This is moronic. A 15 week old kid born in London to parents who between them have lived here for over 30 years doesn't have the right to live here.

This ******* country

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 78421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So much for not being able to enforce our borders.

The usual suspects should be along any moment to ignore the topic and have a pop at the OP.

specifying that she must not work or use public services.

These 15wk old babies coming here and taking our jobs. No wonder our Chantelle-Cherries can’t find a job

What's the actual Law on this?

It seems strange but I presume they must be acting to the law?

Have they made the wrong choice by giving the child an American passport?

There has to be more to this, it sounds ridiculous!!

Without going into the specifics of this case I’m sure the OP is sat frothing at the mouth by his keyboard waiting for the ‘usual suspects’ to come along ( anyone who is anti on mass immigration or not a libtard) so he can spend all day disagreeing and arguing with them. I’m off out in the sunshine ...

It is the Law and whilst on a 6 month visa the parents can apply and would get a similar right to reside with the parents as they do. I know at face value it looks odd but although not involved in immigration I do see a lot of both sides of migration which is the good and bad. Give all children born here British citizenship and you immediately give their parent or parents the right to live here permanently under a right to family life I imagine and if that is what folk want then that is fine but we need to excercise caution given the state of the World and the unsavoury characters already allowed to stay here

Blackrod wrote:Without going into the specifics of this case I’m sure the OP is sat frothing at the mouth by his keyboard waiting for the ‘usual suspects’ to come along ( anyone who is anti on mass immigration or not a libtard) so he can spend all day disagreeing and arguing with them. I’m off out in the sunshine ...

There’s the first one. He’s even masquerading an attempt to make it look like he’s not doing it.

I find it a little odd that a US citizen, who will have fulfilled visa requirements to come to UK and who's worked in (UK) Parliament, hasn't taken a look at immigration and citizenship rights in both the US and the UK and worked out what he needs to do for his daughter's UK status.

This is not a "UK thing" - residency/immigration/work permits rights have got rules in all countries.

All this about backdating world culture, asking England to apologise for building Dublin and Lutyen's New Dehli and the railways of Agentina etc., we begin by backdating all post-war immigration statuses to fixed working contracts only.

We have invasive human species not native to this country, taking over. It's not healthy for the indigenous population, Buddhism in schools etc.

Lord Beamish wrote:There’s the first one. He’s even masquerading an attempt to make it look like he’s not doing it.

So what? What do you expect a load of @rse licking psychophants to agree.with everything you and this OP think? Its a free country still in some ways
If the OP thinks the country is *****,* then he's free to leave. We're not under extreme left or right rule just yet.

Stayingup wrote:So what? What do you expect a load of @rse licking psychophants to agree.with everything you and this OP think? Its a free country still in some ways
If the OP thinks the country is *****,* then he's free to leave. We're not under extreme left or right rule just yet.

No. It’s clear from my initial post that I want people to debate the issue, and not attack the OP.

Pstotto wrote:All this about backdating world culture, asking England to apologise for building Dublin and Lutyen's New Dehli and the railways of Agentina etc., we begin by backdating all post-war immigration statuses to fixed working contracts only.

We have invasive human species not native to this country, taking over. It's not healthy for the indigenous population, Buddhism in schools etc.

Actually Buddbism is quite enlightening and a year in a monastery could serve some of our young well.

On the other side of the coin, there's a baby due to be born in the UK, who will be forced to be a US citizen even though he/she will be 7th or thereabouts in line to our throne.

Lord Beamish wrote:No. It’s clear from my initial post that I want people to debate the issue, and not attack the OP.

Oh I see your judge are you? Obviously you know that people will attack this OP. I wonder why?

It's not, it's rubbish and demented. Dalai Lama when he dies comes back to possess a new-born child????????? If it's true put a stake in his heart, if it's not, it's demented.

Reach Enlightenement??????????????? For the sake of all sentient beings???????????????????? Utter drivel. Its values are alien to the UK and causing harm in schools etc.

Try telling that to the Muslims in MYANMAR about Buddhism
In fact name me a religion where slaughter has not taken place because of the presumed beliefs

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is moronic. A 15 week old kid born in London to parents who between them have lived here for over 30 years doesn't have the right to live here.

This ******* country

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 78421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So much for not being able to enforce our borders.

Without wishing to attack you as the Police are already on this thread how can enforcing our borders be applied to someone already here for years. I have to say I do think this is nonsense by the authorities but there just too many examples of nonsense in this country now. Best get out whilst you can.

It's OK, he can return via the Irish backstop.

Stayingup wrote:Oh I see your judge are you? Obviously you know that people will attack this OP. I wonder why?

Because if their inability to properly debate, I expect.

Lord Beamish wrote:Because if their inability to properly debate, I expect.

When you say debate, Has the OP ever admitted to being wrong on any subject he's ever debated on here?

Because that's debating, putting each others thoughts out there and working together for an answer/conclusion out.

Not stating your opinion as fact and without taking any others view onboard.

Quickenthetempo wrote:When you say debate, Has the OP ever admitted to being wrong on any subject he's ever debated on here?

Because that's debating, putting each others thoughts out there and working together for an answer/conclusion out.

Not stating your opinion as fact and without taking any others view onboard.

If i am wrong on the facts of something then obviously i don't continue to believe the wrong thing. I do my best to never have wrong information, and only post what i know to be true. This minimises the need to admit being wrong.

If you can find something i was factually wrong about, and haven't admitted to, then by all means call me out for it.

And i never state my opinion as fact. If i say something is true then i can back it up.

So a couple not born in the uk but are naturalised have a 12 week old baby with a US passport.

How is the immigration officer to know the child is born in the uk?

All this could and will be sorted when the parents get the child a uk passport they are entitled too.

I know a Spanish person who came to the UK specifically to give birth here so that her daughter would have a dual passport. It worked.

Besides being arguably the worst Prime Minister we’ve ever had, Theresa May could also make a claim to be one of the most unpleasant Home Secretaries of modern times. The ‘hostile environment’ policy she introduced in the name of trying (and failing) to meet wholly unrealistic immigration targets has caused untold and unnecessary misery for thousands. This case is yet another example of how unfair the policy is and how badly it reflects on the UK as a country. To think this policy was brought in during the Coalition government when the Lib Dems were claiming to mitigate the worst excesses of the Conservatives makes you wonder how on earth a supposedly progressive party could go along with it.

Lord Beamish wrote:No. It’s clear from my initial post that I want people to debate the issue, and not attack the OP.

You're either an alter ego of IT or his bottom feeder. You're worse than his detractors.

My other half's son (she is a widow) has lived in Australia with his partner for 5 years. She is Australian by birth and is having their 1st child at the beginning of June. He is a senior manager in a recruitment firm. He had to go to a conference in New Zealand in February but the Aussies wouldn't let him back in as his visa was due to expire. He stayed in New Zealand but has since been turned down twice for admission despite having an Australian immigration specialist solicitor working for him. His partner has now managed to get an interview with the Minister of Immigration in Canberra and has been assured by the Minister's civil servants that he will get in if he makes a certain other application and they will fast track it for them.

Imploding Turtle wrote:If i am wrong on the facts of something then obviously i don't continue to believe the wrong thing. I do my best to never have wrong information, and only post what i know to be true. This minimises the need to admit being wrong.

If you can find something i was factually wrong about, and haven't admitted to, then by all means call me out for it.

And i never state my opinion as fact. If i say something is true then i can back it up.

The problem is Turtle, you often show a basic lack of understanding and comprehension.

The funniest example I recall is when you thought that 'post truth' political theory was an invocation to tell bare-faced lies and posted a quote about the matter which you thought was somebody encouraging others to lie for political gain. In fact, the quote was talking about how, in a world inundated with information, you can find a statistic to back up any opinion.

Which comes down to your biggest flaws in terms of your "debating" - your ability to go looking for "facts" that support your opinion and your inability to distinguish your opinion from "facts".

Of course, these are flaws which we all share as human beings, it's simply that because you are so "fact" obsessed and constantly feel the need to 'back up' your opinion with "facts" that it is much more evident in yourself.

This seems like a very, very routine passport / immigration issue.

This is the kin of thing that will be occurring day after day. I'm sure if you brought this up on a Peterborough forum and we had lots of posters who had in depth knowledge of this would roll their eyes at the inanity of it.

The only thing different is that this "story" has -somehow- made the news. However it came to the attention of the media, it should certainly not have come direct from any government agency who are forbidden from talking publicly about cases.

Does anyone know if the story was taken up by any actual real newspapers, or was it just the online ghost of the old (proper) Independent who thought this was newsworthy?

It would be very passingly interesting to know.

Rowls wrote:The problem is Turtle, you often show a basic lack of understanding and comprehension.

The funniest example I recall is when you thought that 'post truth' political theory was an invocation to tell bare-faced lies and posted a quote about the matter which you thought was somebody encouraging others to lie for political gain. In fact, the quote was talking about how, in a world inundated with information, you can find a statistic to back up any opinion.

Which comes down to your biggest flaws in terms of your "debating" - your ability to go looking for "facts" that support your opinion and your inability to distinguish your opinion from "facts".

Of course, these are flaws which we all share as human beings, it's simply that because you are so "fact" obsessed and constantly feel the need to 'back up' your opinion with "facts" that it is much more evident in yourself.

None of this is true.

Pstotto wrote: It's not healthy for the indigenous population, Buddhism in schools etc.

Might calm a few ADHDs down a bit!

Clarinetclaret wrote:You're either an alter ego of IT or his bottom feeder. You're worse than his detractors.

Why are so many of your posts about me? Are you ok?

So, did the parents fail to do something they should have or did an immigration official make a mistake? Those are our options aren't they?

(Edit) - sorry - I forgot the other option; "This ******* country" - no prizes for guessing who opted for that one.

thatdberight wrote:So, did the parents fail to do something they should have or did an immigration official make a mistake? Those are our options aren't they?

(Edit) - sorry - I forgot the other option; "This ******* country" - no prizes for guessing who opted for that one.

Depends on what the parents have done when the child was born I suppose.
Without the full facts, which the article definitely won't be providing, we won't know who's made the error.

Back in the 1890's my grandfather was born in the USA. However, he was still seemed Scottish, by immigration.

Lord Beamish wrote:The usual suspects should be along any moment to ignore the topic and have a pop at the OP.

That is why he post **** like that, on a footy forum of all places.
He loves attention and constantly tries to trigger folk.

The biggest look at me poster the forums ever seen.

Imploding Turtle wrote:People with my personality type don't enjoy being the centre of attention. But I've come to find a way to enjoy it since you fucktards keep trying to make every thread i start into a thread about me. Then, of course, you turn around and accuse me of making threads about me.


I've never asked anyone here to post about me. You all just do that on your own. Feel free to stop and instead just respond to what i actually post.

You know what we all have different opinions, some of us post while drunk to get a cast (Me sometimes) difference of opinion in is brilliant keep it up folks but let's not forget there's a person at the end of your message

Let's get to the crux of the matter ; are they darkies ?

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is moronic. A 15 week old kid born in London to parents who between them have lived here for over 30 years doesn't have the right to live here.

This ******* country

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 78421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So much for not being able to enforce our borders.

You're suddenly not a fan of fact checking?

What you are getting your knickers in a twist about, is that if the foreign parents want their child to have British citizenship, they need to apply for it. Babies born to US citizens with indefinite leave to remain (as father does) or permanent EEA residence rights (as mother does) is granted on application. The parents in this case either chose not to apply, or didn't trouble to find out what they were supposed to do, so when they went away and came back with the baby, they had to fill in two forms instead of one.

Of course, they have already applied for US citizenship for the child, so maybe they don't want British citizenship.

https://iasservices.org.uk/british-citi ... -by-birth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For some people that really is the crux.

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is moronic. A 15 week old kid born in London to parents who between them have lived here for over 30 years doesn't have the right to live here.

This ******* country

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 78421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So much for not being able to enforce our borders.

Wrong on every level.
Voted leave , want to leave.
But this is wrong, not what people voted for.

Lowbankclaret wrote:Wrong on every level.
Voted leave , want to leave.
But this is wrong, not what people voted for.

It's wrong on the level that it isn't true. The child does have the right to live here.

dsr wrote:It's wrong on the level that it isn't true. The child does have the right to live here.

The article is sadly long on hyperbole but lacking anything definitive on what the problem was. I'm wary of paying too much heed to the Human Rights lawyer who leads with the decision being "shameful and unacceptable" but adds only that it may be "potentially unlawful".

No way, IanMcl.

Karma? Re-incarnation? Exchange of selves? Lower-re-birth? Desire and grasping? The hells of Tibetan Buddhism? The Tibetan Book of the Dead? Having to seek Enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings? Gurus? Spiritual masters? Your enemy is your best teacher, come learn with us? Dalai Lama a zombie that possesses a new-born baby? People messing with your mind????????

PEACE????????? RELAXATION???????? CALM-ABIDING????????????????

Pure evil, nothing else.

Another example of the hostile environment gone mad policy Theresa May brought in. Here's another example of the same culture but different department:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... s-dwp-dies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's our tax money that pays for this heartlesness. Not to mention all the money owed in compensation.

AndrewJB wrote:Another example of the hostile environment gone mad policy Theresa May brought in. Here's another example of the same culture but different department:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... s-dwp-dies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's our tax money that pays for this heartlesness. Not to mention all the money owed in compensation.

She's been home secretary and Prime Minister..never DWP minister or anything near this department.
It's also been going on for longer than she has been PM, so beating just her with this shitty stick is just plain moronic.