Thread > 1. Upsetting case but not caused by hostile environment. It is because of discriminatory definition of “father” in the British Nationality Act 1981 for children born after 1 July 2006. telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/0…
2. Section 50A(9) defines “father” as husband of the child’s mother. Only if the mother is not married can the biological father be the “father” - see subsection (c) legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/… 
3. This section of BNA 1981 was just weeks ago held by the High Court to be discriminatory under the Human Rights Act. The Home Office thought the arguments “totally without merit” and has not amended the law or its approach since that case, clearly freemovement.org.uk/british-nation…
4. The child was therefore not born British. HOWEVER, the Home Office say they will normally recognise register such a child as British. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
5. So why did the Home Office not assist this child and mother? Because immigration officials generally will not lift a finger to positively help anyone. And the fee for child registration is over £1000 but only costs the Home Office £372 to process, meaning they make money.
6. The Home Office made £100 million in this way over the last 5 years. But the increased cost of registration led to a decline in applications. freemovement.org.uk/home-office-ma…
7. The Home Office needs to get its act together. Nationality law is discriminatory. Child registration fees are outrageously high. Officials obstruct and refuse but never assist. This is not what Parliament intended. END freemovement.org.uk/parliament-nev…
