Entering the UK- or going to happen now

The new rules for dual UK/other nationality citizens have been made clear by many on this thread, links provided and detail also available on the government website.

It's not the case that an Australian passport plus Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) to travel to the UK is "not good enough" for dual UK/Australian citizens. It's the case that an a UK citizen is able to travel to the UK on a UK passport or a certificate of entitlement. If a dual citizen no longer wish to hold UK citizenship they can renounce it. There are necessary costs involved for ETAs, passports, certificates of entitlement and formally renouncing citizenship of course, as is the case in other countries for those who choose to travel. This new approach from 25 February in UK brings us in line with other countries including US, Canada and Australia and later this year with the EU.

The situation nanna8 describes is exactly the same in reverse for dual UK/Australian citizens who have settled in the UK for some years but wish to travel to Australia, their original country of birth. That is if they choose to travel from UK back to Australia they will need a valid Australian passport to travel to and enter Australia. They would need to purchase an Australian passport if they have allowed it to lapse as nanna8 has etc. Or they can choose to renounce their Australian citizenship and travel on their UK passport plus the Australian ETA. They will need to pay the necessary costs or choose not to travel in exactly the same way nanna8 has chosen.

The cost of a 10 year UK passport for UK dual citizens living and applying in Australia costs £108 plus courier fees for adults and £70 for children. Processing time is usually 3-4 weeks. The cost of an adult 10 year Australian passport for those living and applying in UK, which includes a mandatory overseas fee is AUD$611 plus courier fees, 75s and over 7AUD$392- 402 and under16s AUD$298- processing time Australian website advises is 6 weeks. Thus Australia is charging Australian dual nationals more than UK is charging UK dual nationals.

Allira I have a fairly robust fence or a house wall you might want to bang your head against........I so admire your patience and attempts to get posters to actually read the thread and understand the problem as it exists, not the fantasy one they have created in their heads

So you’re not a British citizen? Why would you expect special treatment because you were once?

What special treatment?

Please define.

boo12

Basgetti

So you’re not a British citizen? Why would you expect special treatment because you were once?

I expect if you felt that you were in danger in Australia and needed asylum, your case would be considered along with everyone else in the same situation. Wouldn’t recommend a small boat from Australia, though ….

Well don’t . You can’t not live here for 50 years and still expect to just come back without evidence . It’s not like you have gone travelling for 2 years .
I think it’s perfectly reasonable.

So you're saying that an Australian citizen who has not come back to the UK for 50 years cannot come here on their Australian passport.

Why is an Australian passport (perhaps plus visa/ETA) not good enough?

Why is an Australian passport (plus visa/ETA) not acceptable for someone who has never set foot in the UK but happens to have a parent who was born in the UK and may have lived there for a year?

Oh dear.
Why don't posters rtt.

Basgetti

So you’re not a British citizen? Why would you expect special treatment because you were once?

I expect if you felt that you were in danger in Australia and needed asylum, your case would be considered along with everyone else in the same situation. Wouldn’t recommend a small boat from Australia, though ….

Well don’t . You can’t not live here for 50 years and still expect to just come back without evidence . It’s not like you have gone travelling for 2 years .
I think it’s perfectly reasonable.

You suggest "thousands of Australians are facing difficulties about this" That's not a defined figure so I will assume it's just pulled out of the air.

It is not pulled out of the air

There really is no point in discussing this with you further.

‐--------0------------0----------0-----------0-----------0----------0-------0------

No Allira. The tone just makes it very difficult to answer as there is no obvious point of debate.

You suggest "thousands of Australians are facing difficulties about this" That's not a defined figure so I will assume it's just pulled out of the air. We have one person - who is not personally effected - telling us of two people who are concerned. We don't even know if they are; it could be just Nanna8's view.

My family (4) of British/Australians, are ready to come over at the drop of a hat at the moment, for family reasons - should it prove necessary. Are they worried about the changes - not particularly. But then they have always had passports, etc., organised.

So that's two people whose grandma is worried, and four who are directly affected, who are not. What does that tell us? Not a lot to be honest but then this thread wasn't really set up to debate, was it? Just for red-top newspaper style complaint.

So, really, is it the tone of the OP which you objected to, DAR rather than the fact that thousands of Australians are facing difficulties about this?

I think that a lot of Australians are asking the same and are furious.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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!

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.

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

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?