Entering the UK- or going to happen now

I think nationality law must be one of the most complex areas of law ever

You can say that again!

I think nationality law must be one of the most complex areas of law ever

Allira

^I think nationality law must be one of the most complex areas of law ever^

You can say that again!

^I think nationality law must be one of the most complex areas of law ever^

Is this allowed? 😂😂😂

BlueBelle

I dont think anyone is getting Nana8s anger
The rules for Uk have changed and she can no longer get into Uk on her Australian passport alone

She can if she renounces her British citizenship. Then no problem.
A family member has , one British passport to come here, one German aufenthaltstitel to go back there.
Why should we be any different

nanna8 is nor coming to the UK. That is not the problem

Freya5

BlueBelle

I dont think anyone is getting Nana8s anger
The rules for Uk have changed and she can no longer get into Uk on her Australian passport alone

She can if she renounces her British citizenship. Then no problem.
A family member has , one British passport to come here, one German aufenthaltstitel to go back there.
Why should we be any different

Actually has a permanent residence pass.

Actually has a permanent residence pass.

That is different, it is not citizenship.

Rosie51

DAR that’s the norm, not something unusual being forced on people. but if the individual neither asked nor wanted it, then it is being forced on them and is not a neutral act. Especially to then charge nearly £500 to get rid of this unwanted status.

And if they didn't do this automatically for those who automatically get citizenship there would be an outcry at least as loud as the one on here at the moment when people slipped through the system and lost it.

Did these people attempt to rid themselves of their unwanted citizenship at the time, I wonder? If these young people cannot afford to have a year travelling (if that's what this is about) then they need to find a way of doing it for themselves. No government is going to change the rules for a few, especially if those few runs the country down at any opportunity.

runs run

And if they didn't do this automatically for those who automatically get citizenship there would be an outcry at least as loud as the one on here at the moment when people slipped through the system and lost it.

Applying then being granted a citizenship which you can claim by descent is one thing and a sensible idea.

Having an automatic citizenship thrust upon you which you did not want and did not apply for, then having to pay to renounce it is just plain wrong.

DaisyAnneReturns

Rosie51

DAR that’s the norm, not something unusual being forced on people. but if the individual neither asked nor wanted it, then it is being forced on them and is not a neutral act. Especially to then charge nearly £500 to get rid of this unwanted status.

And if they didn't do this automatically for those who automatically get citizenship there would be an outcry at least as loud as the one on here at the moment when people slipped through the system and lost it.

Did these people attempt to rid themselves of their unwanted citizenship at the time, I wonder? If these young people cannot afford to have a year travelling (if that's what this is about) then they need to find a way of doing it for themselves. No government is going to change the rules for a few, especially if those few runs the country down at any opportunity.

Oh for goodness' sake, this isn't just about nanna's granddaughters even if that is what has provoked the discussion. What about anybody in the same position, having unwanted British citizenship, who wants to make a one time short visit to the UK? From the outcry across the internet from those affected many had no idea that being born in another country to one parent from that country and a UK born parent conferred citizenship on them. A citizenship it would cost them almost £500 to relinquish. They've only found out because they'd like to visit the UK on the passport issued by their native country where they were born and of which they are a willing citizen. If you cannot see anything odd about that then nothing I nor anybody else says will convince you.
If you want citizenship of a country you are not resident in and have never visited then surely you'd be proactive and apply for it? Otherwise why bother?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Did these people attempt to rid themselves of their unwanted citizenship at the time, I wonder? If these young people cannot afford to have a year travelling (if that's what this is about) then they need to find a way of doing it for themselves. No government is going to change the rules for a few, especially if those few runs the country down at any opportunity.

Oh dear.

It's not a few

I don't see why someone would have to pay $1,000 to get rid of something they didn't want, probably weren't aware they had and don't need.

DD's friend (British/Australian) with four Australian children and their Australian father has booked to come over - now they all need British passports as well as their perfectly in order, valid Australian passports.
The children won't have expired British passports because they never needed or had one previously.

Perhaps the Lib Dems will get some answers.

Oh but Allira everyone but dad will have right of residence and the right to work here...........during their two or three week visit! Such a benefit!

Allira

^And if they didn't do this automatically for those who automatically get citizenship there would be an outcry at least as loud as the one on here at the moment when people slipped through the system and lost it.^

Applying then being granted a citizenship which you can claim by descent is one thing and a sensible idea.

Having an automatic citizenship thrust upon you which you did not want and did not apply for, then having to pay to renounce it is just plain wrong.

There is no legal process that I can think of that doesn't carry cost to cover the administration, be it the solicitors charges, Barristers charges or administration charges Allira.

Why should some people require exemption from paying the cost of administration when the rest of us pay it all the time if dealing with a legal procedure? All that would happen, if they excempted some from payment, is that the cost has to come from elsewhere.

It sounds (frequently) as if some on here don't want to be British. That's fine, they can relinquish their citizenship although, reasonably and rightfully there will be a cost for doing that.

Oh for goodness' sake, this isn't just about nanna's granddaughters even if that is what has provoked the discussion. What about anybody in the same position, having unwanted British citizenship, who wants to make a one time short visit to the UK? (Rosie51)

I don't know about you but I was taught to "cut your coat accordingly to your cloth" There has never been a time when everyone could afford everything they wanted.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

There is no legal process that I can think of that doesn't carry cost to cover the administration, be it the solicitors charges, Barristers charges or administration charges Allira.

You don't seem to be getting my point, DaisyAnneReyrurns and I don't know how to make it plainer.

Applying for British citizenship if one is entitled by descent is one thing and should be a simple matter of producing documents as proof and applying for a British passport - cost C£150 from overseas.

Rejecting British citizenship by descent which one didn't request, didn't want, possibly wasn't even aware of, should not be necessary if the process was as above.

Having to reject this "entitlement" which one did not request or want and paying the solicitors charges, Barristers charges or administration charges is Just Plain Wrong!.

I'm not sure how to make it even clearer.

Some people may welcome this "advantage", of course, but many will not.

Up until now people with dual nationality have been able to enter the U.K. on their ‘other passport’.
Now they can’t and it seems as though this has come without any warning.
My DD didn’t renew her British passport when her last one expired. I told her it wasn’t a good idea ( mother always knows best!) but she ignored me. Now she will have to and, luckily, she will have time to do it.
She could renounce her british citizenship but she won’t so that’s a job for this week.

I do understand what you are saying Allira. I think the problem is that I don't agree - so maybe it's me that isn't setting it out clearly

Firstly, Citizenship by descent isn’t something you “apply for”, it exists automatically under the law. If someone meets the legal criteria, they are already a citizen whether they know it or not. A passport application doesn’t create citizenship; it only confirms and documents it.

Then we need to take into account the fact that the government needs legal clarity. Citizenship carries rights (e.g., right of abode, voting, consular protection) and obligations. If someone wants to give it up, there must be a formal legal record of that decision. Otherwise, the state cannot reliably determine who is or is not a citizen.

Next, it is worth considering that renunciation protects both sides. A formal renunciation process ensures the person genuinely intends to give up citizenship, that they understand the consequences and won’t later feel able to claim rights as a citizen as they might after informally “rejecting” it.

Administrative costs reflect legal consequences. Renouncing citizenship affects legal status, immigration control, and sometimes international law obligations. Governments typically charge fees to process and formally record such status changes.

There is also the immigration statistics argument. The policy was partly aimed at improving immigration statistics. We know Governments need accurate (improved) data on who is legally a citizen versus who is a foreign national. People who are technically citizens by descent might otherwise be counted as immigrants or visa holders. A formal renunciation process (if that is what the citizen wants) clarifies the record and avoids double counting or legal ambiguity. Looking at it from that view, it’s not about forcing unwanted citizenship; it’s about legal certainty and administrative clarity.

The debate really hinges on a deeper principle than the original post. Should citizenship by descent be an automatic legal status that exists regardless of awareness or should citizenship require some form of affirmative acceptance?

That’s the philosophical and legal tension at the heart of the disagreement. The rest is just how it affects someone personally. No government can ever get that right for everyone.

Firstly, Citizenship by descent isn’t something you “apply for”, it exists automatically under the law. If someone meets the legal criteria, they are already a citizen whether they know it or not. A passport application doesn’t create citizenship; it only confirms and documents it.

Yes, that is what I said too but I asked if this should not be automatic.

Administrative costs reflect legal consequences. Renouncing citizenship affects legal status, immigration control, and sometimes international law obligations. Governments typically charge fees to process and formally record such status changes.

If it wasn't automatic then there would be no legal consequences or costs if not requested under a right to do so.

There is also the immigration statistics argument. The policy was partly aimed at improving immigration statistics.

Oh, I think it's all to do with massaging the statistics.
The same way that citizens of Trinidad and Tobago were treated last year with 24 hours notice.

The debate really hinges on a deeper principle than the original post. Should citizenship by descent be an automatic legal status that exists regardless of awareness or should citizenship require some form of affirmative acceptance?

That's well put and what I was trying to say!

And we all have personal anecdotes we could use and often posters share a problem or something which has upset them in order to ask others for opinions.

I was going to read through this thread at some point.

But it appears to be so riddled with errors, I dont think I will.

How about if somebody born in another country, a citizen with a valid passport from their native country, but a dual British citizen by descent, is allowed to still visit the UK on their legal passport with an ETA just like any other national from their home country? Why insist they must take out a British passport which might only be for a few days visit? This previously was the situation verified by PamelaJ1. For residency and working then maybe the British passport might be necessary but not for short visits.

Allira

And we all have personal anecdotes we could use and often posters share a problem or something which has upset them in order to ask others for opinions.

We do. However, the analysis of the OP tells us that:

The tone is predominantly angry, frustrated, and sarcastic.
There’s a strong sense of indignation (“absolutely furious,” “How dare they?”) and resentment toward the policy.
The final line about arriving “in a little boat from Calais” adds clear sarcasm meant to criticise the situation.

I'm not sure how it can be presented as "sharing a problem". Those asking others for opinions usually use "AIBU" or "Chat". Because of the tone of the OP it's difficult to discuss the politics - but we have tried.

Rosie51

How about if somebody born in another country, a citizen with a valid passport from their native country, but a dual British citizen by descent, is allowed to still visit the UK on their legal passport with an ETA just like any other national from their home country? Why insist they must take out a British passport which might only be for a few days visit? This previously was the situation verified by PamelaJ1. For residency and working then maybe the British passport might be necessary but not for short visits.

Under the British Nationality Act 1981, a person who holds British citizenship has the right of abode in the UK. That means:

They cannot be refused entry.
They cannot enter “as a visitor.”
They do not need permission to enter.

So from the government’s perspective, it makes no legal sense for a British citizen to apply for:

A visa
An ETA
Visitor status

They already have a stronger, automatic right.

This may still be possible from other countries but that doesn't mean it will continue.