Marrying a family member so they can become a British Citizen I have a family member currently studying in the UK, who is not a British Citizen (Non-EU Citizen). They were going to become a British citizen through more conventional methods, however there has been a surprise in that it seems those conventional methods are no longer available. I am told that those methods have vanished due to tightening immigration laws. In order to circumvent this, some of my other family members are requesting me to marry this family member. They would marry me, gaining a 1-year visa, and they would stay married to me until they acquired an indefinite visa, after 1 year of marriage, then divorce me. The marriage would be totally superficial. We would not be living together. The only thing we would share would be a bank account. I do know this family member fairly well and we have holidayed together from time to time. What I want to know: How legal is this? What do I need to be wary of? How could this ruin my life, if something goes wrong? Additional details: I am a full British citizen, from birth. Our blood-root family member is a grandparent (Non-EU).
A sham marriage or civil partnership is one where the relationship is not genuine but one party hopes to gain an immigration advantage from it. There is no subsisting relationship, dependency, or intent to live as husband and wife or civil partners. Under sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended by section 55 of the Immigration Act 2014, a sham marriage or civil partnership is one in which: One or both of the parties is not a British citizen or an EEA or Swiss national There is no genuine relationship between the parties Either or both of the parties enter into the marriage or civil partnership for the purposeof circumventing (avoiding) UK immigration Controls, including under the Immigration Rules or the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 Entering into a sham marriage does not entitle migrants any right to remain or reside in the UK. Sham marriages typically occur when a non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) national marries someone as a means of attempting to gain long term residency and the right to work. It is a criminal activity under UK immigration law, and if you got caught, you will end up behind the bars, unless you can prove yourself innocent. For more details about outcomes read this document carefully. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488521/Sham_Marriages_v1.0_EXT_clean.pdf Read it carefully, just try to stay away from troubles.
Your children may have automatically become US citizens at birth, depending on how long their mother lived in the US before they were born. US law says that any child born abroad to an unmarried US citizen mother is automatically a US citizen, as long as their mother had lived in the US continuously for at least one year before the child was born. There is a clear discussion of the legal requirements in Chapter 3 of the USICS Policy Manual: US Citizens at Birth . Your specific situation is covered by § C.2: Child of a US Citizen Mother (also at the bottom of the page!). (The underlying statute, §1409 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is here. Like most of the INA, §1409 is not reader friendly.)
Claiming to be independent is probably not a crime: the family that say they have set up the Principality of Sealand have never been prosecuted (though that may have something to do with the difficulty of arresting them). It does not, however, excuse a British subject from the ordinary duties of paying taxes and the like; anyone in a more accessible (and more clearly British) part of the country would be subject to the normal forms of law enforcement, including imprisonment for contempt of court if they refused to obey court orders. Despite the more eccentric theories of the 'sovereign citizen' movement (who do exist in the UK), the fact that somebody living in Britain is subject to British laws is not open to negotiation. Resisting this law enforcement by force would not be a good idea: as well as the fact that the Government has access to bigger and better armed forces than you do, it would probably render you guilty of treason. The Treason Act 1351 (as amended and translated) makes it illegal to "levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; the good news is that the death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998 (some time after that for murder).
It's not a matter of funding, it's a matter of eligibility for asylum in the UK which appears to be highly unlikely according to reports where 45 recent applications from US citizens were rejected.1 One option is to apply for a Skilled Worker Visa for one of the eligible occupations. The Skilled Worker route enables you to live and work in the UK for up to five years. You can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain, a form of settled status, after you have lived in the UK for five years under the Skilled Worker Visa. Source As for &quot;Can he legally work such a job with or without permission?&quot;, working in the UK without &quot;leave to remain&quot; (i.e. permission) is an offence contrary to section 24B of the Immigration Act 1971 1That said, if the UK and USA governments did come to an arrangement whereby &quot;at least for the short run, they allow his claim to start in the UK&quot; it is impossible to foretell the future and say with any degree of certainty what conditions, requirements, liabilities and demands each side would impose.
Alice would not be entitled to a visa at the expiry of her student visa as she falls outside of the rules to obtain one (unless she makes a successful application for an extension or for another category). Instead, she may be entitled to Discretionary Leave to Remain. Discretionary Leave (DL) must not be granted where an individual qualifies for leave under the Immigration Rules or for Leave outside the Rules (LOTR) for Article 8 reasons. It only applies to those who provide evidence of exceptional compassionate circumstances or there are other compelling reasons to grant leave on a discretionary basis. One of these &quot;compelling reasons&quot; is covered by the Home Office circular 2 / 2006, which: ...provides guidance on the procedures for dealing with persons who are subject to immigration control and required to give evidence at criminal prosecutions in the UK... [...] Persons already in the UK If a person required to give evidence is already in the UK, IND [Immigration and Nationality Directorate] should be contacted at an early stage of court preparations, so that the person’s immigration status can be established. A person who meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules may be granted a short extension of stay. All applications to IND for an extension of stay will be subject to the appropriate fee1 and supporting evidence produced from the Crown Prosecution Service. Application Form FLR (O) should be used... This has since been withdrawn and replaced by form FLR(HTO) [...] A person already present in the UK but who is subject to removal action (for example as an illegal entrant), may be allowed to remain either in order to assist with investigations of serious crime or to be a witness for the Crown in a criminal prosecution. It is imperative that their immigration status is clarified and resolved at an early stage in order that the possibility of any allegation of inducement or favour regarding their immigration status is addressed. I have not been able to find any publicly available sources on the internet, but I am led to believe that she would be issued with an &quot;Immigration Document&quot; within the meaning of section 7(1)(a), Identity Documents Act 2010. This document may, depending on the particular circumstances, be a letter, a plastic &quot;Residence Permit&quot; card or some by other means to confirm Alice's temporary and discretionary leave to remain, and any restrictions that may be imposed. 1Depending on the particular circumstances any fees may be sourced from central funds, or she could apply for a fee waiver.
The comments have basically covered this, but: It's a slightly weird parallel structure ("who shall not be at least 25, and been a citizen for 7 years, and who shall not be a resident"). The Constitution is not written in fluid 21st-century English. But the obviously correct way to parse the sentence is that no one can be a representative who isn't a 25-year-old or older who's been a citizen for at least 7 years; furthermore, no one can be a representative who wasn't a resident of the state they represent when they were elected. With some parts of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment), the drafting results in actual disputes about the intended meaning. With other parts (like here), only one reading makes any sense. It's the same with the requirements to be President. The Constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President," which could be read as "you're not eligible unless, when the Constitution was adopted, you were either a citizen of the US or a natural-born citizen." But that's a silly reading, so "at the time of the Adoption" is read as only applying to "a Citizen of the United States:" natural-born citizens are eligible period, and people who were born before the US was a thing but were citizens by the time the Constitution was adopted were grandfathered in.
Your caveat about not being a national of either country is a bit puzzling, because your question is about acquiring the countries' nationality, which implies as a matter of course that you do not presently have either nationality. After acquiring each country's nationality, of course, you will be a national of that country, so by the time you are a dual citizen of Italy and the US, it will no longer be true that you are not a national of either country. In other words, it's analogous to asking "Will I be able to get a driver's license after I learn how to drive? The problem is that I don't have a driver's license." US law does not require you to renounce Italian citizenship if you naturalize as a US citizen. I don't know Italian law on the matter very well, but the relevant section in Wikipedia says, without citations, that naturalizing elsewhere does not cause loss of Italian citizenship. Assuming that is true, and that neither country makes any relevant changes in its nationality law, then the answer to your question is yes: you can be a dual citizen of both Italy and the United States. (In fact, you may at that point hold three or more citizenships if your current country or countries of citizenship does not or do not have laws causing you to lose citizenship when you naturalize in Italy or the US.)
Close family members can stay as long as the tenant wants The tenant is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the property which includes living with their close relatives - spouse, de facto and children would all qualify; parents and siblings might as well. It doesn't matter if these people are children or adults. You cannot contract out of this as you are not allowed to discriminate in housing based on family situation. The tenant is also entitled to have non-relative house guests stay for as long as is reasonable. A month or so would be reasonable; longer than that and it starts to look like a sub-lease for which they would need your permission. There is generally a limit under texas law of 3 adults per bedroom but that doesn't seem to be an issue here. I also can't see where having a non-resident's mail delivered to the property is something you have a say about. I'd be very careful if I were you because it seems like you are on the wrong side of the law here.