There’s been a number of these stories in the press this month. Read one this afternoon, a lady; Natasha Cochrane De La Rosa, a dual British-Spanish national, was denied boarding on her return flight from Amsterdam after a new policy mandating specific documentation for dual citizens came into effect. Despite presenting her British birth certificate, HMRC records, and tax documents, airline staff informed her that her Spanish passport was no longer sufficient to prove her right of abode. Why would she hold a Spanish passport and not a UK passport then????
The new law – which was repeatedly broadcasted over several months via multiple media outlets by the government in advance of it coming into force – require dual nationals to either get their British passport or a certificate of abide in their other passport. It is a very simple, sensible and fair requirement. Nothing spectacular about it.
Now, people are complaining!
How is it unreasonable?
If you say you were born and raised in North London, but you only hold a Spanish passport, which you remember to keep up to date, and you use it to travel off on holiday to Amsterdam; you then wish to return to the UK by waving a Spanish passport, while telling the immigrations folk that you are a dual national? Seriously?
Yes, it may have been how it was, prior to the new policy coming into force in 2026. But it never should’ve been. And I am very certain that if someone with a Honduras or Kenya passport did that, they would have had to provide proof of UK residency. So, it is indeed fair that the same process is now applied to everyone with dual citizenship, regardless.
Much as we should have a world where people can move around freely, it is not how things are at present. And as such, people must follow the rules. In any case, if you were born in the UK and went to school here, work here as she claims, why not just get our passport? What’s the logic in only holding a Spanish passport?
Knowledge can improve the world we live in 