![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article currently says "British subjects (as defined in the 1981 Act) are British subjects who were not CUKCs or citizens of any other Commonwealth country. Most derived their status as British subjects from British India or the Republic of Ireland as they existed before 1949." However, the Republic of Ireland did not exist before 1949. I suggets that the article should be amended to read 'or Éire as they existed before 1949." Thoughts? Alekksandr ( talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Home Office has stated that "British citizenship is a privilege, not a right".
I put this in the introduction; it was reverted with summary "Is this notable enough to put in the leading paragraphs?" (But the reverter has since thanked me for reinstating and this comment, no edit war in the offing.)
Yes it is. It is generally considered (without further thought) that nationality is a right in modern times; if one qualifies for a principal nationality, usually the place of birth, that is your nationality, as of right, for life. The Home Office statement stands this on its head. According to this official position, you can be born in Britain, have no other nationality, but this can be taken away. Without discussing the rights and wrongs of this, it is a colossal change to what is expected. So this government statement is worth pointing out at the beginning of the article. It could be shortened: "The Home Office position is that British citizenship is not a right". Pol098, 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Added: this is related to Britain not having a written constitution; perhaps the much-praised "unwritten constitution" at one time held citizenship to be a right, but Parliament can legislate as it likes. Compare the US Constitution (as amended in 1868 after the Civil War abolished slavery): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". That is a right, as distinct from a privilege. Pol098 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added this statement to the articles on United Kingdom immigration law and Mark Harper (the minister who said it). Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 20:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Does the following sentence belong in the introduction of the article?
Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion so far. I raised the original question and don’t have set views. The leading paragraphs need a holistic summary over the decades – I’m not sure if the Home Office quote is a snapshot of the transient view of one administration or represents a prevalent and lasting principle of all branches of governance. – Kaihsu ( talk) 13:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a consensus? – Kaihsu ( talk) 20:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The Home Office said: 'British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. The nationality and borders bill will amend the law so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person.'
British citizenship is a privilege, not a right
British citizenship is a privilege, not a right
I’ll close the RfC as there is a consensus. Kaihsu ( talk) 06:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article currently says "British subjects (as defined in the 1981 Act) are British subjects who were not CUKCs or citizens of any other Commonwealth country. Most derived their status as British subjects from British India or the Republic of Ireland as they existed before 1949." However, the Republic of Ireland did not exist before 1949. I suggets that the article should be amended to read 'or Éire as they existed before 1949." Thoughts? Alekksandr ( talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Home Office has stated that "British citizenship is a privilege, not a right".
I put this in the introduction; it was reverted with summary "Is this notable enough to put in the leading paragraphs?" (But the reverter has since thanked me for reinstating and this comment, no edit war in the offing.)
Yes it is. It is generally considered (without further thought) that nationality is a right in modern times; if one qualifies for a principal nationality, usually the place of birth, that is your nationality, as of right, for life. The Home Office statement stands this on its head. According to this official position, you can be born in Britain, have no other nationality, but this can be taken away. Without discussing the rights and wrongs of this, it is a colossal change to what is expected. So this government statement is worth pointing out at the beginning of the article. It could be shortened: "The Home Office position is that British citizenship is not a right". Pol098, 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Added: this is related to Britain not having a written constitution; perhaps the much-praised "unwritten constitution" at one time held citizenship to be a right, but Parliament can legislate as it likes. Compare the US Constitution (as amended in 1868 after the Civil War abolished slavery): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". That is a right, as distinct from a privilege. Pol098 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added this statement to the articles on United Kingdom immigration law and Mark Harper (the minister who said it). Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 20:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Does the following sentence belong in the introduction of the article?
Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion so far. I raised the original question and don’t have set views. The leading paragraphs need a holistic summary over the decades – I’m not sure if the Home Office quote is a snapshot of the transient view of one administration or represents a prevalent and lasting principle of all branches of governance. – Kaihsu ( talk) 13:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a consensus? – Kaihsu ( talk) 20:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The Home Office said: 'British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. The nationality and borders bill will amend the law so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person.'
British citizenship is a privilege, not a right
British citizenship is a privilege, not a right
I’ll close the RfC as there is a consensus. Kaihsu ( talk) 06:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)