Interesting article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-44041680
- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, Administrator
Some info on the author of the report.Obie wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 10:24 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 9:40 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 5:27 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.FighterBoy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:46 pmI'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.
when people were asked whether “Britain needs a strong ruler willing to break the rules”, 54% agreed and only 23% said no.
What if he was issued an IRL confirmation letter instead, sent that in when getting naturalised, and the home office subsequently kept/destroyed the letter? That is similar to this BRP situation.secret.simon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:17 amI doubt there would be many people in this position.FighterBoy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:46 pmI'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.
The requirement to destroy BRPs (which only started getting issued in the past ten years) only came in in the past three-four years.
The policy only adversely affects children born after one parent acquired an ILR BRP, but whose parent subsequently naturalized in the past three-four years. That is a relatively narrow field. While certainly in the hundreds, and possibly the low thousands, I'm fairly certain that it would not impact hundreds of thousands of applicants.
If your father acquired ILR in the 1980s, that would have been stamped into his non-British passport. Passports are the property of the government that issue them and it is highly unlikely that the British government would have damaged or destroyed any part of a non-British passport. Therefore, the proof of your British citizenship by birth in the UK to a settled parent would your father's non-British passport with the ILR stamp or vignette dated before your birth and have nothing to do with the BRP destruction point made by Vinny and Obie.
I said this years ago, what's the point of a law saying UK born children to a settled parent are British, if in many many cases it's impossible to prove?Richard W wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 1:01 pmSo do you believe that the documentary difficulties with proving that one was born to settled parents are deliberate? Shirley Williams predicted a bureaucratic mess at the time (1981), and we are seeing more and more of it. For instance, we need either a register of British citizens (or a good approximation thereto - passport office records are only a start) or a simplifying rule such as the second generation born in the UK is automatically British. Passport applications are already asking where grandparents were born, and it is about time to start asking about great grandparents.
It is also worrying that no long term record seems to be being kept about who is known to have acquired settled status.
It's in Hansard, which is available for free on-line. That's where I found Shirley Williams' comments.FighterBoy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:44 pmIf anyone has footage/transcripts of BNA 1981 being debated in parliament, please share. The passport office are certainly grafting hard ...
Not at all sure why you think the transcripts of the debates would help in any way with the Passport Office. Neither the courts nor the government use the debates as the basis for interpreting legislation. It is the text of the law and general judicial principles that affect the interpretation of the law. If an MP or even a minister said during a debate that the law was supposed to work in a particular manner during a debate, that is irrelevant in terms of how it actually works.FighterBoy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:44 pmIf anyone has footage/transcripts of BNA 1981 being debated in parliament, please share.
I never said that! My point was if they've introduced a law then the government should take necessary administrative steps alongside it. I assume that's why permanent birth/marriage/death certs exist.secret.simon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:20 amNot at all sure why you think the transcripts of the debates would help in any way with the Passport Office. Neither the courts nor the government use the debates as the basis for interpreting legislation. It is the text of the law and general judicial principles that affect the interpretation of the law. If an MP or even a minister said during a debate that the law was supposed to work in a particular manner during a debate, that is irrelevant in terms of how it actually works.
