- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
You would also not be entitled to enter the USA on the visa waiver scheme, you could not get an ETA (electronic travel authority) to visit Australia, and you would similarly need a visa for some other, non-European countries for which British citizens do not. All of this can be a nuisance (you might say that you never travel outside Europe, but who knows what the future will bring?), so it would seem to me to be sensible for you to become a British citizen, cost notwithstanding, but that's just a personal point of view of course.rayd wrote:Now, I'm not too bothered about becoming a british Citizen, particularly if it's going to cost me an arm and a leg, but I am concerned about being recognised as an EU citizen/national so that I don't have to keep applying for visas.
But, I've only been abroad twice on my passport and both times been turned away from the EU gate. It doesn't say British btw at Stansted.Christophe wrote: All people with the right of abode, as evidenced either by a British citizen passport or a certificate of entitlement in another passport, are able to use the British/EU/EEA gate at UK ports of entry. Why this is not signposted I do not know. Again, I cannot readily find an official UK-based web page that states this, but it is stated on the websites of plenty of oversease British missions (e.g. from the website of the British High Commission in Australia: http://bhc.britaus.net/Visas/visadefault.asp?id=274).
The only thing that came with my passport (in 2001) was a letter telling me why I wasn't a British citizen and a suggestion that I contact the HO Nationality Directorate about becoming one. That I did, but was told I had to be naturalized.I have a certificate of entitlement in my Australian passport: when it is issued, it comes with an information sheet which does say that it enables me to use the passport to pass through the British passport holders' gate at UK ports of entry: I don't know if your passport would have come with a similar sheet?
Yes - that's why I hope someone might come up with an "official" source for the information that you need to be armed with...rayd wrote:I am naturally lothe to visit other EU countries without a visa in case I'm turned away at the border for not being either a British or EU citizen. Without something concrete in my hand to show that they are wrong!
That'll be JAJ and me.....rayd wrote:One of the gentlemen on this forum answered my query on another newsgroup, but didn't give me a reference which I can present to officials when I need it......
No chance!Christophe wrote:...Someone cleverer than I am will no doubt pop up soon!
I didn't manage to find that particular bit as it doesn't list them by para and Chapters, but I did read the chapter about 'Right of Abode'. THat indicated that I had no RoA if I wasn't at least a commonwealth citizen on 1st Jan 1983. Which worried me - so I googled around and found the 1948 Act.ppron747 wrote: The Declaration is described and quoted in para 3 of Chapter "LV" in Part Two of the IND Nationality Instructions here on the IND website. That reference - and a printout of the PDF - should certainly be enough to satisfy an Immigration Officer at Stanstead.
Your father wasn't a CUKC by birth, as he was born before 1949, he was a British subject either by birth or by descent depending on which part of India he was born in. You were similarly a born a British subject either by birth or by descent depending on where in India you were born. Your father became a CUKC in 1949 but you didn't because his father was born in the UK but yours wasn't. You weren't swept up by s. 13 because the Indian citizenship laws weren't "declared" by the Secretary of State pursuant to s. 32(8 ) because they were unduly restrictive and did not provide for Indian citizenship for all those born in India - in the view of the UK Government at the time, you ought to have been an Indian citizen rather than a UK & Colonies citizen. If you wish to become a British citizen you will need to register.rayd wrote: My father was a CUKC by birth and I was a British subject. As subsection 3 includes India where I was born and I wasn't a citizen of any other country, I can't see why I wasn't a CUKC by the 1948 Act and subsequently a BC under the 1981 Act.
Surely, by your reasoning, if I was born a British subject in 1946 - it was in British India by the way - I qualify under section 12 (1) (2) and (3) of the 1948 act to be a CUKC?penanglad wrote: Your father wasn't a CUKC by birth, as he was born before 1949, he was a British subject either by birth or by descent depending on which part of India he was born in. You were similarly a born a British subject either by birth or by descent depending on where in India you were born. Your father became a CUKC in 1949 but you didn't because his father was born in the UK but yours wasn't. You weren't swept up by s. 13 because the Indian citizenship laws weren't "declared" by the Secretary of State pursuant to s. 32(8 ) because they were unduly restrictive and did not provide for Indian citizenship for all those born in India - in the view of the UK Government at the time, you ought to have been an Indian citizen rather than a UK & Colonies citizen. If you wish to become a British citizen you will need to register.
Ppron has answered thisrayd wrote:Surely, by your reasoning, if I was born a British subject in 1946 - it was in British India by the way - I qualify under section 12 (1) (2) and (3) of the 1948 act to be a CUKC?
The chart you linked to shows that you were a British subject on the commencement of the BNA1948, it doesn't say anything about whether you would have become a CUKC on commencement.Also, under the IND flowchart Annex A here http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/docume ... iew=Binary I qualify as a BC under E - the grandfather?
Actually, the Indian princely states were protected states and were not part of the Crown's dominions until they joined the independent Dominions of India or Pakistan. That is why I said that whether he was a British subject by birth or by descent depended on where in India he was born. The reason 12(3) doesn't apply is that by 1.1.1949 all the Indian princely states had become part of either India or Pakistan.ppron747 wrote: You, like your father, were a British subject by birth in British India, when it was part of the Crown's dominions. You couldn't qualify as a CUKC under section 12(1)(a), because India was not part of the UK & Colonies on 1.1.49. Neither could you qualify under section 12(2), because in order to do so, you would have needed a 12(1) father. And you didn't fit 12(3) because British India was never a protectorate.
So to my mind, although a person born in a princely state to a British subject father would have been a British subject by virtue of his father's status as a BS, he wouldn't actually have been a BS "by descent" - he'd have been "a natural-born British subject".Any person born, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in a place where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty was at the time of that person’s birth exercising jurisdiction over British subjects, shall, if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject, be deemed to be and, in the case of a person born before the commencement of this Act, always to have been, a natural-born British subject.
I'm not actually sure that that was the case - I have a vague recollection (which I can't check in a hotel room...) that one or two of the states soldiered on alone until the 1950s. But you're absolutely right that 12(3) cannot apply - because whatever their status was, they weren't protected states so far as the UK was concerned.penanglad wrote:...The reason 12(3) doesn't apply is that by 1.1.1949 all the Indian princely states had become part of either India or Pakistan.
It seems like you have been misadvised in a number of areas:rayd wrote: Now, I'm not too bothered about becoming a british Citizen, particularly if it's going to cost me an arm and a leg, but I am concerned about being recognised as an EU citizen/national so that I don't have to keep applying for visas.
I think in that case Spain would come under pressure not to issue passports in that format. The real example you should quote is the British "EU format" passport issued to Channel Islanders and Manxmen with an endorsement removing the right to establishment in other EU states. However such persons are still "UK nationals for EU purposes" despite the endorsement, which is now an anomaly.Marco 72 wrote:I think the fact that he has a passport with "European Union" on the cover is irrelevant for EU citizenship purposes. If Span (say) started issuing passports to its stateless residents without granting them citizenship, they would still not be EU citizens, even though their passports would have "Unión Europea" on the cover.
There is one exception though. As a British subject connected with India, the original poster "rayd" would automatically lose his British nationality on acquisition of any other (eg French, American, Canadian etc).penanglad wrote: Bottom line is, as far as the UK and EU are concerned, you are treated exactly like a British citizen. You may want to register as a British citizen for travel to other countries such as the USA, but that is another issue entirely.
I was actually thinking of quoting that example, but since I had never seen one of those passports I didn't want to commit myself . So a Manx person with an endorsment in his or her passport is now an EU citizen?JAJ wrote:I think in that case Spain would come under pressure not to issue passports in that format. The real example you should quote is the British "EU format" passport issued to Channel Islanders and Manxmen with an endorsement removing the right to establishment in other EU states. However such persons are still "UK nationals for EU purposes" despite the endorsement, which is now an anomaly.
My father was born in Muzafarnagar, northern India in 1917. I was born in Poona in 1946. AFAIK, being British India, they wouldn't have been princely states.ppron747 wrote: Incidentally - to get even further away from the case - if it were, by some miracle, to emerge that neither Ray nor his father were born in British India, but had instead both been born in a princely state, Ray wouldn't be in the BS limbo in which he finds himself today.... His claim to BS would have arisen solely from granddad's birth in UK, and he'd have become a CUKC under section 12(4). But I expect that's too much to hope for....
Currently the IND is quoting 1.93 months for adult registrations (see http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/nationality/), although obviously this must vary, and your case would be more complicated than some. This figure is said to be as at the end of October 2006.rayd wrote:Does anyone know the lead time for registration at the moment? We hope to go abroad again in March and don't want to be left with my passport in the hands of the IND.
It then goes on to give contact details should you want your passport returned urgently.If you wish to apply for British citizenship and you plan to travel abroad within 12 weeks of making an application, you should not send in original passports or travel documents with your application. You may send in copies of documents certified by a solicitor. Each page of a passport must be copied.
Sorry, didn't notice the later post where he said it was definitely in British India; the original post didn't say. Muzaffarnagar was British from 1803, Poona from 1818.ppron747 wrote:Ray specified that he and his father were born in "British India" , and I was proceeding on that basis - ie that they were born in a part (or parts) of India that was (or were) not Princely States. Hence the possibility of his having been a BS "by descent" wouldn't arise.
That is interesting.Incidentally - to get even further away from the case - if it were, by some miracle, to emerge that neither Ray nor his father were born in British India, but had instead both been born in a princely state, Ray wouldn't be in the BS limbo in which he finds himself today.... His claim to BS would have arisen solely from granddad's birth in UK, and he'd have become a CUKC under section 12(4). But I expect that's too much to hope for....