LCI Language Centre International

https://tome.app/rodrigomartins/pensando-em-ingles-a-chave-para-o-sucesso-global-clg3w11i206iyet43bkw1fwee

Pensando em Inglês: A Chave para o Sucesso Global by R Martins

Nada melhor para aprimorar o domínio de um idioma estrangeiro do que visitar lugares onde ele é a língua oficial, certo? É por isso que viajar até países que falam a língua inglesa sempre é uma boa aposta. Sem falar que ainda é possível aproveitar a viagem para conhecer a cultura e as atrações turísticas locais.

A boa notícia é que opções de destino não faltam se o seu desejo é unir turismo com a prática do idioma inglês. São mais de 40 países em que ele é considerado a língua mãe. Mas isso não significa necessariamente que neles a língua inglesa seja falada no dia a dia. Ficou confuso? Calma, já vamos explicar.

Irlanda é um dos países que falam a língua inglesa
Pubs irlandeses são um bom lugar para praticar a língua inglesa. Foto: iStock, Getty Images
Quais são os países que falam a língua inglesa?
Os países que têm a língua inglesa como idioma oficial são divididos em duas categorias: inglês oficial de facto e de jure. Essas expressões são latinas e significam, respectivamente, “na prática” e “na teoria”, ou “por lei”. Já entendeu mais ou menos o que isso significa?

Em termos gerais, os países em que o idioma é de facto oficial, você certamente vai encontrar os moradores locais conversando em inglês. Naqueles onde a língua é falada de jure, é natural que as pessoas nas ruas o dominem, mas eventualmente adotem outros dialetos para conversar. De uma forma ou de outra, você encontrará oportunidades para praticar.

É difícil mensurar precisamente onde a língua é falada, já que isso também varia dependendo do estado em questão. Os únicos locais em que a língua inglesa é adotada de fato e de jure como único idioma são Estados Unidos, Reino Unido e Nova Zelândia. Nessa lista, certamente você sentiu falta de Canadá (onde o francês também é língua oficia), Austrália (que não tem idioma oficial), entre outros.

Já na lista de todos os países que têm o idioma inglês como de jure, entram os seguintes: (a lista é longa!)

* Austrália

* Belize

* Botswana

* Camarões

* Canadá

* Escócia

* Estados Unidos

* Fiji

* País de Gales

* Gâmbia

* Guiana

* Inglaterra

* Irlanda

* Índia

* Jamaica

* Quênia

* Kiribati

* Lesoto

* Libéria

* Malawi

* Malta

* Ilhas Marshall

* Maurícia

* Micronésia

* Namíbia

* Nauru

* Nova Zelândia

* Nigéria

* Paquistão

* Palau

* Papua-Nova Guiné

* Filipinas

* Ruanda

* África do Sul

* Santa Lúcia

* Samoa

* Seychelles

* Serra Leoa

* Singapura

* Ilhas Salomão

* Sudão do Sul

* Tanzânia

* Tonga

* Trinidad e Tobago

* Tuvalu

* Uganda

* Zâmbia

* Zimbabwe.

Entre os países nos quais a língua inglesa é falada de facto, podemos citar Antígua e Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Granada, Irlanda do Norte, São Cristóvão e Nevis e São Vicente e Granadinas. Inegável que o inglês é predominante praticamente nos quatro cantos do mundo, não é?

A seguir, você vai entender melhor o porquê disso.

Origem da língua inglesa
Talvez você não saiba, mas a língua inglesa foi desenvolvida em três fases: inglês antigo, inglês médio e inglês moderno. A história do idioma começou com a invasão de três tribos germânicas à Grã-Bretanha, no século cinco.

Os anglos, saxões e jutos foram os povos que atravessaram o Mar do Norte e ocuparam o território dos celtas. Foi assim que, na Grã-Bretanha, começou a se desenvolver essa língua hoje tão difundida pelo mundo.

Entenda melhor as fases do idioma inglês:

Inglês Antigo (de 450 até 1100 d.C)
É a linguagem que começou a se instituir a partir da invasão germânica. Embora muito diferente do atual, diversos vocábulos utilizados no inglês moderno ainda derivam das raízes desse período. Palavras e verbos como“”water” e “be” são exemplos.

Inglês Médio (de 1100 até 1500)
Nesta fase, a Grã-Bretanha foi invadida pelos chamados normandos, os conquistadores franceses que trouxeram com eles as raízes de seu idioma nativo francês. Durante o período, houve uma certa divisão de classes através da linguística: pessoas de classe alta falavam francês e as de classe baixa inglês.

Foi no século 14 que o inglês voltou a dominar a Grã-Bretanha, mas com palavras oriundas do francês acrescentadas ao vocabulário. Assim se moldou o Inglês Médio.

Inglês Moderno (a partir de 1500)
A partir do século 16, povos de todo o mundo passaram a ter mais contato com o inglês britânico. O Renascimento foi o responsável por fazer novas palavras e frases entrarem no dialeto. A ascensão da imprensa representou outro fator decisivo para impulsionar o idioma

Com mais pessoas alfabetizadas e com acesso a livros, a língua inglesa foi se popularizando cada vez mais. Até ganhar espaço ao redor do globo.

Claro que contamos a história de forma bastante sintética. Mas já deu para perceber: não é à toa que hoje o inglês, embora tenha muitas variedades, é um dos idiomas oficias das Nações Unidas, da União Europeia e praticamente o esperanto do mundo corporativo, certo?

Onde aprender e praticar a língua inglesa
Bom, você já viu que se fala inglês em qualquer pedaço do planeta. Mas em quais países e cidades é indicado fazer intercâmbio para o aperfeiçoamento no idioma?

Essa é outra história. Você certamente não vai querer praticar a língua inglesa na Índia, né? Você pode até obter alguma fluência por lá, mas o resultado sonoro não será o mesmo de um período de estudos na Inglaterra, na Irlanda, no Canadá ou nos Estados Unidos.

Top 10 dos intercambistas brasileiros
De acordo com a Belta (Brazilian Educational & Language Travel Association), que reúne as principais instituições brasileiras na área de cursos, estágios e intercâmbios no exterior, os top 10 destinos dos intercambistas brasileiros é o seguinte:

Canadá
Estados Unidos
Austrália
Irlanda
Reino Unido
Nova Zelândia
Malta
África do Sul
França
Espanha.
Vamos entender as cinco primeiras escolhas?

Canadá
O custo é mais baixo do que o dos Estados Unidos, o inglês é destituído de um regionalismo que atrapalhe a prática posterior e o país é sensacional. Quer mais?

Estados Unidos
Os EUA são uma paixão, mesmo que seja difícil admitir: para quem pode bancar, é uma experiência que vale cada centavo.

Austrália
Assim como o Canadá, tem custo mais baixo do que os EUA e permite trabalho legal durante o curso de inglês. Além disso, é um país incrível, com uma clima ótimo, mais parecido com o brasileiro.

Irlanda
É uma opção mais calma e acessível na comparação com a vizinha Grã-Bretanha. Dublin é uma cidade efervescente e multicultural, e a Irlanda ainda permite o trabalho legal durante o intercâmbio.

Reino Unido
É o berço do inglês, mas o charme custa caro. A libra é um peso constante em quem pratica a conversão, já que não dá para trabalhar ao longo do curso de inglês. Mesmo assim, Londres é Londres: uma cidade de infinitas opções culturais que fazem valer o investimento.

The difference between Britain, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and the British Isles

The history of Britain and Ireland is long, complicated and horribly messy, and as a result, lots of people get the words that describe the region mixed up.

As well as being inaccurate, misusing these words can cause a lot of offence, so it’s important to use them right. Here is a brief description of how these words are used, and how you can use them without upsetting anyone.

The UK

The UK, or “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, is the Sovereign state composed of the constituent countries of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The adjective for the UK is “British”.

Important note: It’s worth remembering that not everyone within the UK identifies as British. In Scotland, many people see themselves as only Scottish, while in Northern Ireland, many people identify entirely as Irish, not British. Both regions have major separatist movements, so this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people. This is also true, albeit to a lesser extent, in Wales, where a many people identify as Welsh but not British, and even the English county of Cornwall, where there is a growing movement towards Cornish nationalism.
As always, it’s best to respect people’s identities, so be careful who you call “British”, in case they strongly identify as something else. And perhaps even more importantly, don’t call non-English people English!

Great Britain

Great Britain is the big island. As a geographic term, it includes all of mainland England, Scotland, and Wales. Politically, this is expanded out to include all the smaller islands of those countries too.

Britain
Britain is a more ambiguous term:
Politically it is often used as a short, informal name for the United Kingdom. Which, since the UK is “British”, makes sense. It has been used this way by politicians and scholars for a long time.
However, it is also sometimes used as short for “Great Britain”, which can get very confusing. This means either of the maps above could represent Britain. For this reason, this word is avoided in most official settings, in favour of “United Kingdom” (for the country) or “Great Britain” (for the island).

Ireland

The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK, but worth including here because it is very entangled in this mess of names and identities.

Ireland, like “Britain”, has 2 different meanings depending on context.
Ireland geographically is an island, that includes the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Ireland politically a sovereign nation entirely independent of the UK. To differentiate it from the island of Ireland, it is can be called the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is not part of the Republic of Ireland.
“Irish” refers to anybody from the island who identifies as Irish, including those in Northern Ireland. Northern Irish people have the option to claim Irish citizenship, get Irish passports, and play for Irish national sports teams.

The British Isles

The British Isles is a term that has historically been used by the British to describe all of Britain, Ireland, and the neighbouring islands. This includes the Isle of Man, and often the Channel Islands, both of which are properties of the British crown (but not part of the UK). However, the Channel Islands are not part of the same archipelago, and their frequent inclusion in “The British Isles” is a hint that the term is not a purely geographical one.

This term has a political aspect that many people see as very problematic.

The use of “the British Isles” was popularised by (you guessed it) the British, when Britain was in the process of conquering and dominating Ireland, as a way to justify British rule of Ireland. For centuries, Ireland was a reluctant part of the UK, and the site of many atrocities and oppressions by the British government and army. In 1921, the Irish finally won a long and bloody war for independence from the British, and became their own nation, politically independent of Britain. People from the Republic of Ireland are not British in any way, and using terms that imply they are is understandably not well received by Irish folk. The term is also rejected by the Irish government.

In the vast majority of cases, you can replace “British Isles” with “Britain and Ireland”, without causing any confusion of meaning. If you want to be clear that you are counting the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, you could go with something like “The British Islands and Ireland” or “The British and Irish Isles”. Again, perfectly clear meanings. There are even some fun-sounding (if more obscure) alternatives like “The Anglo-Celtic Isles” or “the Pretanic Isles”. All of these options have the important bonus of not being an insult to Irish people, and the many thousands of people who lost their lives so Ireland could stop being “British”. I’d love to see the term “British Isles” die out in my lifetime, and I will be avoiding that term in all my posts about Britain and Ireland.

So, there we go, a brief explanation of what all these confusing terms mean, and how to use them without offending anyone!

Here’s an even briefer one if that was too much:
UK = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland
Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland
British = of the UK
Britain = UK [or] GB
Ireland = Republic of Ireland [or] ROI + Northern Ireland

INTERESTING FACTS
Great white sharks rarely survive in captivity. Experts suspect the electricity in buildings interferes with the animals' electrosensory systems—though that hasn't stopped some aquariums from trying, and failing, to display them.

Amigo Patriota, estamos iniciando momentos muito obscuros na economia brasileira. Porem dinheiro não obedece fronteiras, assim, o melhor é agir agora e PROTEGER O QUE E SEU.
Veja as vantagens monetárias e fiscais de migrar sua empresa para uma jurisdição offshore tax-free.
Redução de impostos: Uma das principais vantagens de uma empresa offshore é a possibilidade de reduzir a carga tributária, já que muitos países offshore não cobram impostos sobre renda corporativa ou oferecem alíquotas extremamente baixas.
Proteção patrimonial: Ao registrar sua empresa em um país offshore, você pode proteger seus ativos e evitar a exposição a riscos legais e financeiros no Brasil.
Anonimato: Algumas jurisdições offshore permitem a proteção da privacidade dos proprietários da empresa, o que pode ser uma vantagem importante para proteger sua reputação e negócios.
Acesso a mercados globais: Ao registrar sua empresa em uma jurisdição offshore, você pode ampliar sua base de clientes e acessar novos mercados em todo o mundo.
Flexibilidade: Algumas jurisdições offshore oferecem flexibilidade em relação às leis de sociedades, o que permite uma maior liberdade de negócios e menos burocracia.
so a titulo de exemplo, caso voce deseje proteger seu capital de BRL 1 milhão, voce pode envia-lo para sua empresa offshore com uma pequena taxa de 0.38% de IOF, migra-lo para moeda forte: Dolar, Euro, ou Libra por exemplo, Assim ele estara completamente Protegido, e fora da jurisdicao do Ladrao de nove dedos.
Em resumo, migrar sua empresa para uma jurisdição offshore tax-free pode trazer uma série de vantagens financeiras e fiscais, como a redução de impostos, proteção patrimonial, anonimato, acesso a mercados globais e flexibilidade.
Com cerca de USD 5000 de investimento voce pode abrir sua empresa(s) e Todos os custos de regitro, taxas, impostos, selos, aposlagem, sociedade, divisao de cotas, diretore,s acionistas e tudo mais. (TUDO INCLUIDO) e ainda manutencao administrativa e fiscal por 1 ano.
Se você estiver interessado em explorar essas vantagens para sua empresa, entre em contato comigo para saber mais sobre como juntos podemos PROTEGER O QUE E SEU.
Atenciosamente,
Dr. Rodrigo Martins

Você sai para comer um lanche.
Mas o "lanche" da para almoçar e jantar ao mesmo tempo.😱

Erlon Musk disse você não necessariamente tem que fazer faculdade.
E isso é verdade, emprego você perde, perde dinheiro, parde até amigos.
Portanto; INVISTA EM SI MESMO nem que seja uma "gota" por dia, verá que no final do ano, acumulou muito conhecimento. E CONHECIMENTO NINGUÉM TIRA DE VOCÊ.
AJA, assim também com suas FINANÇAS, não basta querer crescer Financeiramente, tem que AGIR.

More snow coming

UK snow maps show '1,000km Beast from the East' coming after Met Office warning Snow looks set to be returning to the UK this month with the Met Office issuing a yellow weather warning and snow maps showing a 1,000km blizzard on its way in a matter of days

Free Movement
High Court casts doubt on British citizenship of children of EU citizens

What does British nationality law say?
Were domestic regulations transposing EU law “immigration laws”?
Was there a time restriction on residence?
Home Office change of position
What now?
In a judgment handed down last Friday, the High Court has cast doubt on the British citizenship status of children born in the United Kingdom before 2 October 2000 to EU citizens who did not at that time possess indefinite leave to remain. The case is R (on the application of Roehrig) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 31 (Admin).

The claimant was born in the UK on 20 October 2000. His mother was a French national who had been living and working in the UK since June 1995. Between 2006 and 2020, while the Citizens Directive was in force, an EU citizen living and working in an EU country for five years automatically acquired permanent settlement. Back then, there was no directly equivalent provision of EU law, nor of UK law. The claimant’s mother was eligible for and could have applied for the only explicitly permanent status then available, indefinite leave to remain (ILR). But she had not, at least at the time of the claimant’s birth.

Historically, every child born in the United Kingdom was automatically born a British subject. That rule was scrapped by the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983. Instead, a child born after that date would only be born British if at least one of their parents was themselves British or was settled at the time of the child’s birth. At this point, you can probably see where this is going. Was Mr Roehrig a British citizen?

What does British nationality law say?
The precise wording is of the British Nationality Act 1981 is as follows, at section 1(1):

A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement … shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—
(a) a British citizen; or
(b) settled in the United Kingdom…

Section 50(2) of the Act then goes on to define “settled” as meaning:

ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom … without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain.

There is a bit more to it as the definition goes on explicitly to exclude certain people from being settled, including diplomats. It does not exclude EU citizens resident under EU law.

Section 50(1) defines “immigration laws” as:

the Immigration Act 1971 and any law for purposes similar to that Act which is for the time being or has at any time been in force in any part of the United Kingdom.

The question for the court was therefore whether Mr Roehrig’s mother was “settled” at the time of his birth. The key issue was really whether any immigration laws imposed a restriction on the period of time she could remain in the United Kingdom. If she was “settled” in this sense, he was British. If she wasn’t, he was not British. The court concluded that she was not settled and therefore Mr Roehrig was not a British citizen. There were two main strands to the court’s reasoning.

Were domestic regulations transposing EU law “immigration laws”?
Until 2 October 2000, the relevant domestic laws had been the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, which very belatedly had attempted to implement the European Court of Justice case of R v Pieck [1980] ECR 2171 and give effect to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988. After 2 October 2000, the 1994 Order was succeeded by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 then, eventually, successor regulations in 2006 and 2016.

The claimants argued that the domestic secondary legislation purporting to implement EU law was not “immigration law” as such because it had a different purpose. They did not quite put it like this, but the Immigration Act 1971 is basically about keeping people out by imposing restrictions and EU law is basically about letting people in by conferring rights. EU is permissive not restrictive, in that it is all about enabling people to do things. It can certainly be argued the two bodies of law are very different.

But the judge disagreed. Ignoring the nature and direct effect of EU law, he focussed on the domestic secondary legislation, which he held to exist for the purpose of regulating immigration, just like the Immigration Act 1971. All the domestic legislation literally says “immigration” on the side of the tin, so to speak.

In this conclusion, the judge was fortified, apparently, by an arguable implicit concession to this effect by then-counsel Nick Blake in the unreported tribunal case of Gal (10620) from the 1990s. The judge preferred this authority (if that’s the right word) to the position adopted by Mr Justice McCloskey in the reported decision of Capparelli (EEA Nationals – British Nationality)[2017] UKUT 162 (IAC). To be fair, no-one I know thinks Capparelli was correctly reasoned and decided, and I was pretty sceptical when it was promulgated, but it certainly highlighted the issue.

Was there a time restriction on residence?
In the key legal textbook, Fransman’s British Nationality Law, the authors argue that even before the creation of the right of permanent residence, an EU citizen living and working in another EU country enjoyed an unlimited right of residence, in the sense that there was no time limit to their period of residence. A similar argument was put to the court in Roehrig: that EU residence is “open-ended and not limited either to a single employment … or to a single category of qualification” (para 103).

Following Gal and some cases of dubious relevance, given they did not concern EU law status, the judge concludes that residence as an EU citizen was conditional on remaining a qualified person by exercising free movement rights. He went on to find that conditional residence is residence subject to a restriction on the period for which the person may remain. The judge adopted the defendant’s submission that

a person will be restricted as to the period for which human remain whenever his continuing right to remain is contingent upon his continuing to meet the qualifying criteria.

Repeating the same point as I made earlier, this is not really how EU law works. In a very real sense, EU law — which is the legal basis on which an EU citizen resided in the UK, not domestic law — imposed no limit to the period for which an EU citizen might remain in an EU country other than their own. At the time of Mr Roehrig’s birth, there was no time limit on his mother’s residence.

But the judge was not persuaded. The claimant’s mother was therefore not settled, Mr Roehrig is not British and nor, by implication, are any of the children who derived their British citizenship from the incorrect Home Office understanding of how British nationality law worked prior to 2 October 2000.

Home Office change of position
The argument put by the claimants in this case and rejected by the judge was also, for many years, the position of the Home Office – seemingly from 1 January 1983 through to 2 October 2000, a period of 17 years. A lot of children were born in the UK to EU citizen parents during that time. Those children have, until now, been considered by the Home Office to be British citizens.

The Home Office position on what was required for a parent to be considered “settled” changed on 2 October 2000. From that date onwards, the Home Office took the view that an EU citizen had to have applied for and been granted indefinite leave to remain to be considered settled. From 2006, the Home Office maintained that the parent had to have acquired permanent residence. This is why Mr Roehrig, born on 20 October 2000, was refused British citizenship by the Home Office.

But did the law really change? The only law that had changed was the transition from the 1994 order to the 2000 regulations. But there was nothing in the new secondary legislation to justify the change in Home Office approach. Essentially, the Home Office changed its mind about how EU law worked and how it interacted with British nationality law. The Home Office as a government department unilaterally decided as a matter of executive discretion that relevant children born before 2 October 2000 were British and relevant children born after 2 October 2000 were not.

That’s not how nationality law works, and the Home Office well knows it. British citizenship is conferred by law, not executive fiat. So, which position was right? Was it that children born to EU citizens exercising EU rights of residence were British, or weren’t they? The conclusion would apply to all children born between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 2020 (the end of the transition period) who claimed British citizenship via a parent who was an EU citizen and lived in the UK without indefinite leave to remain. If the Home Office was right prior to 2 October 2000, the creation of the right of permanent residence in 2006 did not really matter other than providing assurance that an EU citizen was settled; any children born after 30 April 2006 to any EU citizens exercising free movement rights would be British irrespective of whether the parents had acquired permanent residence or not. I have no way of estimating how many children that might be, but it must be hundreds of thousands.

The court decided in Roehrig that the Home Office was right after 2 October 2000 and therefore, by inference, was wrong before 2 October 2000.

I should make clear that the outcome of this case is only relevant where a child’s only claim to British citizenship is through a EU citizen parent. If the child’s other parent held ILR or British citizenship then the child would be British through that other parent anyway.

What now?
We have known about this issue in British nationality law for quite some time. It is flagged up and questioned in Fransman’s British Nationality Law (section 13.2.5) and it was raised by the former President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Mr Justice McCloskey, in the case of Capparelli (EEA Nationals – British Nationality)[2017] UKUT 162 (IAC).

The idea that the Home Office could from one day to the next, as a matter of simple policy, change the basis on which British citizenship was acquired as a matter of law, was always highly suspect.

It might be said it was unwise to deliberately seek to litigate the issue. That’s certainly what I was told by someone senior several years before Capparelli. On the other hand, lawyers are bound to act on their client’s instructions and this was all going to need to be sorted out at some point.

The next step is for this to go to the Court of Appeal. I assume the claimant will be seeking permission to appeal. These are meaty issues and one would expect permission to be granted. The judge, for example, assumes and indeed states that the claimant’s mother’s status in the United Kingdom derived from United Kingdom law, namely the Immigration Act 1988 and the 1994 Order (e.g. paras 42, 49, 89). That’s arguably wrong at a fundamental level; her status actually derived from EU law, which has direct effect and is of a different nature to United Kingdom law. The problem with Gal is arguably not just that the tribunal misunderstood British nationality law and conflated conditional residence with limited residence, but that it also misunderstood EU law.

Appeals are very expensive, especially once the potential legal costs for the other side are taken into account. The cost of taking this to the Court of Appeal could run to tens of thousands of pounds. Some lawyers may be willing to act for free and the Home Office might conceivably be persuaded to agree not to seek their own costs or a protective costs order might be sought. But it seems perfectly possible that the litigation may fall away for costs or other reasons.

If the outcome remains the same, appeal or no appeal, the Home Office is surely going to have do something this time. I’ve acted for people who thought they were British citizens, were recognised by the Home Office as such for years and were issued passports on that basis, only for the Home Office to turn around years later, say a mistake was made and nullify the citizenship on the basis it was never in truth held. The Home Office rationale for doing so is that citizenship can only be conferred by law, not by executive discretion or by mistake.

So, it was very surprising to read in Roehrig that the entire basis for recognising children of EU citizens born before 2 October 2000 as British was “as a matter of policy and fairness” (paragraph 41).

What should an EU citizen do if they were born before 2 October 2000 and derive their claim to British citizenship from one parent only, who was an EU citizen at the time of their birth living in the UK but who had not applied for and been granted ILR? Will they be able to re-enter the UK if they travel abroad? Will their citizenship be nullified and their passports withdrawn? Should anyone in this position be spending money to apply for a passport at this stage? We don’t really know.

The reality is that the Home Office has shown a reckless disregard for the interaction of EU law and British nationality law. The solution may have to be a retroactive statutory recognition of the British citizenship of those affected, who probably can be defined as a class for this purpose.

I’ll end by pointing to another different but related issue. If the outcome of this case stands, a significant problem awaits the children of EU citizens born between 2006 and 2020, who will often have no proof of the status of their parents at the time of their birth. They are automatically British according to section 1(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 because their parents will have automatically have acquired permanent residence under EU and transposing UK law. But finding and sending in five years’ worth of pay slips to prove one’s parent’s status many years ago will be impossible. It’s another major problem affecting some people already and increasing numbers over time, as they try to apply for passports, comply with hostile environment checks or resist deportation on the basis they are actually citizens.

POLAR VORTEX will drop the temperatures to below freezing this February, extending the winter season.

Top 7 Most Common Mistakes Travellers Make When Applying for a Schengen Visa EU/Schengen

passports with a Schengen visa

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/how-to-fill-visa-application-form/

Applying for a Schengen Visa in 2023 is not an easy task, as it has never been. There are lots of documents to be collected, an interview to be attended and even a fee to be paid, which right now is 33 per cent higher than it was before the pandemic.

However, getting a visa can be made easier for many, if they only pay attention to some very common mistakes that usually result in the rejection of an application, SchengenVisaInfo.com reports.

Most of the time, these mistakes are made due to lack of knowledge, or the applicant not understanding the importance of the documents meeting the criteria set by the Schengen country they wish to visit.

Following, we have made a list of the top most common mistakes that are made by Schengen visa applicants. If you try to avoid them, and make sure the rest of your application file is also in compliance with the criteria set by the Schengen authorities, then your chances for getting a Schengen visa are way higher.

1- Collecting the Required Documents Based on a Random List Provided by a Friend
Many travellers, in particular first-time Schengen visa applicants, make the mistake of taking advice from family members or friends who have obtained Schengen visas in the past, and apply it word by word throughout the whole procedures.

The required documents for a Schengen visa differ in many occasions from one country to the other, or from one embassy to the other. In addition, visa requirements are continuously reviewed and updated by Schengen Area embassies worldwide.

People who just get a random list from a friend or a family member and start collecting the documents according to the same, often make the mistake of leaving out crucial, newly added requirements, or documents that are required according to new criteria.

All Schengen visa applicants are advised to collect the documents based on the list published by the embassy of the country where they will file their application.

SchengenVisaInfo.com also has a complete list of the documents required for a Schengen visa application, which are continuously reviewed and updated according to official sources.

2- Passport Does Not Meet the Requirements
Having a passport that has some several more months of validity left is not enough, and some travellers have learnt it the hard way.

The EU has specific and strict passport rules for those applying for a Schengen visa, as follows:

The passport must be valid for six more months beyond the date of their planned trip to the Schengen Area
The passport must have been issued in the last ten years on the date the passport holder plans to leave the Schengen country he or she is visiting
The passport must have at least two blank pages, but they must not be added later to the passport
Those who fail to meet any of these rules, are rejected from getting a visa.

In addition, travellers planning to get a visa with the multiple entry option, for periods of three or five years, must be aware that if the validity of their passport is shorter than the period of validity of the required visa, then they will not be getting the latter.

Instead, in most occasions, they will get a visa valid for shorter period of time, before the expiration of their passport.

3- Filling the Application Form With Info That Doesn’t Align With Other Documents
travel visa

Every traveller needs to fill in the application form for a Schengen visa. This is the first document that is required. Many travellers make the mistake of putting into the application form different information than those in the other documents.

For example, if their passport is valid for six more months, some put in the application that the passport is valid for longer than that. In other occasions, they write the required period of visa validity in different dates, than the dates for which they have travel insurance, or accommodation.

Such mistakes, in particular when done intentionally, may result automatically in the rejection of the visa application.

Here you can find some clear instructions on how to fill in the visa application form.

4- The Applicant Doesn’t Have (the Right) Travel Insurance
women checking for travel insurance online

Refusing to buy travel insurance with the idea “nothing’s gonna happen to me” is a huge mistake. The embassy does not care whether you are a person that never gets sick, or is very careful of accidents. Travel insurance worth €30,000 coverage that cover repatriation in case of death, is a must for every person.

In many occasions, people obtain travel insurance for a shorter period of time than that they are planning to spend in the EU, or buy it with a lower coverage than required.

In cases when insurance does not cover repatriation in case of death, no matter how much it covers other accidents, the requirement of having travel insurance is considered unmet.

Travellers always have the opportunity to buy schengen travel insurance online at very low cost from Europ Assistance or MondialCare

5- Submitting an Application Too Early or Too Late
Like every other thing, the time when an application should be filed is also regulated by the Schengen Visa Code. According to it, the earliest that you can file an application is six months before your intended trip, and the latest is 15 working days before your intended trip.

Trying to file an application i.e. one year in advance, is not going to end well, not even at super crowded embassies.

The same with filing an application late. People who have previously gotten a visa in a very short period, i.e. five days from a particular embassy, and think that filing the next visa application late will not be a big deal risk getting their visa application delayed, or even not accepted at all.

Thus every traveller must make sure that he or she is submitting the application well in advance, but not earlier than six months before their planned trip.

6- Applying at the Wrong Embassy/Consulate/Visa Centre
Another very common mistake amongst people who plan on visiting several Schengen Area countries with a single visa, is submitting the application at the wrong embassy.

In cases when one wishes to visit two or more countries in the Schengen Area with the same visa in an uninterrupted trip, the application should be submitted as follows:

At the embassy of the country you will visit first, if you are planning to stay in each country for an equal amount of days. I.e. if you are planning to stay five days in Austria, five days in Germany, and five days in France, but you will enter the Schengen Zone through Austria, then you should submit you application at the Austrian embassy.
At the embassy of the country you will stay the longest, if you are planning to stay in each country a different amount of days. I.e. if you are planning to stay three days in Austria, five days in Germany, and seven days in France, then you should submit you application at the French embassy.
Not Bringing Cash to Pay the Application Fee
Euro money

This one is not a mistake that could get you your visa rejected, but could cause you some unnecessary trouble.

On the day of the interview, many people do not bring cash with them to pay the Schengen visa fee under the idea that they can pay with card or online. This is not possible, as all embassies, consulates, and visa centres require travellers to have the exact amount required for a visa in cash.

7- Trying to pay with big banknotes might also be a problem, in particular if you are amongst the first applicants of the day. It is best for every applicant to have the exact amount, in order to avoid any headaches.