... to think the Home Office is trying to extort ££ by threatening my baby

[notlost]

First, I am not British and neither is DH (not a sin, believe it or not), but we are indefinitely settled in London and DD was born here. Since we are not British she cannot have a British passport, regardless of where she was born, so we got her an American one. Now the Home Office is saying that since she is "declared American" we need to get her a visa that is EXACTLY the same as ours - that's right, an ADULT work permit, to the tune of £585.

AND THEY WANT TO COLLECT MY 6 MONTH OLD BABY'S FINGERPRINTS AND DNA FOR THEIR F-ING DATABASE AND MAKE HER CARRY ONE OF THOSE BIOMETRIC ID CARDS.

They have told me I have to do this within the next two months or risk her being deported and a permanent black mark on her immigration record.

Isn't it enough for them that we have to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but don't get access to any kind of public benefits (including the child tax credit)? Wasn't it enough for them to make DH and I pay £600 for PERMISSION to get married? Why do they have to treat my baby like a criminal??

I wish I could complain to my MP, but as a foreigner I'm not eligible to vote and am therefore no-one's constituent.

'I didn't realise that foreigners didn't get to use the NHS. But you pay tax?'

They can use the NHS. They just can't claim public funds until they have ILR.

LOL, JLCS, my Mormon parents would, as they say, shit a brick

ah well. it's just money.

try leaving the country with a disabled child. no amount of money will get you in anywhere lol.

i'm currently planning on carrying dd2 through immigration claiming she's tired and hiding her wheelchair...

hope it works out.

People here on work permits should be able to use the NHS without charge from when they arrive.

Even students can use the NHS.

Only those on tourist visas have to pay.

It's not considered a public fund the way, say, housing benefit or tax credits are.

True, I may be in a more tourist-intensive area, but there are signs all over the hospitals and A&E saying that unless you have been in the country over a year you could have to pay for treatment. Both mine and DH's companies offered bupa so we took it, just in case.

I should add - it's not the $500/month we were paying to insure just the two of us in California, so we still consider it WAY ahead.

You do not have to pay if you are on a work permit. And even with BUPA, in order to access much of the specialist treatment offered by this plan, you need to go through your GP anyhow.

HEY RIVEN is your dd ok today? No swine flu?

What expat said - we could use NHS from day 1 on a work permit.

Actually - I've had two babies in NHS hospitals and no-one ever asked for proof that I was a resident even though I have an Aussie accent.

Oh no, Riven! Good thing you got it sorted out.

My midwife was careful to point out that there's no refunds after they come out!

At this point we're reconsidering the insurance, but since DH's company actually covers the premiums, we think we might as well have it, load of good it's doing us with DH's broken back, but eh... another story.

riven, the official term for us is burden - all depends on which country you are attempting to enter... is it 'liability' for the US?

doncha love bureaucracy?

potoroo, it probably depends on where your hospital is and who is on duty at the time. DD was born in an NHS hospital and some of the staff ignored my obvious foreigness completely and others tried to suss out how long we had been around during conversation.

Again, that's probably more on the area (we were close to Heathrow at the time where there would be a lot of tourists) and the particular staffers than an official policy.

um.. sorry to be rude but expat something you said about being fined for bringing in a child that was eligible for us citizenship has me worried.. so as not to hijack further could you look at my post here?

end hijack

madwomanintheattic, I'm so sorry to hear that. This is the first I have EVER heard of someone being refused entry because they could be a "burden" - which is a horrible thing to say about a child.

YABU - my dh and I are both brits, we had dd1 in oz ( were we both had permanant residency visa) we had to pay all costs for the birth, then pay for her to have full medical and all the costs in getting her permanant residency visa and then we had to go through the expense of getting citizenship for all 3 of us . we were highest rate tax payers on OZ for 7 yrs but got absolutely nothing at all until we became citizens. we now live in uk and had dd2 here and have had to pay ludicrous amounts of money to get her a certificate of nationalisation ( or somethin glike that) so we can apply for her Oz passport. certainly do not think it is unreasonable. if you do not like it why don't you apply to become british citizens ?

It is purely financial I think notlost, basically a disabled US citizen is not the UK's problem (or whatever/whichever nationalities).

I think it is fair enough, all of it, the hoops, the restrictions, the lot. If you don't like a particular countries attitude/rules then don't go there.

morloth, i think the UK will let people with disabilities in, it's just brits with disabilities aren't allowed in anywhere else...
US, canada, nz, oz all have restrictions if you are going to cost the system more than average. tis purely financial (although most also have a clause for contagious or mental health issues which may endanger their citizens even if they're cheap lol)

i actually don't have too much of an issue about it - in that i can see the point. it's just reasonably frustrating that my son has dual nationality and my daughter will probably be denied residence. family planning, eh?

I sympathise with the hassle you are facing. It's just more paperwork and more cost involved in trying to get on with life. It doesn't make the pill any easier to swallow, I know, but I am aware (from experience) that the US has far, far stricter impositions (biometric records and cost) for foreign workers and their families. Blimey - if we even go on holiday to the States we have to get our eyeballs scanned.

I'm not saying don't challenge it (good luck to you all the way if you do), but I think you have to understand that, unfortunately, it's how countries are operating at the moment in the current 'heightened state' - as politicians like to describe it. Sadly, we're all treated like suspects, everywhere.

PS - I wouldn't worry about missing out on child tax credit unless you are on less than £30k joint income.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it doesn't sound right that you have to pay that amount for your baby. Dd2 was born here and did not get British citizenship too as we didn't have Permanent Residency here. If you and your dh have PR then your child should have got British citizenship at birth.

When our dd was born we had to get her a passport (from our own country obviously) just so that she could have a visa stamped on it to show that she was legally here. I'm not sure (can't remember) how much it cost as the visas of the rest of us were up for renewal at the same time anyway (Highly Skilled Migrant visas) so got it as a family. £585 does seem like a lot so YANBU to be annoyed, but I think you have not got your info right. And AFAIK they only fingerprint adults and children over 5 years, the Brit embassy did not fingerprint dd1 for her visa as she was only 3 at the time.

Oh also, we got to vote soon after we arrived in this country as we are part of the Commonwealth.

Thanks, doitall. After some thought, the thing that ticks me off the most is that it seems like they are charging adult rates for children - who most certainly won't be needing a full work permit - simply because they can. It's fine for myself or DH to decide that this is a cost/benefit and choose to like it or get out, but with a baby it seems like they are saying, "well, we know you are here and your lives are here so we can charge whatever we want because you can't be separated from your child and you will pay" (BTW, the more "settled" you are the higher the costs for the dependant's permit).

It feels like the same thing with the biometric ID stuff. That they are doing this because they can ("do it and like it or get out").

In the end we will be doing whatever they want, cost be dammed, because it STILL costs less than moving back to LA

Just Googled it for you:

If neither parent is a British citizen, a child born here on after 1 January 1983 will still be a British citizen if either the father or mother is legally settled. 'Settled' means ordinarily resident (see paragraph 16) in the United Kingdom without being limited under the immigration laws as to how long the person can stay here. For this purpose, a person cannot be ordinarily resident if he or she is in breach of the immigration laws. The Home Office do not consider certain members of diplomatic or consular missions, or members of visiting forces or international organisation as being settled here, even if immigration control does not apply to them.

Thanks, megapixels. The rules are different for Commonwealth countries, and they have recently cracked way down on non-EU visas.

The permission to marry thing was rolled out at the same time and I consider it a similar effort to raise cash. If an immigrant wants to marry in the UK they have to get a certificate of approval from the Home Office at £295. Expensive but reasonable. If two immigrants from the same other country want to marry each other they each have to get a certificate at £295 per

Sorry, didn't mean that to sound like the visa rules were different. I meant the voting rules.

Apparently I mis-read the passport authority's site and she may have a chance at a British passport, although they may turn her down and we could still have to go the visa route. So I have a potential out.

Still think the Home Office is taking advantage of parents, and am miffed at the border agent telling us we had to pay or baby would be deported, but apparently that's what I should expect.