Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
The issue is that, by "The British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) (Amendment) Regulations 2015", for the purposes of section 50(9A)(c) of the British Nationality Act 1981, "The prescribed requirement as to proof of paternity is that the person must satisfy the Secretary of State that he is the natural father of the child." Note that it does not say, "The prescribed requirement as to proof of paternity is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person is the natural father of the child". Section 50(9A)(c) says, "For the purposes of this Act a child's father is ... a person who satisfies prescribed requirements as to proof of paternity."
I thought it was about the treatment of those whose immigration status is not explicitly and accessibly documented. A UK birth certificate from before 1983 is pretty good evidence of UK citizenship, and a naturalisation certificate or a non-ILR BRP is pretty good evidence. In other cases, demonstrating the status is more complicated.
Some info on the author of the report.Obie wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 9:24 pmAnother extremely fearful report, which sets out the extremely dreadful situation in the UK.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Page ... 3&LangID=E
It address the situation in the UK post brexit and the windrush scandal.
Here's a recent case.Richard W wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:40 amThere's also the issue of whether a dead man can satisfy the Home Secretary that he is the father of his illegitimate child. I have not heard a reassuring "of course he can" or even "yes, if he did so while alive". Must we await case law on this issue? Thank goodness a passport application is retrospectively construed as an application for registration.
This has no bearing on whether a dead man can satisfy the SoS that he is somebody's father. Indeed, paternity was not an issue.
So? The question is whether a dead man can satisfy the Home Secretary of anything, not whether he can be shown to be related to someone, or else if the judges have effectively changed the wording of the regulations.
I see no evidence of that view. The problem seems rather that to be that the claimant seems very closely related to one alleged full sibling, but not so closely related to another. This case was a dispute as to the facts.
Please note "some form of leave to remain".
EU citizens living in the UK risk becoming the next victims of Theresa May's "hostile environment" policy after Brexit, the former head of the UK civil service has told Business Insider.
Lord Kerslake, who led the civil service between 2012 and 2014, told BI that the combination of May's anti-immigration policies and the Home Office's inability to cope with the huge numbers of EU citizens applying to remain in the UK, meant EU citizens were now at risk.
"I think it is a real issue, because of a combination of a very hostile policy and uncertain systems that are uncertain as we know and put the onus on the individual to prove their position rather than the other way round," Kerslake said.
"The Home Office has improved, but Windrush has shown that significant issues about its systems still remain."
The Home Office faces the huge administrative task of processing the applications of nearly 4 million EU nationals in the near future, as well as trying to prepare and implement a post-Brexit immigration policy which does not currently exist.
Concerns about the future of EU citizens in the UK were amplified in April following a series of damning Guardian reports revealed that the Home Office had targeted numerous "Windrush" immigrants, who moved to the UK legally from the Caribbean from 1948. The resulting scandal ultimately forced the resignation of Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
Kerslake told BI that the Home Office needed to reassure European citizens living in the UK that they would not be similarly targeted.
"Given what happened with Windrush, the onus is now on the government and the Home Office to reassure us that it isn't going to be a problem [for EU citizens]" Kerslake said.
"In other words, I won't believe it until somebody shows me it isn't going to be a problem," he added.
A Home Office spokesperson told Business Insider: "We are developing from scratch a new streamlined, user-friendly scheme for EU citizens to safeguard their right to stay in the UK after we leave the EU.
"Every EU citizen resident in the UK on the day the transition period ends in December 2020 will be eligible for some form of leave to remain, subject to criminality checks. We have committed to ensuring that applications will not be refused on minor technicalities and that caseworkers processing applications will exercise discretion in favour of the applicant where appropriate.
"We will be setting out further details before the summer and EU citizens will have plenty of time to make an application. But we have also been clear that we will exercise discretion if there are good reasons why someone has not been able to make an application before the June 2021 deadline."
I'm in this situation obie, as are 100s of thousands I suspect. Born in UK to settled father and he had to return/destroy ILR after becoming BC.vinny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:27 pmWho's next may be the UK-born children to an ILR parent who subsequently naturalises. When an ILR BRP holder naturalises, they are threaten with fines if they do not return their ILR BRP to be destroyed. This leaves their UK-born children without the proof of their automatic British citizenship!
I doubt there would be many people in this position.
when people were asked whether “Britain needs a strong ruler willing to break the rules”, 54% agreed and only 23% said no.