Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I want to travel to the States later this summer to visit family. I only have a US passport. My daughter only has a British passport. My husband (her father), has a British passport, but he can't join us unfortunately (other committments, bad timing, long story...). I will be taking a notarized letter to state that he's happy for her to travel to the US with me.


So my question is what happens at US Immigration? Presumably we won't queue together? But who will chaparone her through immigration, as I'm the only adult on this trip? (She's primary school age and cound not navigate the immigration queue alone.)


Any experience??? X

Not sure re States but coming back I would stay together in the other passport queue.

I have been told several times when I've done this in similar circumstances at U.K. Arrivals that I could queue in the British passport queue with my British children (though I was travelling on NZ passport) but occasionally when doing this we were then sent to the back of the other passport queue! Depends who you get I think, so I used to decide depending on level of tiredness and length of queues! So possibly play it safe by being in the right queue for you but definitely queue together.

You queue together. My husband travels to the States on his US passport and mine is EU. Before our daughter was born we used to queue separately, and he could be waiting an extra hour for me! A couple of years ago the immigration guard told us we could queue together, which we have done since, no problems at all. We usually go in the US queue, even though only one of the three of us has a US passport.


Best of luck travelling alone with the little one!

As others have said, queue in the US line together. To be safe, take either the original or notarised copy of her birth certifcate with you. This will prove you are the mother if there are any question/problems.


The main reason I?m replying though is to warm you that by travelling to the US on another passort you could be jeaopardising her right to a US passort and citizenship.


All US citizens are supposed to use their US passport when travelling theough a US port of entry. Entering as another nationality can be seen as forfeiting US citizenship. I was clearly advised of this risk at the US embassy once when I needed to get an emergency passport for my daughter as her US one had expired and I asked whether she could just travel on her UKpassport.


Did you register her birth at the US embassy? If not you should do this urgently and get a US passport for her that you should always use when entering the US.

-A

I've (dual national US citizen) had mixed success going through the US citizen queue with my non-US citizen wife. I think it depends on the airport and the mood of the people directing the lines. San Francisco always seems fine, Los Angeles and JFK less so. We've always stayed together though and usually when we get to through the non citizen queue the officer tells us we should have gone through the citizen queue!


Coming home the UK as kids we always went through the British queue with my American mum, but that was a long time ago.


apenn Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The main reason I?m replying though is to warm you

> that by travelling to the US on another passort

> you could be jeaopardising her right to a US

> passort and citizenship.


Everything else you've said is good advice, but this specific part is not true as far as I am aware. There is a lot of myths about US citizenship even from well meaning embassy officials. Following a Supreme Court decision in 1980 and a subsequent 1986 change to the law there needs to be a clear intention of relinquishing United States nationality. It's obvious that a minor who is unaware of her US citizenship entering the US on a British passport does not meet the clear intent standard.


That said your daughter (and/or you) might be breaking the law entering on a non US passport if she is American so it probably isn't worth the risk if you think she might be American.

Thanks all. I am aware that US passport holders cannot enter the States on a non-US passport.


We've never made a consular report of birth abroad, so my daughter only has a British passport because she only has a Britsh birth certificate. My understanding is that she can enter the US on her British passport, as a British citizen, but she simply requies an ESTA?


I have never read that being in posession of a foreign passport as a foreign citizen would prevent me from filing her CRBA, which can be done up until she is 18?! (This is what I have read on consular and other advisory pages. If anyone has a link to further info, that would be useful.) In any event, there's no possible way we could file all the US paperwork for her citizenship in our timeframe of travel! I only have a brief window availble each year due to work committments. It would mean putting off travel until next summer.


Are you saying that US law forces her to be a citizen because I am a citizen? That doesn't seem right. She has only a British birth certificate. Surely she has all the rights of a British citizen when travelling to the US??? TBH, I don't know if we will ever file a CRBA. It's more likley that I will apply for British citizenship, as I'm settled here with few ties to the US.

You are correct Whisper. She is not a US citizen untill you register her as a US citizen. I had to first register my son as a US citizen at the embassy (also my British partner had to come along to for some bizzare reason) and then get his passport. I did wonder if this was wise as it means a lifetime of him having to do a US tax return from age 18(although like me, he will probably never have to pay a dime but going through that ridiculous exercise every year is annoying) but I decided that it would be good for him to have the option to live and work there if he chooses (i.e. he might be in a career where working in the US is advantegeous) ... however it is unlikely the way things are going and when he is old enough the US might truely be Gilead!


Anyway, it's a little known fact that most countries require you to use their passport on entry - I'm a triple citizen (US/Canadian/British) and I was mildly told off when I went into Canada on my British passport when I realised my Canadian was expired. I assume the same would happen on entry to the UK - but it makes more sense to enter the country with the passport of that country as it's easier!

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html


No, there is no law forcing her to be a US citizen. And since she is not currently a US citizen maybe its not a problem to enter on her British passport. I can only tell you what the consular officer told me, which applied to my daughter who has both citizenships. The link above confirms only that US citizens must travel to the US on a US passport.


Interestingly, it also mentions that it is more difficult to apppy for citizenship after the age of 18. You may not have plans to relicate to the States, but personally I think it?s always better to keep as many options open as you can! Anyway, the link provides all the facts so you can make an informed choice.


At any rate, have a great trip and wish you short immigration queues!

Apenn the link you provide states the exact opposite of what you claim ?Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth. Or, an individual having one nationality at birth may naturalize at a later date in another country and become a dual national. ?



Coach Beth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You are correct Whisper. She is not a US citizen

> untill you register her as a US citizen. I had to

> first register my son as a US citizen at the

> embassy (also my British partner had to come along

> to for some bizzare reason) and then get his

> passport.


This is simply not true. If born to a qualifying US citizen parent(s) then US citizenship is acquired at birth and a CRBA simply documents that citizenship claim. See the US government guide https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html. If the US citizen parent doesn?t qualify or the child is adopted then they have to naturalise and that doesn?t occur until an application is made and accepted.


Now for practical purposes if she never claims citizenship and since she wasn?t born in the US it is unlikely that the US government would ever notice or care.

ontheedge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?ve been told if you travel via Ireland you can

> clear customs there, not sure how true that is but

> might be worth checking out


You still clear US immigration and so the usual rules apply. It?s just like when you clear Uk immigration in Calais for the ferry.

> If born to a qualifying

> US citizen parent(s) then US citizenship is

> acquired at birth and a CRBA simply documents that

> citizenship claim.


Well.... you could hash out the finer interpretations with immigration attorneys until the cows come home (or until your wallet is empty!), but US border services seem to have made it abundantly clear that undocumented persons are not US citizens. The burden of proof is on the individual(s) to show that they are US citizens, not the other way around.


My understanding of citizenship "acquired" at birth, is that such individuals have the right to be recognised as citizens "automatically" in so far as they do not require "naturalization". If they never access this process, then they are never documented. And the burden of proof remains on the individual to show documentation.


With no US documentation, but a valid British birth certificate and passport, on what grounds would the US fail to grant an ESTA? Or reject a future CRBA, should the individual (or their legal guardians) wish to exercise their right to US citizenship in the future?

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well.... you could hash out the finer

> interpretations with immigration attorneys until

> the cows come home (or until your wallet is

> empty!),


It's not a finer point. See Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" Sections g and h cover Americans born abroad. (https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html)


> but US border services seem to have made

> it abundantly clear that undocumented persons are

> not US citizens. The burden of proof is on the

> individual(s) to show that they are US citizens,

> not the other way around.


Not if said CBP agents are accusing you of a crime, namely entering the US on incorrect documentation.


> My understanding of citizenship "acquired" at

> birth, is that such individuals have the right to

> be recognised as citizens "automatically" in so

> far as they do not require "naturalization". If

> they never access this process, then they are

> never documented. And the burden of proof remains

> on the individual to show documentation.


This is simply not the case. Look at the issues Boris Johnson had around US taxes a few years back. Similarly I have friends who have been stopped and questioned at the US border for travelling on UK not US passports even though they hadn't asserted their US citizenship. Moving away from the US, look at the Australian MPs who were removed from office because they were dual nationals and hadn't realised it.


> With no US documentation, but a valid British

> birth certificate and passport, on what grounds

> would the US fail to grant an ESTA?


One of the ESTA questions states: "Are you now, a citizen or national of any other country?" stating no when you have US citizenship is probably perjury (I would guess, I'm not a lawyer). Even if you lied and they granted an ESTA (which they probably would), the act of travelling to the US on a non-US passport would be illegal.


> Or reject a future CRBA, should the individual (or their legal guardians) wish to exercise their right to US

> citizenship in the future?


As I said it wouldn't, however technically a US citizen entering the US without a US passport is committing a crime. Now I suspect the likelihood of getting caught (let alone punished) is pretty remote, but personally I wouldn't do it.

I am familiar with S.301. I disagree that it's not down to interpretation. In regards to execution of the law, the US State Dept has noted the following in its policy manual: "The fact of having been born abroad to U.S. citizens who have met the residency requirements means that the person is entitled to but is NOT required to accept U.S. citizenship."


It's pointless to cite cases of non US/UK policy, as that's not what's in question here.


Likewise being "stopped and questioned at the US border" is equally meaningleas, without providing additional individual background to these cases.


The Isaac Brock Society has quite a lot of information on this and similar issues:

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/14/about-the-isaac-brock-society/

I think the overarching theme here is the safest thing to do in any case, is if you are a US citizen, with or without a CRBA, you should only travel to the US on a US passport. This is consistent with what everyone is saying and what I?ve been directly advised by consular officials at the embassy.


Whisper will have to weigh the risk of not doing this for herself. Given that she has a US passport and will be travelling with her daughter who will be on a British passport, this could very well give her problems at immigration. Given the current climate in the US, I personally think this is a very real risk.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...