Equality in Citizenship & Nationality

As you are well aware of the West Lothian Question that has been a thorn in the side of Parliament for decades, there is also the Michael Turberville Question that has not been fully satisfied in over 60 years! The Question / or Problem-Issue as it should be called is:
Averil, a British Woman born in 1927 in Lincolnshire married Phillip, in 1944 an American Man born in 1919 in London. They have Six children.

David born in Sleaford in 1945 – Full British Nationality – and can pass on his nationality to his children.
Freda born in 1946 in England – under the amendment 2002 can now register her children as British.
Sandra – born in USA in 1949 – can register as British as of Jan 2010, but NOT her children..
Maryann born in USA in 1952 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT her children.
Phillip born in USA in 1957 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT his children.
Michael born in USA in 1967 – registered in 2003 and Only his children born in the UK are British.

The amendment and my bill that was in the Queens speech 2006 and 2007 and became an Act in 2008 was suppose to end all sex discrimination in Nationality.

Pre1983 all children of British Men are automatically British and all they have to do is apply for a UK passport showing their birth certificate, their father’s UK birth certificate and the parent’s marriage certificate and pay the Passport Application Fee.

That is it…

BUT if you are the child of a British Mother (pre83) – we have to apply for registration, pay £520 fee, have a criminal back ground check, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, etc. Then pay £100? for a passport – because you are about to do away with the more economic identification method of the National ID card (only £30) and NO longer a viable option with it being removed and those of us who bought one in good faith now having to soon have to take a class action legal case against HM.Gov for breach of terms of condition of sale.

This is still sex discrimination!! I had in 2006 all party support in both Houses of Parliament that All Sex Discrimination in Nationality would end.  

If you check with the Home Office you will see that between 2003 and Q3 2009 that 16,555 people statistically registered who were born in the time frame of 1961 to 1983. I would expect that this number would be higher if we did not have to pay the Citizenship TAX!

But the Michael Turberville Question that will be an issue for you as it has been for every Home Secretary since my mother was first told  in 1950 that she could not come to the UK with her children born in the USA because she was Not our Father!

How can a married couple, have Six Children and have 3 different situations with regards to British Nationality? My oldest Brother can pass on his nationality to his children with out fees or charges, My oldest Sister, is considered a British Mother under the 1981 Nationality Act section 4C.

The next 3, can register as British but not their children.

And finally me – I am registered and my son born here is British, but IF I had children born abroad to a non British Mother, they would also NOT be British.

If this is to be the new progressive modernisation Parliamentary Government, then it is time that the Michael Turberville Question is resolved once and for all. This Issue is called the last great wrong of the past that Parliament has not resolved fully.

I suggest a simple change to the Nationality Act to state: any person with one (1) British born and bred grandparent is automatically entitled to British Nationality – no fees, no charges, under the same auspices as the children of British Fathers have always had. It should be noted that in certain countries it could be a person’s Father’s Father who was British and they are automatically entitled to British Nationality – So expand this to a British Grandparent and not restrict it to commonwealth countries!

I look forward to your reply and what action you intend on taking on the Michael Turberville Question. My mother and I have gone through over a dozen Home Secretaries and I hope that you will grasp the nettle and resolve this once and for all.

Why is this idea important?

As you are well aware of the West Lothian Question that has been a thorn in the side of Parliament for decades, there is also the Michael Turberville Question that has not been fully satisfied in over 60 years! The Question / or Problem-Issue as it should be called is:
Averil, a British Woman born in 1927 in Lincolnshire married Phillip, in 1944 an American Man born in 1919 in London. They have Six children.

David born in Sleaford in 1945 – Full British Nationality – and can pass on his nationality to his children.
Freda born in 1946 in England – under the amendment 2002 can now register her children as British.
Sandra – born in USA in 1949 – can register as British as of Jan 2010, but NOT her children..
Maryann born in USA in 1952 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT her children.
Phillip born in USA in 1957 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT his children.
Michael born in USA in 1967 – registered in 2003 and Only his children born in the UK are British.

The amendment and my bill that was in the Queens speech 2006 and 2007 and became an Act in 2008 was suppose to end all sex discrimination in Nationality.

Pre1983 all children of British Men are automatically British and all they have to do is apply for a UK passport showing their birth certificate, their father’s UK birth certificate and the parent’s marriage certificate and pay the Passport Application Fee.

That is it…

BUT if you are the child of a British Mother (pre83) – we have to apply for registration, pay £520 fee, have a criminal back ground check, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, etc. Then pay £100? for a passport – because you are about to do away with the more economic identification method of the National ID card (only £30) and NO longer a viable option with it being removed and those of us who bought one in good faith now having to soon have to take a class action legal case against HM.Gov for breach of terms of condition of sale.

This is still sex discrimination!! I had in 2006 all party support in both Houses of Parliament that All Sex Discrimination in Nationality would end.  

If you check with the Home Office you will see that between 2003 and Q3 2009 that 16,555 people statistically registered who were born in the time frame of 1961 to 1983. I would expect that this number would be higher if we did not have to pay the Citizenship TAX!

But the Michael Turberville Question that will be an issue for you as it has been for every Home Secretary since my mother was first told  in 1950 that she could not come to the UK with her children born in the USA because she was Not our Father!

How can a married couple, have Six Children and have 3 different situations with regards to British Nationality? My oldest Brother can pass on his nationality to his children with out fees or charges, My oldest Sister, is considered a British Mother under the 1981 Nationality Act section 4C.

The next 3, can register as British but not their children.

And finally me – I am registered and my son born here is British, but IF I had children born abroad to a non British Mother, they would also NOT be British.

If this is to be the new progressive modernisation Parliamentary Government, then it is time that the Michael Turberville Question is resolved once and for all. This Issue is called the last great wrong of the past that Parliament has not resolved fully.

I suggest a simple change to the Nationality Act to state: any person with one (1) British born and bred grandparent is automatically entitled to British Nationality – no fees, no charges, under the same auspices as the children of British Fathers have always had. It should be noted that in certain countries it could be a person’s Father’s Father who was British and they are automatically entitled to British Nationality – So expand this to a British Grandparent and not restrict it to commonwealth countries!

I look forward to your reply and what action you intend on taking on the Michael Turberville Question. My mother and I have gone through over a dozen Home Secretaries and I hope that you will grasp the nettle and resolve this once and for all.

Make the path to citizenship fair, clear and transparent

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

Why is this idea important?

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

All immigration controls

Repeal these laws:

 

 

# Borders, citizenship and immigration Act 2009

 

# Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

 

# UK Borders Act 2007

 

# Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006

 

# Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004

 

# Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

 

#British Overseas Territories Act 2002

 

#Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

 

# Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

 

# Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993

 

# Dublin Convention 1990

 

# Carriers' Liability Act 1987

 

# British Nationality Act 1981

 

# Immigration Act 1971 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal these laws:

 

 

# Borders, citizenship and immigration Act 2009

 

# Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

 

# UK Borders Act 2007

 

# Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006

 

# Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004

 

# Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

 

#British Overseas Territories Act 2002

 

#Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

 

# Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

 

# Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993

 

# Dublin Convention 1990

 

# Carriers' Liability Act 1987

 

# British Nationality Act 1981

 

# Immigration Act 1971 

Limit citizenships, not immigration

I would limit the number of citizenships that are being granted.

At the moment someone who's lived in this country for just a few years can become a citizen (toghether with their shole family) with the same rights of someone who's lived (an contributed) for generations.

Why is this idea important?

I would limit the number of citizenships that are being granted.

At the moment someone who's lived in this country for just a few years can become a citizen (toghether with their shole family) with the same rights of someone who's lived (an contributed) for generations.

EU Spouse citizenship

Remove the regulation where an EU spouse of a British Citizen, who can proof that they have been legally married for over 3 years and can prove that they have been living together in Britain for over 3 years still has to take a British Citizen test in order to receive British Citizenship or at least scrap the obscene fee (over £700) that has to be paid.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the regulation where an EU spouse of a British Citizen, who can proof that they have been legally married for over 3 years and can prove that they have been living together in Britain for over 3 years still has to take a British Citizen test in order to receive British Citizenship or at least scrap the obscene fee (over £700) that has to be paid.

Extend Westminster voting rights to Britain’s remaining dependencies

This proposal would grant the right to vote in Westminster elections to the citizens of Britain's overseas territories and crown dependencies.

Specifically, this would include the people of Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands – as well as the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, and the people of the crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

Why is this idea important?

This proposal would grant the right to vote in Westminster elections to the citizens of Britain's overseas territories and crown dependencies.

Specifically, this would include the people of Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands – as well as the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, and the people of the crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

protecting our tolerant liberal democracy

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.

Why is this idea important?

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.