antonyclark

I read that the 12 month rule for the registration of a child born abroad as a British citizen had, or will be, changed from 12 months to 18 years (Hansard 1/4/2009). Please, is there anyone who can confirm?

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Amendment 42
Moved by Lord Brett
42: Before Clause 43, insert the following new Clause—
“Minors
(1) Section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (acquisition by registration: minors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for “within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth” substitute “while he is a minor”.
(3) Omit subsection (4).”

JAJ

If that is a Government amendment, it will probably go through. But it's never a done deal until the Bill gets Royal Assent.

Mummy in the foothills

Theres a 12 month rule?
I didn't register my oldest (now 20) till he was 2
The younger one was closer to a year old.

antonyclark

Was that a section 3(2) application? There are other sections, other ways. In any case, a section 3(2) application is allowed up to the age of six if you have a reasonable excuse. Simply not knowing about the rule is no longer accepted as a reasonable excuse. It will be a relief to some of us when the permitted age is increased to 18. Unless I'm mistaken (and I might well be) when the family goes back to live in the UK, a minor child might become British otherwise than by descent, so that his children will in turn be British, but if he has first been registered as British by descent, he won't be able to change that, and his children, if also born of a trip overseas, could be foreigners in their own country where their family and ancestors lived for generations immemorial.

JAJ

And there is consular birth registration (for children who are automatically British), which is completely different from Home Office registration.

No need to be so dramatic ... if such children are brought to live in the United Kingdom they can be registered as British citizens based on residence.

And if they stay overseas and are citizens of their birth country, they will probably identify more with that country anyway.

Mummy in the foothills

That is probably what we did then, they have consular birth registration certificates and British passports.

antonyclark

Melodramatic actually, sorry about that. But when you finally get to London airport with the family still intact it can be a shock, and if you have temporally lost your sense of humor, an affront, to be told that alone amongst your children little Marsie, who has a lineage going back to Cluny McPherson on the one hand, and Price Llewellin on the other, is Arabic, or Chinese, or wherever you have been, and not British at all, and strictly speaking should be sent home immediately.

Of course, if you stay three whole years in the UK, and decline any more long trips, and fill in a form, and pay a large fee, she can be as British the rest.

If you told a Chinese that the "little foreigner" was not British, he would be perplexed initially, but eventually he would work it out. Ah, you mean you are Australian, he might say. It would never occur to him to think of a fair skinned, blue eyed, blonde little girl as a Chinese simply because she happened to be born in China.

Is there something to prevent the adoption of a less absurd definition of British by descent, something more in line with peoples' ordinary concepts, such as the nationality of the parents?

JAJ

Not if you have a settlement visa for the child, as you should have.

It is also noteworthy, that a British by descent individual who grows up in the United Kingdom, will probably marry a person who is (or becomes, by naturalisation) a British citizen otherwise than by descent.

So if they leave the United Kingdom for a period of time, an overseas born child would be a British citizen based on the relationship to the other parent.


A limit on transmission of British citizenship beyond the first generation born overseas has been the basis of British law since 1915.

From the April 1977 Green Paper "British Nationality Law - Discussion of possible changes"

" ... At one extreme, if the United Kingdom were to adopt the ius sanguinis method, and confer citizenship upon any child whose parent was a citizen, there could be no limits on transmission, no matter how distant the were the child's direct connections with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has, however, been traditionally reluctant to extend its citizenship in this way; people have emigrated from this country in considerable numbers for the last 200 years, and the descendants of such people usually associate themselves with their country of birth, and not with the United Kingdom ...

... The Government consider that as a general rule, a new British Citizenship should not be transmitted beyond the first generation born abroad but they recognise that some circumstances might justify exceptions."

This view was confirmed in the July 1980 White Paper on British Nationality, and in the British Nationality Act 1981.