UK to British fathers who were not married to their non British mother could not automatically inherit their father's British citizenship.

 

This unfair and discriminatory law was changed w.e.f. 1st July 2006 and now British fathers have the same right in this respect as British mothers.

 

However, unmarried British fathers whose children were born outside the UK before July 2006 were, and still are, able to apply to register the child as British. Such registration would almost certainly be a simple matter had the father subsequently married the mother; as you did.

 

See Register as a British citizen especially 4. Born before 1 July 2006 to a British father and 6. Children born outside the UK

 

The only possible complication would be were you, yourself, British by descent. This means you were born outside the UK or a qualifying territory and so inherited your citizenship from one or both of your parents rather than being British in your own right (British otherwise than by descent) because you were born in the UK and at least one of your parents is British.

 

 

As you can see, whoever told you she could not register as British was probably mistaken.

 

Even if you are unable to register her as British, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that she would not be able to obtain a UK visit, or even settlement, visa; in fact, even from what little information you have given, the opposite.

 

With respect, if you want further advice on either I suggest that you start a topic in the visa forum rather than doing nothing except moan about it in this topic!

I wrote to the Home Office. They replied and said she was not eligible.

 

I'll take it up again.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, transam said:

Many a farang in LOS cannot return to the UK with their legal Thai wife if they wanted too  because they cannot meet the financial criteria demanded by their home country, yet foreigners are being taken in with absolutely sod all.....

 

Regular readers of the visas and migration to ther countries forum will be well aware of my opinion of the financial requirement which came into effect in July 2012 and that I believe the previous 'adequate maintenance' requirement, with a few tweaks, was much fairer.

 

That requirement applies to all non EEA nationals seeking settlement in the UK.

 

Except, of course, refugees; many of whom have very little money; either because they had none to start with or they have spent what they had on getting them and/or their family to safety.

 

You may be happy to let these people rot and starve, even the children; I and many others are not.

 

8 hours ago, transam said:

Someone said here.."But these 'children' have family here and speak English"....Well my answer to that is....Half of India has the same, so is it OK for them too..

 

Even if half of India do have family in the UK, very doubtful, they would have to meet the relevant requirements, linked to earlier, to join them here; including the financial one.

[7by7]

20 minutes ago, JAG said:

I wrote to the Home Office. They replied and said she was not eligible.

 

I'll take it up again.

 You should.

 

Did they say why she was not eligible? I can see nothing in GUIDE UKF Registration as a British citizen Persons born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers and whose parents were not married to suggest that she is not.

Quote

The requirements you have to meet and the citizenship you will acquire if your application is successful
 
You will be entitled to registration if:

• you were born before 1 July 2006.  
• you  would have  become a British citizen automatically if your mother had been married to your natural (biological) father  
• you have never been a British citizen 
• the Secretary of State is satisfied that you are of good character........

To apply under these provisions you will need to prove your relationship with your natural father. To do this you will have to provide evidence of paternity. If you can provide genuine and reliable documents, we will recognise a man as your father in the following circumstances:

• He is named as your father on a birth certificate issued within one year of your birth, or 
• A DNA test report shows he is your father, or 
• A court has ruled that he is your father, or 
• You can provide other evidence that is sufficient to establish paternity

 

As I said, the only reason I can think of is that you are British by descent, not British otherwise than by descent, and so she would not have become a British citizen automatically had you been married to her mother.

 

But we are way off topic here; why not continue this in the appropriate forum where others, some far more knowledgeable than I, will see it and reply?

 

[transam]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Regular readers of the visas and migration to ther countries forum will be well aware of my opinion of the financial requirement which came into effect in July 2012 and that I believe the previous 'adequate maintenance' requirement, with a few tweaks, was much fairer.

 

That requirement applies to all non EEA nationals seeking settlement in the UK.

 

Except, of course, refugees; many of whom have very little money; either because they had none to start with or they have spent what they had on getting them and/or their family to safety.

 

You may be happy to let these people rot and starve, even the children; I and many others are not.

 

 

Even if half of India do have family in the UK, very doubtful, they would have to meet the relevant requirements, linked to earlier, to join them here; including the financial one.

So those being let in have shown their bank account details...?

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

So those being let in have shown their bank account details...?

 Depends on how they are applying to enter or remain and their eligibility.

 

Instead of asking stupid questions in a feeble attempt to make some sort of point, why not read the links I posted earlier?

 

There you will find the requirements dependant upon eligibility.

[Xircal]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

What I did say was that it has since transpired that he is an interpreter; despite what your link and many other papers, including the Express, claim or hint at.

 

So please provide a link to the report that states the guy in the image is an interpreter.

[7by7]

57 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

So please provide a link to the report that states the guy in the image is an interpreter.

 As I have already said, as far as I can find none of the papers claiming he is a migrant have retracted or even commented upon the assertion that he is not a migrant but an interpreter.

 

I heard it on BBC TV news and again on LBC.

 

You may question the veracity of reports from both those organisations and prefer to believe papers like The Sun, of course.

 

After all, The Sun never gets facts wrong, or does it?

 

Don't buy The Sun

 

[i claudius]

 As I have already said, as far as I can find none of the papers claiming he is a migrant have retracted or even commented upon the assertion that he is not a migrant but an interpreter.
 
I heard it on BBC TV news and again on LBC.
 
You may question the veracity of reports from both those organisations and prefer to believe papers like The Sun, of course.
 
After all, The Sun never gets facts wrong, or does it?
 
Don't buy The Sun

 

It has now been reported that he is Not an interpreter ,by the refuge council but one of the "children"
I notice that the BBC has gone very quiet about it as have the Guardian etc those saying he was an interpreter were lying

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[Xircal]

14 minutes ago, i claudius said:

It has now been reported that he is Not an interpreter ,by the refuge council but one of the "children"
I notice that the BBC has gone very quiet about it as have the Guardian etc those saying he was an interpreter were lying

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk
 

 

Yeah, I thought as much.

 

It's probably down to all those anarchists who arrived in the Calais jungle camp telling the migrants what to say when they go to register which has led to the current problem. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/no-borders-calais-violence-stirred-up-by-british-anarchists-say-french-politicians-a6832076.html

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

 

You may be happy to let these people rot and starve, even the children; I and many others are not.

 

 

 

Quote edited for brevity.

 

I doubt anyone is happy to let people rot or starve. However, some of us may think that if they start letting people that claim to be children, but are obviously too old to really be such, into Britain on false pretenses, it will only encourage even more to be sent on the dangerous journey. There is no doubt that as I write this, the traffickers are using the current admissions to recruit more victims to enrich themselves. There are millions and millions of potential victims out there, and the current situation is going to ensure much, much more human suffering at the hands of vile, evil people.

[katana]

On 19/10/2016 at 4:31 PM, Xircal said:

 

I don't see any reference on the Daily Express site you linked to to indicate that the guy in the image is a member of staff. This link clarifies the position quite clearly I think: http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/photos-of-calais-refugee-kids-spark-uproar-but-uk-government-says-war-has-aged-them/news-story/7d8ed9e06a3b61dbeffb1fffad8e3f1f

 

Read what it says underneath the same photograph.

 

"...The Home Office has been forced to confirm the unnamed asylum seeker from Afghanistan, aged by face recognition software as being 38, was a migrant and not an employee..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3854888/Charity-FALSELY-claims-38-year-old-child-asylum-seeker-actually-interpreter-one-migrant-Calais-confesses-course-majority-lie-age-UK.html

[mokwit]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mature-migrant-is-not-translator-says-home-office-qmdm708pq

[mokwit]

https://t.co/ipTtBWzJ3l