British subject[edit]

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)[reply]

@Alekksandr: I suppose the question is touchy: before 1949, the present Republic of Ireland called itself Éire but was regarded as a Dominion by British law. Maybe the phrase could be …from British India or from what is now the Republic of Ireland as they existed before 1949…, without too precise a designation in order to, let's say, spare the hare and the hound. — Tonymec (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, see Names of the Irish State, but the then Irish Free State adopted its 1937 Constitution in which it declared its name to be "Éire" (in Irish) and "Ireland" (in English). However the UK declined to accept the name "Ireland" (let alone the Irish assertion in that constitution to sovereignty over the whole island), choosing instead to use the word "Eire" (note missing diacritic). What was significant about 1948 was that, by declaring itself a republic, the state left the Commonwealth and thus UK's Ireland Act 1949 was needed to deal with the consequences in British law. (Incidentally, the Irish Republic of Ireland Act 1948 only "described" the state in that style for purposes of disambiguation when needed, the law did not change the name of the state.)
So, Alekksandr, it would be incorrect to write [[Republic of Ireland|Éire]] as you suggest. What we have now is probably the least worst option. One to file under "too difficult", I think! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tonymec that "what is now the Republic of Ireland" might be the most diplomatic way of putting it. The 26-county state (trying to find a generic name for it) was not called "Republic of Ireland" before 1949, either by itself or by the UK, so I remain of the view that it is incorrect for the article to suggest that an entity with that name existed before 1949. Alekksandr (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - now done. Alekksandr (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"British citizenship is a privilege, not a right"[edit]

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)[reply]

I support completely. This announcement is an extraordinary one and astounding in its constitutional implications, that a person may be made stateless by ministerial fiat. The lead summarises the major topics in the body, so this passes that test. I can't think of another item in the body more deserving of being thus featured. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a bit news-y to me, partly due to the use of primary sources to support it. If it does have "astounding constitutional implications", presumably there will be secondary sources reflecting that? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't make any comment about "astounding constitutional implications", that's just a comment in Talk. It says that the Home Office made that statement, which is still on government Web sites cited. "The government said this <source ref>" doesn't need a secondary source as far as I can see. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but given all of the things that have been said about British nationality policy over the decades, why are we highlighting this particular quote in the lede? If secondary sources identified it as particularly important, then that would strengthen the case; otherwise, it looks like the interpretation of Wikipedia editors that it's important. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an article that is about British nationality, an official statement (sourced on current government Web sites) that citizenship is not a right - as it is in most countries - is highly relevant. This isn't "said about British nationality policy over the decades" (waffle, opinion), it's a statement by a government minister. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be highly relevant, but my point is that if it is, then secondary sources will establish that. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the decades point, the article shouldn't just be about current policy but the history of that policy. That's why highlighting this one quote in the lede seems a bit odd to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We agree to disagree. Let's see what others say. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These do you?
and other references to David Davis and Ken Clarke on the Conservative side. Not difficult to find. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A tweet isn't much use, but the other sources are better (there have been some concerns about the reliability of Pink News in the past, but it should be OK to cite an op-ed with appropriate attribution). What I was hoping for was academic books and journal articles rather than media opinion pieces, but part of the problem is that the more recent use of the quote is too recent for that yet. Let's put this to an RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment (RfC; since closed)

Does the following sentence belong in the introduction of the article?

Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • The Bill of Rights 1689 seems quite constitutional. The fact that it can be amended or overturned is no big deal because that is the case for most constitutions. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term constitution can mean one of two things: the entirety of the laws or just those that can only be changed through a special process other than a vote in parliament. Hence one can speak of the constitution of the UK and also say it has no written constitution. The constitutions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand distinguish between imperial laws that were received into their legal systems and those that were incorporated into their constitutions. The first can be changed by statute, while the second cannot. In R. v Montague 2010 for example, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that the Bill of Rights 1689 had not been incorporated into the constitution of Canada.[1] TFD (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed see Dimitry Kochenov (2019) Citizenship ISBN 9780262537797 Kaihsu (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus? – Kaihsu (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Siddique, Haroon (17 November 2021). "New bill quietly gives powers to remove British citizenship without notice". The Guardian. 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.'
  2. ^ Immigration Minister Mark Harper (January 2014). Immigration Bill - Fact Sheet: Deprivation of citizenship (clause 60) (PDF) (Report). UK Home Office. Retrieved 27 November 2021. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right
  3. ^ The Rt Hon Mark Harper MP (8 April 2013). "Tougher language requirements announced for British citizenship". GOV.UK. Retrieved 27 November 2021. 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)[reply]

Categories